...So where you're using Google, it's because, in one way or another, you believe they've got a superior product.
I'm not sure that's necessarily a true/provable statement - e.g., in my case, it wouldn't be.
It's presumably based on the assumption of consumer choice and ease of switchability.
However, there are likely to be cases where, at the time one started using a Google product/service, Google might have been the only
provider of such a product/service of its type, so there would have been no option/alternative - until maybe later, that is. If that is what happened, then one might currently be stuck using said Google product/service - e.g., waiting to migrate to some better option that might be currently available but which one feels one cannot access due to lock-in or time/effort invested in the said Google product/service.
Banks, which are always p#ssing off their customers by milking them through the use of usury and of extortionate practices, have a whole marketing strategy that relies on this - it's called "customer inertia"; "The devil you know" for example.
There's a thing called "Brand Loyalty" that they teach in Marketing 101. It's a combination of two concepts:
(b) emotional bias/loyalty/attachment to a specific brand.
I would suggest that Google could have managed to offend/p#ss off so many
users by now (especially post SnowdenGate) that there could probably be minimal or no brand loyalty amongst the greater majority of them.
The product/service might be regarded/used as just a utility now, and there are others/alternatives out there - and utilities don't engender brand loyalty.
Microsoft arguably led the way in this offending - e.g., I wonder how many people recall that admitting to having a "hotmail" address could often be something of a social embarrassment? No wonder the "hotmail" brand has been quietly expunged. A lot, if not most people would probably have regarded it with distaste at one time or another and probably would not have touched it with a bargepole.