51–60 of 229 posts
The 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.
The 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.
For example: If the DNS was initially designed as such as https://handshake.org could be a better place to lay the foundation of Internet.
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.
Of course there are numerous factors that may have contributed to the ad (and maybe Google wasn't involved) but they went with the smartass answer and the media ran with that narrative instead. It's not the greatest question but it's much more valid than what people are assuming it was.
Video of the question (and notice the title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmuROTmazco&t=60
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What I don't understand here is does this not just hand Google the monopoly but now with government protection? Because they're already in place, so who's gonna offer this public utility?
We see similar situations with, e.g. cellular carriers in the states, where wherever you live, you only get not-even-a-handful of choices.
And how does a country regulate an international "utility"? For Google to maintain its global position, it needs to consider not just local regulations, but also those in international markets. Public utilities so far have always had a limited area of operation.
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.
The internet the way is currently design will resulted in centralisation and end up with monopoly or oligopoly.
It's not the design but the users and to a extend Europe itself. The US is one problem, but that Europe is not even capable to create it's own "cloud" is a sign...just look at Germany they really think 4600 euros is a good payment for top-IT personnel...that says everything. Having Internet-speeds like in the year 2000 too. It's impressive how slow, complicated and lame Europe is (in this sector).
The 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.
So I guess that's another reason the existing concept of intellectual property needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Would winner-take-all effect be so strong if all user-provided data was owned by users, and data processors (like social network) were forced to implement protocols allowing for easy and unconditional sharing of all data (including metadata forming a relationship graph) with any other service the user desires? That is, force services like Facebook or Twitter to be just UI frontends to what would become an implicitly federated social graph. Then, social media companies would hold no power over people.
Right now this can't happen, because the companies own the data on their platform, so competitors are not free to create alternative services for perusing that data.
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.
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…
Traditionally vertical integration is fine and horizontal suspicious in antitrust law. Why are ads different?