There's not much historical evidence I know of that shows monopolies are more efficient or strive harder to benefit their customers. That's not to say that the

There's not much historical evidence I know of that shows monopolies are more efficient or strive harder to benefit their customers. That's not to say that they don't provide benefits. There are lots of examples of that, but more often they tend to squeeze the most out of their monopoly and ignore looking into providing newer, better, and less costly services. Consider Sears & Amazon. There's no good reason why Sears didn't evolve into an Amazon like business model except they didn't have the vision or motivation to embrace change. If you read Theodore Houser's book, "Big Business And Human Values" you'll see how different the company became after they went public (it was employee owned when he ran it). I suspect that to a significant extent both Google and Amazon are still controlled by those who got them where they are, and this is why they aren't squeezing as much profit out of revenue and instead reinvesting much of it in acquisitions and development. When or if they ever become entirely owned by investors is when they will start to decay, just like Sears.