You're correct that they're probably not similar, but they are different in ways that undercuts your original argument.
There are almost certainly more than one search engine (Bing, DuckDuckGo) and more than one online retail platform (Shopify, Walmart.com, eBay). But unlike physical businesses, they are literally "just a click away"; whereas in the real world, you'd have to schlep to the physical location of the competing store. Moreover, the barrier to entry to actually spinning up an online retail platform is much much lower than spinning up a brick-and-mortar location (permits, employed labor per location, rent/property costs). Finally, the theoretical reach once you spin up an online retail platform is infinite; whereas one has to go through all of the aforementioned brick-and-mortar barriers for every incremental customer in the world...
IMO, the concept of abolishing generic store brands strikes me as fundamentally hostile to the poor. The other day I was at a Walgreen's picking up some Neosporin ointment, and I found the Walgreen's store brand right next to at half the price. I'm privileged enough to be able to afford the name-brand Neosporin without having to think about it, but I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people that are grateful that the store brand exists. I'm sure Johnson & Johnson would love for the government to prevent Walgreen's from selling its cheaper store brand, but I'm skeptical that this would be good for anybody except Johnson & Johnson.
Likewise, Amazon provides "generic" versions of commodity products. Insofar as it's difficult to compete with Amazon, it's because it's generally difficult to run sustainable businesses solely on the back of commodity products.
There are almost certainly more than one search engine (Bing, DuckDuckGo) and more than one online retail platform (Shopify, Walmart.com, eBay). But unlike physical businesses, they are literally "just a click away"; whereas in the real world, you'd have to schlep to the physical location of the competing store. Moreover, the barrier to entry to actually spinning up an online retail platform is much much lower than spinning up a brick-and-mortar location (permits, employed labor per location, rent/property costs). Finally, the theoretical reach once you spin up an online retail platform is infinite; whereas one has to go through all of the aforementioned brick-and-mortar barriers for every incremental customer in the world...
IMO, the concept of abolishing generic store brands strikes me as fundamentally hostile to the poor. The other day I was at a Walgreen's picking up some Neosporin ointment, and I found the Walgreen's store brand right next to at half the price. I'm privileged enough to be able to afford the name-brand Neosporin without having to think about it, but I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people that are grateful that the store brand exists. I'm sure Johnson & Johnson would love for the government to prevent Walgreen's from selling its cheaper store brand, but I'm skeptical that this would be good for anybody except Johnson & Johnson.
Likewise, Amazon provides "generic" versions of commodity products. Insofar as it's difficult to compete with Amazon, it's because it's generally difficult to run sustainable businesses solely on the back of commodity products.