Free until they dominate the entire market
Walmart and Target have been trying to chip away at Amazon's lead, and they're only getting buried deeper in the dust. Google doesn't exactly have a reputation for entering new markets and dominating them, either...
So yes, they have a huge potential.
They always have sucked doing things IRL, so it's not a certain win. But owning the road to the competition shop is powerful.
Not to mention they can force the hand of small shops: use our API or go down in ranking.
[1] Google it :)
Mobile OS's (Android)
Online Video (Youtube)
Online Maps (Google Maps)
Webmail (Gmail)
None recently, granted.
In fact I think it's underrated. It truly changed my world. Earlier I was always nervous when driving and frequently speeding. It's so liberating to be able to call a friend and say "uh I'll be 8 minutes late, sorry".
Depends on where you draw the boundaries in markets certainly...
I wouldn't if Amazon was doing a good job. Between the astroturf reviews, fake products and fictional shipping times Amazon leaves a lot to be desired.
But I do agree Google won't be the solution. Google is too hidebound and suspect now to solve this one.
I think the future is in independent online retailers. The good ones will thrive and the rest will vanish, and they aren't going to suffer the FAANGs any more than necessary.
If the US had better anti-competitive enforcement I feel like this is akin to the Internet Explorer/Netscape/Microsoft case, in them using one monopoly (search) to take over another market (same hook too: "free").
Plus you know they're going to reward sites for using this in their search rankings (or just outright place them at the top).
However, despite that those sites will get an implicit reward - if users go to these sites, and find a slick easy checkout and low prices, the site will satisfy their need. Google's goal is to put sites that satisfy the users search request at the top.
So, assuming this new Google service is any good, then sites that use it will end up upranked just because those sites satisfy users more than other sites.
That happened in things like Google Reader - users loved the service so much the industry for RSS readers died and stagnated, hurting users...
People learn from experience and the experiences of others.
Google track record is not great in that regards.
But, no matter how much faster (or better) your page, you will never, ever, be above, or in the carousel.
How do you consider that "baseless"? It's obvious that Google rewards sites that do things the way it dictates.
Read what you write please.
What I said: You'll get up-ranked, but will always be below the carousel. Therefore being in the carousel is an unfair advantage of AMP.
But amazon doesn't have a search monopoly, millions of android devices, google maps, or youtube to drive the sales.
Neither do they have the huge amount of data google already have on people.
Now there is a possibility that google fails because sales require a lot of IRL stuff they suck at. So maybe it will be a balanced game.
But if they win, it's going to be a nightmare.
Unrelated, but I'm also quite worried about Apple deciding to become a bank one day.
Don't forget that something like ~70% of their income comes from AWS. They may not be as visible as Google on the net but they are pretty much the largest provider of web services.