I understand what you're saying, but not everyone is going to be lucky enough to have the same "conversion" as you, you're lucky yours is like that. As another member "Chard" pointed out: "I can see the point about having all your eggs in the G basket, but for many site owners, like myself, it wasn't originally like that. When we started, there were about 10 worthwhile search engines, suppose Yahoo was the biggest, and we ranked OK/good on all of them. If you dropped on one of them, it was no big deal, you were ok on the others. Now, through no choice of mine, the big G has squeezed out all the others to the point where their (other SE) results are irrelevant, and I now find myself in G's hands. I didn't ask them to take over the internet. ....but G has got so dominant that any downward move hits me in the wallet. I was always aware that it was a bit of a free ride, getting any free advertising from organic search, but I didn't want, or expect it to end up being down to one SE.".
Even though most of us (I am) still on top for most but not all of the search phrases on other SE's where I was at G, when you just do happen to have received the bulk of your traffic therefore sales from G, it stands to reason if you're not in them you're screwed. Even with one's "business based on the other SE's", if so few are using the other SE's, it's not going to help and never make up for the damaged caused by G. I don't think anyone intended to "solely base their business model on google", it's just the way it happened due to their user-base. As I mentioned earlier, we are sort of "victims of their success" in a back-handed way.
You mentioned "The 301's" in your post as though you're also saying they are now bad, is that the case and if so can you please elaborate on that?