While Google is thought of as this omnipotent being …

The current status of Google is really the purest form of supply & demand that may EVER exist.

You, as a consumer – can change from Google to ANY other search engine LITERALLY in 2-seconds or however long it takes you to type a new search engine site … or in the case of current web browser, clicking on the search pop up window to select another choice.

It’s free.

No cancellation fees.

Nothing to call in.

No one to request anything.

As we posted a while ago, there are at least 300 around to choose from.*

Choosing Google might be an “old habit,” but unlike every other buying-consumer decision we have available to us, choosing a search engine is the purest form of supply & demand.

In nearly every other consumer choice, we are limited by the distribution prowess of the “seller,” our physical availability or reach to that product and the replacement cost of trying something new. Take something as simple as a new soda. It may not be available to your stores because other bigger companies have effectively locked them out since your distributor may not want to carry yet another brand. You might not know it because there are no ads to reach you and or the store that does actually carry is way across town. So even though for $.99, you can switch or try something new, the effective cost is really much more than $.99 and that’s if you like the new soda …

None of that is true with switching from Google to Yahoo to Ask or to BrainBoost …

Type and click and you have switched.

Sure, a certain % of people who do not switch from Google is from laziness but clearly the results are “good enough,” while the rest of the people are clearly pleased … otherwise, they know they can switch easily.

And sure, Google of course hooks many PC users with their Google search bar but again, there is a reason people either load the Google search bar or choose not to de-activate it. It obviously works.

So, having a large market share is not a crime. In fact, in this case, Google earns that right EVERY 2-seconds when you choose them again and again … at no cost to you and with your ability to change in 2-seconds fully available to you as an option.

Of course, other less & less successful companies such as Yahoo or Microsoft** likes to bandy about the ‘monopoly’ term when they talk about Google but a monopoly does not mean large market share – they are NOT the same thing. Calling Google a ‘monopoly’ regarding search would like claiming that Space Mountain is a monopoly over Storybook Land Canal Boats at Disneyland – great popularity is NOT the same as ‘monopoly’ … it is an incorrect and ignorant usage of the word in both cases.

But why do people use the monopoly as ‘large market share’ as if they were synonyms – PR wise, it’s self-protecting to explain failures as ‘out of their oppressed control’ … never mind the irony of an actual legally indicted company calling another company incorrectly as a monopoly.

The legal definition term of a monopoly is if you leverage that large market share to try and shut out competitors. Clearly, any company or person can launch a search engine on the internet – no barrier to entry. I can launch a search engine in ten minutes after the url is granted to me. Unless Google specifically blocks my url from the registry, no “MONOPOLISTIC” tactics … just as if you search on Google for Yahoo or Live Search, it’s right there on the front page.

THE REST IS UP TO ME to make it a success and certainly, while Google started out as a couple guys with an idea … of course, the internet of 2009 is a much tougher business venue versus the internet of 1998 but on the other hand, you can get 100 million hits in 3 weeks (Susan Boyle) if you deliver what people want … it is much easier to BLAME or imply that it’s monopoly behavior as the ultimate excuse why “they” have done so poorly – it’s a ready excuse but it’s like ballplayers who claim it’s an a mixup when a giant hypodermic needle comes towards them – happens to use everyday, right – it’s a false excuse.

So appreciate Google’s search market share for what it is – users/consumers around the world make a conscious decision on using a free search engine that they can switch from in 2-seconds.

Of course, Google makes money in selling ads and clicks from that but again, users-consumers have free will to NOT click if the ad links are not relevant …

And at some point in the future, if Google takes its eye off the ball, we will take 2-seconds out of our day to switch to the newcomer or another choice but until Google stops delivering the best results/satisfying results … the people have spoken.

Conversely, there is no real monopoly to leverage onto other markets. Sure, they can lock up “search deals” with mobile carriers as to be the “first” or exclusive search choice but again, they are reasonably satisfying 70% of US internet searchers so why not and until users-consumers clamor for another?

However, if Google were to leverage this large market share in search into other businesses by “locking out” others? That would be a potentially monopolistic practice. That is/would be a different story but merely having a large market share is not by itself a “monopoly.”

* I have not gone back to check if every 300 search engine is still active – I’m presuming dozens of links are dead but I’m sure the bulk are still active.

** MS because they know what they would do if they were in that role so they presume everyone would think exactly like them