I use DDG, StarPage, and others because I consider privacy a right. Yet I don't necessarily endorse any of them, you're misrepresenting my opinion to come out on top.
Your argument is strikingly close to those against net neutrality. I'll just left the conversation here, you'll defend Google no matter what.
90% market share implies a position similar to IE6 some years ago, a de facto standard.
With respect to RSS, Google launched a free product, poured millions into it. If you're not Google you can't compete with that. It was devastating. It destroyed everything. And with only their product standing, Google said, "you know what? I'll kill RSS dead, you have some months to transfer to my closed proprietary format/social network, Google+, the new standard". So it's in fact the EEE strategy.
First, DDG includes (mostly) other companies' services like HN, WolframAlpha, etc. It doesn't compete with them, it's closer to prerendering in Chrome.
Second, I argued in other comment that Google Search is, for many users, a standard, and DDG must follow it or be left behind.
You're totally right. But I would argue that its search engine is considered a standard by many. And now with a 90% market share it's reversing its policies.
I never mentioned the word "propietary" in my comment. I said that Google's decision to display its own products prominently and bury the rest is downright evil.
Now that you say standards.. that reminds me of Google's (non-existent) MathML support.
A very quick search turns up this:
"Google faces antitrust probes in India, Europe, 3 other jurisdictions"
"Google Inc faces anti-trust probes in India, Europe"
[...]
I don't object to Google fighting its competitors, but it must play by the rules. Google is not a country, but part of society and this imposes certain obligations.
That is the case for everybody, for time is limited and money can be created arbitrarily.
Don't take my comment as an attack to the OP, I'm just stating that the situation is the same for everybody, and there are many people out there with less resources, but I claim their contribution is as valuable, if not more.
This argument is faulty, implying that Gates' time is more valuable than others'. We need both time and money to survive, when you need not worry about the later, logically you can approach other pursuits with more dedication.
I actually have DuckDuckGo as my default search engine, but as Google extends its reach, we have to find alternatives for other services too. Google's decision to display its own products prominently and bury the rest is downright evil in my book.
It seems more and more clear with every new announcement, that Google has adopted the "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy and it's taking it farther than what we thought possible in the past.
These are worrisome news for every believer in choice and freedom. Google, a former supporter of free software, is now determined to exert its power to get rid of competitors and then lock us in. Our only option is to not give in to momentary convenience, but to cultivate the habit of comparing alternatives and choosing by ourselves instead.
Your argument is strikingly close to those against net neutrality. I'll just left the conversation here, you'll defend Google no matter what.