Big != Monopoly
One word that gets thrown around a lot any time a company gets big is "monopoly". "Google is a search monopoly!" "Amazon has a monopoly on eBooks!" And if you even remember this being an issue "The merger of Sirius and XM Radio will result in a satellite radio monopoly". From a layman's perspective, though, these are also all false.
One key part of being a monopoly is restricting new entrants. We have great examples of monopolies all over the country. We call them cable and telephone companies. You have less choices for cable tv and broadband because locally government mandated monopolies prevent new companies.
Does Google have a monopoly on search? Well, it definitely has the largest market share for search engine websites. However that is an awfully limited view. Can people get information from other sources? Of course: Bing, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, etc. What stops people from using those other sources? Nothing. In fact, Bing is the default search engine on the default browser on the largest desktop OS there is.
In the mobile world, Google does dominate total searches, but Apple is probably one or two OS revisions away from replacing Google with Bing. Microsoft has the ability to get that deal done. On Android devices, you don't have to use Google. Google does come pre-installed on Google certified devices, but you can change the default search provider, or use Bing apps. There is no restriction.
What really happened is that Google put out a search engine product that was so much better than everyone else, that people started using Google in droves. Yahoo was asleep at the wheel, and Microsoft was a pretty late entry. If the user is not locked in, if new companies are not prevented from entering the market by Google, if there is nothing restricting competition, how is there a monopoly? How do you legislate people's choices?
Does Amazon have a monopoly with eBooks? This question was asked by a lot of Apple fanatics after Apple was caught for collusion. There is no doubt that Amazon is killing it with eBooks compared to the competition. However, Apple is not a small startup trying to make their way through the market. iBooks is installed on hundreds of millions of devices. Why is Kindle winning? Because it's better. People could choose to use iBooks (ability to move books between systems like iBooks and Kindle is not Amazon's doing) on their iDevices, but they don't. On the Android side, Play Books is pretty good, but it's not popular. Amazon is also the only company willing to spend the time and money to develop an e-ink reader that works better for reading than a glass screen. Again, no restriction for competition, etc, so I don't see how this is a monopoly.
The last example I'm going to bring up is the Sirius/XM Radio merger. At the time, this seemed like a big deal. For a while, there was competition between the two services. What would happen if there was only one? Well, as we know, while satellite radio is a success, it has plenty of competition from non-satellite companies. It still competes with terrestrial radio, and mobile music services proliferating on top of widely available high speed wireless. It seems ridiculous in hindsight to have been concerned about a monopoly.
Again, big != monopoly. Success != monopoly. We have real monopolies in this country, so let's deal with them. The Google's, the Amazon's and even the Apple's are all large successful companies who do not have the power to restrict new players or prevent changing landscapes. I worry a lot more about the cable company doing a crappy job of providing me internet to the point where I can't even get online to make a search engine choice, than I do about the search engine itself.
Again, all from the perspective, a layman, who feels he has choice between all these companies.