Controversial opinion here but I support monopolies. Compare the innovation that came out of Bell Labs when Bell had a monopoly vs. the stagnation that exists with the current telecom oligpoly. Most tech companies are natural monopolies so they're never going to exist on a purely competitive market, so it's a choice between oligpoly and monopoly, in which case the latter is far better for funding research.
Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
31–40 of 229 posts
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#32The UK recently evaluated the online ad market and found that Google and Facebook commanded 70% of all online ad spend in the country [0]. Their large pool of advertisers also helps them command a higher return per search compared to other platforms, allowing them to outbid its peers to become the default search choice on devices, e.g. Apple products. Their lack of privacy sensitive policy also helps their ad targeti…
Every company is a monopoly based on how you define the market. Why should we focus only on online ads ? Why not look at the entire ad spend and then see what % is controlled by Google ?
By some logic the coffee shop in my block has a monopoly on coffee if their market is the block. They are irrelevant if you look at the entire city.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#33Same senators who thought Google made iPhones? Not defending Google but I am saying that most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology.
Ironically enough, I think that's the problem that lobbyists were intended to mitigate. You can't expect legislators to be experts on every technical topic, but in an ideal world you could retain subject matter experts to give good information to any congressperson who needed it. It's not a bad idea in theory, but you run into the classic problem of deciding how to define "good information".
I don't think lobbying is bad, the problem isn't lobbying, it is the money required to make senators listen to them. That is the element that is corrupting everything.
Also senators can, and often do is have experts and have them provide sworn statements about given subject.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#34Controversial opinion here but I support monopolies. Compare the innovation that came out of Bell Labs when Bell had a monopoly vs. the stagnation that exists with the current telecom oligpoly. Most tech companies are natural monopolies so they're never going to exist on a purely competitive market, so it's a choice between oligpoly and monopoly, in which case the latter is far better for funding research.
Perhaps, in some cases, monopolies should be publicly-owned, rather than private enterprise.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#35The internet the way is currently design will resulted in centralisation and end up with monopoly or oligopoly.
Any system in which network effects and winner-takes-all exist result in centralization and monopoly. I don't think you could design the Internet differently to avoid this.
Ban indirect monetization of private data if it is not an opt-in feature separated from the rest.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#36The UK recently evaluated the online ad market and found that Google and Facebook commanded 70% of all online ad spend in the country [0]. Their large pool of advertisers also helps them command a higher return per search compared to other platforms, allowing them to outbid its peers to become the default search choice on devices, e.g. Apple products. Their lack of privacy sensitive policy also helps their ad targeti…
Every company is a monopoly based on how you define the market. Why should we focus only on online ads ? Why not look at the entire ad spend and then see what % is controlled by Google ? By some logic the coffee shop in my block has a monopoly on coffee if their market is the block. They are irrelevant if you look at the entire city.
That's too relativistic. If only AMZN, GOOG, and FB gain during coronavirus, this clearly means there's need for action considering the perspective of online-only advertising going forward. Especially if the success of TikTok as the only competitor in the space has resulted in government influence.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#37Controversial opinion here but I support monopolies. Compare the innovation that came out of Bell Labs when Bell had a monopoly vs. the stagnation that exists with the current telecom oligpoly. Most tech companies are natural monopolies so they're never going to exist on a purely competitive market, so it's a choice between oligpoly and monopoly, in which case the latter is far better for funding research.
I think this is a good point that doesn't get discussed enough.
Was Bell bad for the consumer? Yes, probably. Was the benefit of the increase in innovation a net benefit for society when compared to deadweight loss incurred by monopoly pricing? I don't know.
There is almost no way to answer this question in a rigorous manner, and yet it's extremely important for policy. The only thing I can think of is experiment over a long period of time between distinct geographies and see what happens.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#38Controversial opinion here but I support monopolies. Compare the innovation that came out of Bell Labs when Bell had a monopoly vs. the stagnation that exists with the current telecom oligpoly. Most tech companies are natural monopolies so they're never going to exist on a purely competitive market, so it's a choice between oligpoly and monopoly, in which case the latter is far better for funding research.
Perhaps, in some cases, monopolies should be publicly-owned, rather than private enterprise.
[flagged]
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#39The UK recently evaluated the online ad market and found that Google and Facebook commanded 70% of all online ad spend in the country [0]. Their large pool of advertisers also helps them command a higher return per search compared to other platforms, allowing them to outbid its peers to become the default search choice on devices, e.g. Apple products. Their lack of privacy sensitive policy also helps their ad targeti…
Every company is a monopoly based on how you define the market. Why should we focus only on online ads ? Why not look at the entire ad spend and then see what % is controlled by Google ? By some logic the coffee shop in my block has a monopoly on coffee if their market is the block. They are irrelevant if you look at the entire city.
Which is why market definition requires you to look at substitution. If there is another coffee shop two blocks away and your coffee shop raised prices significantly, people would start going to the other one, because they're strong substitutes for one another. Whereas if the nearest coffee shop was twenty blocks away, likely they wouldn't, because that's too far to walk and it doesn't make sense to pay $2.75 to ride the subway to save $1.50 on a cup of coffee. So the block is too small but the whole city is too big.
> Why not look at the entire ad spend and then see what % is controlled by Google ?
Because they would be reaching different customers, such that if the advertiser moved a dollar from e.g. online to print, they would lose customers, because the print viewers have already seen their ad from the existing print advertising they do, and the online viewers (who are different people) haven't. Which means they aren't adequate substitutes for one another.
Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it
#40If gulag says it, then it must be true.
I work at google. My grandfather spent a couple years in a Gulag. We both got free food at work, but I’m allowed to leave at the end of the day, and my job is writing code instead of counting dead people.
Counting dead people should be quite easy with HyperLogLog