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

101–110 of 229 posts

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

#101

Post by criddell »

belly_joe wrote: post #37
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.

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 ove…

If basic R&D is underfunded by the public, allowing monopolies to overcharge consumers and pass some of that money on to their proprietary research departments isn't a great solution.

We should guard against monopolies and increase public funding of researchers.

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

#102

Post by giancarlostoro »

speeder wrote: post #91
doukdouk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You may want to contact the antitrust regulators, testimonies such as your are highly relevant to this case.

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

#103

Post by JakeKalstad »

manigandham wrote: post #54
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.

That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. 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 grea…

The kid dressed up like the monopoly man in the background was a welcomed surprise.

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

#104

Post by nova22033 »

speeder wrote: post #91
doukdouk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Being effective doesn't make you a monopoly.

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

#105

Post by mensetmanusman »

If Congress cuts Google into pieces, they should be consistent and set some sort of maximum market value (as a percentage of US GDP).

That way, once companies reach a certain size, they can expect a split.

I actually think this would be good for society, because it would shuffle things up consistently to force new ideas. Also, smaller companies can grow more effectively, so the stock market should enjoy that as well.

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

#106

Post by lawrenceyan »

manigandham wrote: post #54
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.

That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. 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 grea…

Watched the video, and there was just a random guy dressed up with a mustache and top hat sitting behind the camera during the entire hearing?

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

#107

Post by emteycz »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #102
speeder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You may want to contact the antitrust regulators, testimonies such as your are highly relevant to this case.

they are also untrue in general. in some markets social networking ads work, in some search ads work, that's to be expected - you don't expect eg. ad placements by the train company to be always effective regardless of what you're selling.

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

#108

Post by thinkharderdev »

amelius wrote: post #61
eqtn wrote: post #52

make targeted advertising opt in. Make the opt in scary like how android enables the installation of apk's from unknown sources.

Just ban targeted advertising, but allow websites that ask the user to tell about themselves in order to get tailored product recommendations.

I recently listened to a podcast with Jason Furman and he made an interesting distinction. He distinguished between companies that grow to be very large through organic growth vs companies that grow very large through acquisitions. He used Walmart as an example of the former. They grew by being really good at logistics and having a really efficient supply chain, so they could offer lower prices and ultimately open a lot of stores. He used Google as an example of the latter. Obviously the search tech was their own but basically all of the ad tech (what they actually generate revenue with) was cobbled together through acquisitions.

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

#109

Post by tomlue »

nova22033 wrote: post #104
speeder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is the ONLY ad provider that give results, all others don't even get any clicks. Being effective doesn't make you a monopoly.

I don't think he meant that other companies are bad at getting clicks. I think he meant his company relies on search engine driven ads. Google has a monopoly on the search engine. There are many companies that need to rely on search engine traffic, not social media, for online advertising.

Keep in mind that search engine traffic is enormous, and can fairly be called a "trade" or "commodity/service" that can be monopolized in it's own right.

I don't think anybody is saying that google has a monopoly on all advertising.

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

#110

Post by Nasrudith »

speeder wrote: post #91
doukdouk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN