What keeps Google on top in the search engine game

You open your laptop. The screen flickers to life. You tap a few keys, barely think about where the query goes, and within milliseconds, Google delivers a familiar stream of results. That fluidity, that sense of speed and trust, doesn’t just feel right—it feels inevitable. But what if that trust is more about habit than merit?

A new study by Wharton’s Leon Musolff suggests that most people don’t use Google because they’ve compared it to other options. They use it because it’s the one that’s already there. And that changes the conversation—not just about tech, but about how defaults quietly sculpt our routines. It’s a question of design, not just preference.

For years, Google’s dominance in the search engine market—commanding around 90% of global share—has been widely accepted as a byproduct of superior algorithms and better user experience. But Musolff’s findings challenge that assumption. They reveal that the comfort of using Google may stem more from repetition and less from rigorous evaluation. And once a habit has formed, it becomes the backdrop of our digital life, unexamined and almost invisible.

This is not a story about browsers or brands. It’s about how the smallest decisions—like setting a default—can quietly dictate how we navigate the world.

It’s easy to assume that people make informed choices when it comes to the platforms they use. In theory, every user has access to settings. Search engines can be changed. Preferences can be customized. But in reality, most of us don’t stray far from what’s handed to us at setup.

Musolff’s experiment tested this directly. One group of participants was told they could choose their search engine, but the majority stuck with the default—Google. Only 1.1% took the initiative to switch. In another group, participants were paid a small incentive to use Bing instead. This time, over half made the switch, and a third of those stuck with Bing even after the experiment ended.

It’s a quiet revelation. When people are nudged to try something new, many discover that they actually like the alternative. But if that nudge never comes, the default remains the only path they ever know. What we call “preference” is often just proximity. The first thing we see becomes the only thing we use.

This pattern isn’t unique to search engines. It shows up everywhere: in food packaging, home appliances, mobile apps, and subscription services. It’s why we never change the temperature preset on our air conditioners. It’s why most people never touch the font in their word processors. It’s why Netflix autoplay feels so natural. The system is already moving, and we fall into step.

Google has institutionalized this rhythm. On most smartphones, laptops, and tablets, Google is the preloaded search engine. This isn’t accidental—it’s a strategic investment. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Google pays companies like Apple billions of dollars annually to remain the default search option across their products. This ensures not just visibility but dominance.

But this tactic isn’t just about securing users. It’s about shaping their expectations of what a search engine should feel like. Over time, Google becomes the baseline—the standard against which others are judged, even when those others aren’t meaningfully explored. That’s not innovation. It’s a behavioral moat.

The digital world is built on the promise of discovery. Every platform claims to help users find what they’re looking for—or something they didn’t even know they needed. But if discovery depends on exploration, and exploration rarely happens, then the architecture is flawed.

Musolff’s findings suggest that genuine discovery only occurs when systems are interrupted. Simply offering a choice at the start—“select your default engine”—barely makes a dent in Google’s market share. But forcing a temporary switch, letting users live with an alternative for a few days, opens up new cognitive space. The unfamiliar becomes familiar. The known becomes one of many, not the only.

In design terms, this is about friction. Most designers aim to reduce friction, making experiences seamless and intuitive. But too little friction can mean too little reflection. We don’t stop to ask whether this is the best path—we just keep walking it. A good system design doesn’t eliminate all friction. It introduces just enough to make people pause. To notice. To choose.

If you think of a search engine not as a tool, but as a sensory system, the stakes become clearer. Search engines filter reality. They decide what’s worth seeing, what counts as credible, what deserves to be on the first page. Over time, those filters become our worldview. And when 90% of all global searches are mediated by a single system—Google—the risk isn’t just lack of competition. It’s epistemic inertia. Our understanding of the world flows through one faucet.

That’s why this study matters. It’s not just about corporate tactics or consumer laziness. It’s about the design of modern knowledge. And whether the information we consume is truly chosen—or merely inherited. In a world that claims to celebrate diversity and decentralization, the consolidation of informational gateways should concern us. Not because Google is bad, but because any single lens is incomplete.

The August 2023 antitrust ruling against Google focused on monopolistic behavior, particularly the company’s payment deals to remain the default search engine on key platforms. But if Musolff’s research is any indication, simply breaking up those deals may not restore balance. Regulators often treat competition as a pricing problem: remove anti-competitive contracts, and let the best product win. But in behavioral systems, exposure matters more than technical quality. If users never meaningfully experience the alternatives, they don’t develop the muscle to compare.

Musolff proposes a subtle but radical fix: temporarily default users into an alternative search engine, then offer a delayed choice screen after a few weeks. That way, the choice is made from experience, not assumption. It’s an intervention grounded in behavioral realism. And it applies far beyond search.

In home design, the best spaces aren’t always the most efficient—they’re the most engaging. A reading nook by the window that invites pause. A drawer that opens slowly, forcing you to notice its contents. A hallway with soft light that slows your pace. Digital systems can do the same. A well-designed choice screen is like a cozy, well-lit corner in a room—it invites interaction. It asks, gently: is this what you want? Or is it just what’s always been here?

Curiosity is a design outcome. But it needs scaffolding. If users are never given the time, space, or reason to explore, they won’t. And then familiarity becomes the same as trust—not because it’s earned, but because it’s defaulted.

The irony is that we often call tech “smart” when it’s merely fast. But real intelligence requires context, comparison, and sometimes contradiction. And that starts with systems that let us see beyond the familiar.

The implications of this study reach beyond browsers and algorithms. They reach into our habits around food, media, transportation, even relationships. How many of our routines are defaults dressed up as choices? We drink the same brand of coffee. Scroll the same apps. Take the same route to work. Not because we love them, but because we haven’t tried anything else in a while.

In sustainability, this matters deeply. Because changing behavior isn’t just about convincing people something else is better. It’s about lowering the energy cost of trying. Reusables that don’t fit in your bag will never become habit. Bulk shops that feel like a chore won’t replace the supermarket. Alternatives need rhythm, not just logic. And rhythm comes from exposure. Design is not just what we see—it’s what we don’t question.

Every design decision carries an ethical weight. Not because it tells people what to do, but because it suggests what’s normal. When Google pays to be the default, it’s not just buying market share. It’s buying cognitive real estate. It’s planting a flag in the space between intention and inertia. And when regulators fail to address this, they’re not just preserving monopoly—they’re preserving monotony.

What this study asks us to consider is simple but radical: what if the biggest competitive advantage isn’t superiority, but sequence? What if being first is what matters most? That’s a question not just for policy, but for anyone designing systems, products, or homes. Because the lesson isn’t “make your thing better.” It’s “make your thing discoverable—then livable.”

Design, at its best, helps us remember what we care about. A well-placed hook reminds us to hang the bag we used instead of grabbing a plastic one. A light by the compost bin makes us more likely to lift the lid. A gentle chime on an app reminds us to pause, not to scroll. We don’t need more features. We need more friction that invites attention.

Musolff’s study shows that people will try new things—if we build systems that let them. Not with loud buttons or banners. But with quiet nudges that say: try this. Just for a while. Because a home that breathes with you doesn’t shout. It nudges. And a digital life that expands your awareness doesn’t demand change—it invites curiosity. That’s the kind of internet we should be designing for. One that remembers we are creatures of habit—but not prisoners of it.

Let me know if you'd like to pair this with a visual asset grid or carousel summary for Instagram or LinkedIn.