Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 107 posts

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

#51

Post by dmitrygr »

glandium wrote: post #35
dmitrygr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

From the wikipedia page: > On March 26, 2004, Kelkoo was bought by Yahoo! Inc for €450 million.

Um, yes, that is the point i am making. Them being Yahoo is precisely why they have beef with Google.

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

#52

Post by sqdbps »

dsacco wrote: post #48
sqdbps wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google. Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.

Political? Rupert Murdoch's distain for Google is well documented, and he isn't shy about siccing his papers on them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-...

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

#53

Post by bomb199 »

prepend wrote: post #50
dsacco wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems obvious to me that this is just an artificial product to make more revenue. If a product is actually generating more revenue, what makes it "artificial"? Do you disagree with the use of products to complement an ecosystem, or do you disagree with the use of products that are not intended to turn a profit on their own, like loss leaders?

Good point. Not artificial for Google as it makes money. I meant artificial for users as there is no need and it replaced a better product that made less revenue. For example, have a free water fountain and then replacing it with a coin operated water fountain that dispenses warm water is using artificial with my original intent. My main disagreement is in the use of verticialy integrated products that reduce consume…

Is it really replacing better products? If those products were better, I'd be interested in using them.

Instead, Google gets me the same results, quicker, 99% of the time.

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

#54

Post by Eridrus »

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…

The end result of this is that Google has more money than you, but this is true any time you are competing against a large company with more than one line of business.

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

#55

Post by prepend »

bomb199 wrote: post #53
prepend wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. Not artificial for Google as it makes money. I meant artificial for users as there is no need and it replaced a better product that made less revenue. For example, have a free water fountain and then replacing it with a coin operated water fountain that dispenses warm water is using artificial with my original intent. My main disagreement is in the use of verticialy integrated products that reduce consume…

Is it really replacing better products? If those products were better, I'd be interested in using them. Instead, Google gets me the same results, quicker, 99% of the time.

My example was froogle vs. shopping. I agree on search and Google superiority. That’s what froogle was. Their new shopping site doesn’t use their search engine and instead only searches advertisers. Instead of the web.

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

#56

Post by jacksmith21006 »

dsacco wrote: post #48
sqdbps wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google. Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.

Is this honestly a question? Murdoch disdain for Google is well known.

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

#58

Post by dsacco »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #56
dsacco wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google. Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.

Is this honestly a question? Murdoch disdain for Google is well known.

Rupert Murdoch can have well documented dislike for Google without his dislike intrinsically kneecapping the Wall Street Journal’s journalistic integrity. The comment I replied to criticizes the article we’re discussing categorically by origin, instead of specifically on merits.

Murdoch’s agenda can be a thesis statement for why the WSJ has poor journalistic integrity with respect to Google, but it doesn't demonstrate that failing on its own, nor is merely calling out that someone in a position of power has an agenda a well-reasoned thesis.

Basically, it’s not contributing anything more interesting to the discussion, and is just going to attract other comments or upvotes that agree. That’s not insightful discussion, it’s just ingroup commiseration.

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

#59

Post by danjoc »

This is similar to the old eBay scam where the seller bid on his own items under a different account. If the price was too low, the seller could always bid to drive the price up. If the seller won, it didn't matter. The seller is just relisting the item again after paying himself or cancelling.

I can't imagine how anyone thought this would work; Google participating in their own auctions. At least on eBay, sellers tried to hide the fact that the game was rigged.

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

#60

Post by julien_c »

dmitrygr wrote: post #51
glandium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the wikipedia page: > On March 26, 2004, Kelkoo was bought by Yahoo! Inc for €450 million.

Um, yes, that is the point i am making. Them being Yahoo is precisely why they have beef with Google.

It's not Yahoo anymore since 2008.
Post reply on HN