Google winning 98% ad spots it auctions off, after order to treat others equally

Post by prepend » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

Ilverin wrote: post #24

natch wrote: post #6

Tell me if I've got this right: Say you have some businesses in industry X that all rely on advertising. Say one of those businesses also happens to own the dominant advertising platform that businesses in industry X need to use, in order to effectively find customers. (Special note for those subset of HN readers who tend not to read: Yes there may be other platforms, but before you present that as an objection, note…

I think this effect is small because of opportunity cost. In Case A, google wins the bid, they gain the ad space, but gain no revenue. In Case B, google does not win the bid, they lose the ad space, but do gain revenue. Revenue and ad space are mutually exclusive, each is the opportunity cost of the other. Yes, in both cases google wins, but that is because google is the reason the ad space exists in the first place.

Post by bllguo » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

sqdbps wrote: post #22

ucaetano wrote: post #19

> Kelkoo CEO Richard Stables says the firm’s revenue from general search traffic dropped by 62% last year, to €2.3 million. In 2018, he projects a two-thirds drop to €800,000. I decided to go to http://www.kelkoo.co.uk/ to check it out. This website is so clearly a scam created for this antitrust case. I went ahead to compare two cameras: the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II (a $4k camera) to a Canon Ixus 275 HS ($200 camera),…

>This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism. It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google.

Post by glandium » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

dmitrygr wrote: post #32

phpnode wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This website is so clearly a scam created for this antitrust case. I can't speak for the quality of their product but this is absolutely not true, Kelkoo has been around since 1999[0], almost as long as Google itself. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelkoo

If by "Kelkoo" you mean "a yahoo proxy", then yes See the "a yahoo company" at the very top of this archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20050701004143/http://www.kelkoo... (you'll need to collapse the archive.org banner on top - it is hidden behind it by default)

Post by NelsonMinar » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:54 PM UTC

Post by benchaney » Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 10:01 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #21

benchaney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming that running and advertising business is profitable. If this is the case then yes, running an advertising business plus X always gives you an advantage over just doing X. This is true no matter what X is, even if X is unrelated to advertising, or even just doing nothing. I’m not sure in what sense this means that the game is rigged (unless of course the bidding process is unfair).

Does it need to be profitable? It seems to me that if it siphons money off from competitors, that's already enough to hurt the competitors relative to itself. In fact not only does the advertising not need to be profitable, even the sales of X do not need to be profitable, for the competitors to be harmed... dumping would be the extreme example of that. You are talking about a different aspect of the scenario, where…