Google doesn't charge for search because it's users are their product, same with Facebook. Apples and oranges.

That might be true, maybe. My point was that

> If other companies don't do it yet it's just because they don't have the level of market dominance that Adobe has - once they reach it, they all behave in the same way.

was wrong. Clearly, there's more than one reason that determines how companies behave.

Google doesn't charge seekers for search. They definitely charge advertisers for search.

However, I understand your point, it's the truth of many businesses that if you're not paying, you're the product not the customer.

> However, I understand your point, it's the truth of many businesses that if you're not paying, you're the product not the customer.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the mono-causal point

> If other companies don't do it yet it's just because they don't have the level of market dominance that Adobe has - once they reach it, they all behave in the same way.

is wrong.

Adobe charges because it's users are their product, same with Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft etc.

Google sells eyeballs to advertisers, they don't sell to consumers. They've largely baked their pricing strategies in algorithms that self-adjust to increase costs as advertisers invest more, so that they don't have to expose themselves, but they still push prices up when they feel like it. They're also so brazenly exploitative that they were investigated and fined by the EU multiple times for doing bad things to their customers.

So yeah, they behave exactly the same - towards their actual customers, which are advertisers, not you.

Great example of this is to google simply name of most businesses. And then see first links in results being adds. While they same links are in result slightly down?

How did we end up in situation were anyone would be paying in this case? Seems like just pure exploitation of their position having combination of add network and popular search engine...