> But they wouldn't have the monopoly on ads

I'm not seeing how anything would change. Google search and whatever other google branches will continue working together so it'll essentially be the same thing but with a different legal structure to appease everyone.

Almost no one of note thinks Google search result are bad quality in a market sense. That's why almost everyone chooses to use Google search. People who think Google search is bad are upset that other people like Google search results.

No, in certain use cases the search engine can fall behind. It's not going to be the best at everything. And when thinking about certain other issues (privacy, not showing the full URL, etc) it is perfectly valid to not use Google.

Do a google search for "computer". The entire first page is ads save for the one Wikipedia link.

Honestly, I don't think the Google results are currently of bad quality. A search for "computer" is mostly meaningless, and they could reasonably fill it with anything. It is also not as absurdelly far ahead of anybody else as it used to be.

I mostly avoid it, but that's because I mostly avoid any Google service. All of them are bundled and I don't want some AI misstep to lock me out of the few of their services I care about. At this point some forced unbundling would bring a huge trust benefit to Google.

But anyway, it is very clear that the bundling of Google's monopolies on ads and search are a huge barrier to innovation and competition on both of those.

I have a college..