I recently had a website go live. It took about a week for said site to appear on the first page of Google hits when searching for the site name (it shares said name with another domain suffix). After that it's second on the first page.
Bing...several hours after...top hit.
Google proponents would probably say Bing isn't all that good on that basis. I say the advertiser that gets you top of the shop is best. Perhaps that's the difference between the search engine purists and the sales gurus, or the difference between the productive users and the less technical, non-productive users. Google is aligning itself for a particular market, due to the rise in mobile devices (and I suppose the future of 3G and 4G).
In that sense, Google is fast becoming a non-techies medium (or a less-techies one?). The point is to search and generate revenue, not to provide content providers with free access to free tools etc. I can see that if I step back. However, we still come back to the point:
What happens when the content providers can't use Google without a massive reduction in productivity?
They will go elsewhere. If Google had any sense, it would have a 'providers' interface, with customisation, adsense, analytics, adwords and all the other Google gizmos. Oh, and the easiest of search functions.