And I'm thankful that the all-pervasive Google behemoth is subject to some regulations, thank you very much.
You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS.
Something being familiar doesn't make it right -- or means that only people that have never seen it would ever be enraged by it.
For pointing out "nonsensical" stuff this was a very nonsensical argument. Not even wrong.
You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions.
Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results.
A logical conclusion would be to force Google to open up its API, so that internal customers and external customers would be competing on the same playing field, rather than just complaining about search result orders.
Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
In social media (e.g. against FB, maybe), but what competition does Google have for search?
Neither Bing nor anything like DDG matter.
They have less market share, true, because Google has a better product. Your argument seems to be that Google doesn't bother to have a better product (in search), because Google has all the market share, because Google has a better product.
(a) Google has a better product (in search) to which they had no real competitor for 17+ years.
(b) it remains better than those non-competitors even though Google has decreased its quality over time (worse results and more ads and BS)
(c) whether it copies/embeds third party stuff or not plays little into it. Nobody would switch to Bing just for those , after comparing the respective search quality, which is still better for Google.
So my argument is:
Google doesn't bother improving its search results -- on the contrary it lets them somewhat decline over time too -- because it has all the market share and better results than the competition.
If you are 80 points (fictional unit for illustrative purposes) better than the competition, you can let it slip to 70 or even 40 points better, and people will still use you.
Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
I suggest you read your own post again. Project much? Google's PR statement is somewhat based in fact. I'm saying that I generally believe public statements made that are decently substantiated.
When you're the one saying that I'm naive or just gaping in disbelief, the burden of proof is on YOU to give reasons why the statements are at fault and why their reasoning is wrong. This is truly projecting at its finest.
First, you've got it backwards: the burden on proof is to them for putting up such a claim (generally, to those putting up any claim), not to those who dispute it.
Besides, we have a long history of documented foul behavior by Google in search results. In fact this very story is based on a fine ordered because of this kind of behavior.
Still it's not nearly as nonsensical as this case in which a website operator is being fined billions for not featuring other website some more.