Switching was never hard even in Microsoft's anti-trust case. You could easily download and install Netscape. Microsoft never forbid anyone from doing it and I can remember distinctly Netscape being included with my ISP's software floppy. What made the case was all about what was available default to the user. Interestingly under the same context you will find anti-trust violations if Chromebook became the majority and Firefox din't come installed by default.
Also, with MSFT was clearly a case of prediatory pricing funded by cross-subsidy from the monoply business. They set out to 'kill' netscape in its infacy as a business stratgy. Google is arguably just doing its job, and doing it better. Advertisers fell like there is "no choice" (because of scale), but they are sock-puppets. The consumer is the searcher. Advertisers have plenty of other places to advertsise online, so there is no monopoly.
I'm the same, and, unfortunately, even more often when searching for terms with very few matches. Google actually finds the relevant things.
I really don't like how Google is including all the links to their own properties inside of their searches. In fact, I like it so little that I pipe most of my searches through DDG now. Yet I still wind up at Google around 20% of the time when I'm searching for terms with many matches. Google gets the ordering better.
It is scary to think what might happen if Google is found to be violating antitrust laws.