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

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 229 posts

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

#91

Post by speeder »

doukdouk wrote: post #70
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice). When random person X complains about, say, Google having a monopoly, there are two possibilities: - Person X means something along "Google has a dominant market position and abuses its power", slightly abusing the meaning…

I am the CMO for a company.

Google is the ONLY ad provider that give results, all others don't even get any clicks.

How that is not a monopoly on the classic definition? Every time Google has a bug and screw with my ads, the revenue of the company I work for tanks hard, and I am yet to find any solution for it.

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

#92

Post by spunker540 »

blippage wrote: post #78

Here's a simple heuristic for determining if a company has a monopoly: if they say that they have a monopoly, then they don't; if they say that they don't, then they do. Original author unknown.

It sounds like Peter Thiel’s idea (though who knows where he got it from)

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

#93

Post by LeonB »

adrianN wrote: post #30
deepstack wrote: post #8

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.

There’s a little truth in what you say but a very fatalist part too which is quite untrue.

We could say that roads are a natural monopoly (since they have to intersect everywhere it would be inefficient to have competitors fight and negotiate about every intersection) ...however, the consequences of that natural monopoly can be limited or extreme. For example: do we get to own private cars that drive on those roadways? Or must we all rent a national transportation vehicle at a non-competitive price? etc. where exactly does the “natural monopoly” begin/end and how natural is it?

I caution against letting your thoughts rest on the words “natural monopoly”.

(I think it’s natural for gravity to bring things down to earth. It’s physics. But the NTSB don’t seem to be satisfied with the notion of “natural plane crashes” just being unavoidable.)

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

#94

Post by scarface74 »

sn41 wrote: post #10
curiousgal wrote: post #6

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.

No... If I recall right, that was Steve King. Steve King was a congressman, not a senator. Maligning a single congressman does not invalidate the basic point that a lot of senators are making.

Or the entire Senate calling the wrong CEO in to testify?

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/att-time-warner-senat...

Can you name one positive law with regards to tech that the government has passed in the last 20 years?

During the last hearing, many of the representatives were more concerned about Google and Facebook being “unfair” to conservatives. Well that and grilling Zuckerburg about Twitter’s practices.

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

#95

Post by sam_goody »

knolax wrote: post #31

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.

It's a loose comparison, but a monopoly is like monarchy, competition is like democracy.

If a country has a king that is truly capable, caring and trusted, he can get a lot of things done that no other system can compete with. If he is Robert Mugabe, tough luck.

If the country has a democracy, there is limit to the amount of damage any one leader can do. And there is a hope that over time, the system will promote the "better" leader.

Similarly, when there is on a monopoly, and the leaders really care about developing the space, lots of good can come of it. Such as AT&T for a time, and IMO Google back in Sergey Brin's days as CEO.

But when they have gone south, it brings down the whole sector. Whereas with competition, there is a limit to the stagnation and anti-consumer behavior, and a hope that the favored companies will generally prevail.

Over the long run, I am pretty sure that democracies / competition is the better bet for progress.

Abrahamic religions pine for a king who will be perfect (a "Messiah"), since that has the benefits without the risk. Meanwhile, the religions compete with each other, which is a arguably better than if one had complete control.

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

#96

Post by photonios »

nix23 wrote: post #57
deepstack wrote: post #8

The internet the way is currently design will resulted in centralisation and end up with monopoly or oligopoly.

>The internet the way is currently design 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 Europ…

Depends on where in Europe you live. The more east you go, the faster it gets. Fiber and 1 Gbps is standard and cheap here. I pay €15/month for that (TV included). 4G is everywhere. I pay €8/month for unlimited data usage and phone calls.

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

#97

Post by scarface74 »

mhh__ wrote: post #27
qaq wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would people actually vote for them?

Combining brains and charisma is very rare in a politician. Obama being the textbook example - senior law school lecturer but also has the emotional depth and natural charm.

And he was accused of being a “secret Muslim” trying to bring Sharia law by a large percentage of the population.

That and trying to use the military to “takeover” Texas.

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

#98

Post by scarface74 »

rodonn wrote: post #76
cheph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, we should defer to the career antitrust experts at the DOJ and FTC as well the academics who study anti-trust and competition (a mix of mostly legal and economic professors).

You mean the “career” experts that are just as beholden to the whims of the President?

Or in the case of the FTC that gave the cable companies more power and upheld states blocking municipal broadband and got rid of net neutrality?

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

#99

Post by ardy42 »

doukdouk wrote: post #70
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice). When random person X complains about, say, Google having a monopoly, there are two possibilities: - Person X means something along "Google has a dominant market position and abuses its power", slightly abusing the meaning…

> Somehow a lot of people choose to believe interpretation #2 is true, and spend a lot of time debating whether this or that company is a "monopoly" as if it is somehow more important than the substantive issues

Not to accuse anyone here of this, but intentionally doing what you describe is an disingenuous but effective way of shaping the conversation to discourage scrutiny of more general kinds of anti-competitive behavior. I'm sure it's part of any monopolist's PR strategy (or large business engaged in anti-competitive behavior, to be more precise).

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

#100

Post by tel »

doukdouk wrote: post #70
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice). When random person X complains about, say, Google having a monopoly, there are two possibilities: - Person X means something along "Google has a dominant market position and abuses its power", slightly abusing the meaning…

Monopolies are a well-defined theoretical concept, but in practice it's about market power. When one entity has overwhelming market power it's afforded with options that harm consumer welfare.

Anti-trust isn't about defeating theoretical monopolies. It's about protecting consumers, new businesses, the market from abuses through overwhelming market power.

So your first possibility seems right on the money and appropriate.

Post reply on HN