Regarding the Google and SEO discussion, in the days AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they could have been ignored as well and believe me there was plenty of grousing about how unfair the telephone company could be and the outrageous fees they charged, and they did in fact stick it to customers. That is the perk of being a monopoly. But I don't think too many would have gone so far as to say they were going to be without a telephone (or darn near) for their business and I don't recall anyone not caring if their names were in the telephone book. That's not a hill most business owners wanted to die on, and I suspect few will want to do that with Google as well.

However, I heartily agree with the sentiment that streams of traffic, just like streams of revenue, should never be dependent on one source. That's always been good business sense.

The good news is that the mighty do fall if they don't get it right. Thinking of the 1984 divestiture as I type this. So Google is not immune from a comeuppance if the business community eventually becomes sick of their control and does something about it through legal or political means. Should be interesting to see what happens with Ryan's case. He may regret opening the can of worms of inviting the public into his situation, but now that he has, I hope he continues to keep us up-to-date on what happens.