I remember 1999-2001 very well. Google Search won because the alternatives sucked. Not sure how many people here have lived or remember those alternatives, like Yahoo or Altavista, but they sucked so badly that people were routinely looking for alternatives in the hope of something better to come along. When I first saw the Google logo on a screen in an Internet Cafe, I was an instant conversion because I was searching for software development material and wasn't able to find anything I wanted, searches being mostly a game of luck, patience and suffering from horrible UIs.

But here's the problem: in 2000 there was no dominant design for search engines, so the market was still open for competition. The biggest problem is that right now Google Search is the dominant design. Google won because they changed how a search engine looked, felt and functioned. Nowadays though, people want and expect Google for searches. It's a verb you know. Then webmasters in turn are optimizing their websites for Google's crawler, which in turn ensures that Google always has an edge. And you can't beat them at their own game, because they have the mindshare and the resources to keep ahead.

> ...until markets are saturated and the industry becomes irrelevant to the consumer

I don't think search will ever be irrelevant, but that was my other point. Technological innovation is the only natural force that breaks monopolies, but relying on constant technological innovation means our economy, our way of life, isn't sustainable.