Live data from Hacker News

Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

npr.org

41–50 of 229 posts

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#41

The 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.

Being a monopoly is actually irrelevant. The anti-trust law in the US focuses on regulating anti-competitive business practices. You can implement anti-competitive business practices with any portion of the market, and you can have an outright monopoly without implementing any anti-competitive practices (and therefor without breaking the law).

But to successfully implement anti-competitive practices, you do usually need a significant portion of market share. Which is pretty much what’s being discussed here, even though it’s not a very accurate use of the word. You can also do it by acting as a cartel, which is another situation commonly (though not very accurately) described as a monopoly.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#42
post #20

The 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…

Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product. Disclaimer: current fb, ex google employee.

Fb is also a problem, so relying on them isn't going to solve anything. A cartel or oligopoly is not a better situation than a monopoly. For there to be a healthy market, it needs to be possible for small business to compete. If that's not possible in a market, then it needs to be regulated like a public utility.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#43

Same 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.

So the reasoning here is if there are dumb legislators we should just defer to Google on how they should be regulated?

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#44
post #4
post #2

What did they think was going to happen when Google bought the largest mobile ad network by far for both Android and iOS a decade ago? (AdMob) Antitrust agencies and governments in general need to set more pro-active ground rules that attempt to prevent monopolies from even happening in the first place. Punishing them after the fact is both ineffective and too disruptive. I'd rather they didn't allow Google to buy Ad…

As much as I agree with the core of what you are saying, it isn't AdMob that is the issue. It's that Google controls both the marketplace, the pub-side and the buy-side, as well as the browser and the devices used to experience ads. Apple is now aiming for a similar level of control in the ad space very blatantly using their ownership of the platform to do what they want to power themselves up. This vertical integrat…

Also because our pyramid shaped tax structure favors vertical integration.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#45
post #43

Same 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.

So the reasoning here is if there are dumb legislators we should just defer to Google on how they should be regulated?

Not defer to Google, but a smarter legislator.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#46

Same 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.

I don't understand the issue completely, so the case may have merit but it's not like the current admin doesn't have an axe to grind with them. Might be just electioneering antics but look at this tweet: https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1303288007357796353

I'm pretty sure all of your politicians have axes to grind, for different reasons.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#47
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I agree with the core of what you are saying, it isn't AdMob that is the issue. It's that Google controls both the marketplace, the pub-side and the buy-side, as well as the browser and the devices used to experience ads. Apple is now aiming for a similar level of control in the ad space very blatantly using their ownership of the platform to do what they want to power themselves up. This vertical integrat…

Also because our pyramid shaped tax structure favors vertical integration.

Can you explain/expand your reasoning behind that a little more? This is the first I've encountered such a point.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#48
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This!

I am completely confounded that I have not heard of any real legislative proposals to establish a clear separation of duties in regards storing data and selling it.

There is an obvious conflict of interest if you both have my data and are granted free reign to do what you want with it (via click through agreements that modern society is now dependent upon) you have unfair leverage over me.

If you are able to do this en mass without much competition... I'm thankful things haven't gotten worse than they are.

Something similar to Glass-Steagall is desperately needed in the digital era. Hopefully somebody is working on it...

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#50
post #4
post #2

What did they think was going to happen when Google bought the largest mobile ad network by far for both Android and iOS a decade ago? (AdMob) Antitrust agencies and governments in general need to set more pro-active ground rules that attempt to prevent monopolies from even happening in the first place. Punishing them after the fact is both ineffective and too disruptive. I'd rather they didn't allow Google to buy Ad…

As much as I agree with the core of what you are saying, it isn't AdMob that is the issue. It's that Google controls both the marketplace, the pub-side and the buy-side, as well as the browser and the devices used to experience ads. Apple is now aiming for a similar level of control in the ad space very blatantly using their ownership of the platform to do what they want to power themselves up. This vertical integrat…

Traditionally vertical integration is fine and horizontal suspicious in antitrust law. Why are ads different?
Post reply on HN