Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by treis » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

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.

That depends heavily on your industry and obviously isnt true as a rule. Google gets 37% of ad spend, Facebook ~20% and then everyone else combines for the last 40%.

It's true that if your looking at targeting users searching for something that it's basically just Google. But people are increasingly using apps and specific sites over general surfing. Reddit, tiktok, snap, etc. all have their own ads and collectively represent major competition.

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

#132

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

qppo wrote: post #122

scarface74 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not what the article you linked says. To the question though there really haven't been many federal laws regarding tech at all. It's kind of hard to find an example of anything that directly focuses on tech and has been around long enough to make a judgement whether it was good or bad.

There have been plenty of laws. The two most famous ones are the DMCA and COPPA.

And then there are the ones that were only stopped because of massive protests like SOPA and PIPA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

Not to mention regulations that killed the concept of net Neutrality.

There are also constant mumblings about passing laws against encryption that the government can’t decrypt.

The Snowden leaks should scare anyone about giving the government more power.

It was in 1996, but there is also the CDA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

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

#133

Post by cletus » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

I like the definition of anticompetitive behaviour that revolves around using power in one market to squash competitors in another.

Example: back in the 90s when Microsoft found itself at the pointy end of an antitrust effort, they did things like:

- Restricting OEMs from installing non-Windows OSs

- When they didn't restrict it, they effectively did by having more favourable pricing per license if Windows was the only OS you shipped

- They did similar things with Office but it was less egregious

- Restrictions on preinstalling Netscape

- Restrictions on default browser

- Using Windows to hinder competitors by breaking existing applications, giving a head start to MS software or moving core functionality into the OS (as they tried with IE)

Here are some theoretical examples of what anticompetitive behaviour might look like:

- Making AdWords usage exclusive (ie you couldn't also use Bing's version)

- Making Doubleclick exclusive

- Making either effectively exclusive by providing preferential pricing for exclusive use

- Making use of one ad platform require use of another

Antitrust doesn't exist to protect competitors from competition. People forget that. There are (many) competing display ad platforms. There's less competition in search (and thus search ads). But you can create your own search engine as Bing and DDG are witness to (plus all the dead ones).

It's just that all the other search engines suck. Or, perhaps more accurately, Google is seriously good at search in a way that's hard to replicate.

I personally don't think we should go down this road of dismantling companies just because their competitors suck. That's the Yelp business model. Yelp hasn't changed in 10 years. They have so many missed opportunities. But no, "Google is stealing our content".

Microsoft has the financial muscle to fund a search engine. They do of course. But Google is much better. Just because Microsoft sucks it doesn't (necessarily) mean that Google is a problem.

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

#134

Post by Ensorceled » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

quest88 wrote: post #115

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…

Can you point out any specific examples, and why Google would forgo that ad money?

What ad money do you think Google is forgoing in this example?

There is an example at the end of the comment you are replying to, flights. Two other examples that took me only a couple of minutes to find: google 'smart thermostat' or 'corporate email providers'

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

#135

Post by toast0 » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #55

philipov wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. An…

It really depends on what the regulation is. If it's something to the effect of making a siloed company for AdWords that needs to offer FRAND terms to everyone, plus Alphabet is bared from doing its own ads, and has to contract it out, then AdWords Inc could gather more of the market and become even more dominant. This would still be a win, because the new, more dominant, advertising platform would not have any other businesses to anticompetitively promote. Maybe you would get competitors offering different terms, but that's probably wishful thinking.

A company that operates in a jurisdiction is regulatable by that jurisdiction. In this case, if Google weren't physically present, you sanction advertisers and local sites that use the ad service. In cases where there's no economic connection, the option is to force ISPs not to carry that traffic (and all the cat and mouse that entails).

Also, a lot of mobile carriers are international companies. In each country, they follow the local regulations. They have some economies of scale that may make it easier to compete with a network that's only in one country, but it depends on the size of that country how big the effect is.

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

#136

Post by squeaky-clean » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

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…

He does specifically say "how does that show up on a 7 year old's iPhone" at 1:30, and those words will be entered into the record, which is probably why Sundar responded with that.

iPhone claims aside, that's just a terrible question. Doesn't know what type of phone it was, doesn't know what type of game they were playing, doesn't give any details on the sort of photo shown or the ad copy shown. By all likelihood it sounds like this was a Facebook ad because of FB's "Social Ads" policy does use profile pictures of people on your friends list in their ads. On top of that, kids are not the smartest or most honest. It could have been a picture of any old man that looks similar and she assumes it's her grandpa. It could be a made-up story entirely.

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

#137

Post by manigandham » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

rtx wrote: post #67

manigandham wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does this happen two different comments about one incident captured on video.

Read the comments on the video. People don't really comprehend much of the content they consume and are easily steered by headlines.

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

#138

Post by manigandham » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #136

manigandham wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He does specifically say "how does that show up on a 7 year old's iPhone" at 1:30, and those words will be entered into the record, which is probably why Sundar responded with that. iPhone claims aside, that's just a terrible question. Doesn't know what type of phone it was, doesn't know what type of game they were playing, doesn't give any details on the sort of photo shown or the ad copy shown. By all likelihood it…

Yes it's lacking too much context. Google's CEO probably didn't intend to be so dismissive but stalled since there wasn't a clear answer, and the statement ended up being snarky enough to move focus from the question to the "old people are bad at tech" bias, which was then reinforced by the media.

It's unfortunate but it shows just how bad the understanding is on all sides, and why these corporations can get away with so much. The most recent hearings this year revealed how much training these CEOs get and how adept they are at maneuvering around any real investigation.

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

#139

Post by doukdouk » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #125

doukdouk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, mindless arguing what exact word fit or does not fit the situation detracts from the real issues.

If the only thing the word "monopoly" does is spark a discussion about the word then why use it? Why is it so important that Google be a monopoly for their behavior to be bad? Do we really have no other words to describe business practices that we don't like?

Because it is generally accepted that monopolies are bad and that not-monopolies are ok. It is much easier to sell the simple idea that "X is a monopoly, so split X", than to make a long case that "X does Y and Z which meet ABC definition of unfair use of market position, bla bla bla, so split X". Conversely, for a company in the wrong, it is easier to say "Of course monopolies are bad, but we are not a monopoly!".

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

#140

Post by hannasanarion » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #121

tomlue wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monopo…

But I don't think this tracks unless you treat search as something special. If I own a billboard then I have a monopoly on that billboard. Presumably I built/bought that billboard because I knew that the ad space would be valuable and that companies would need to pay me for it. Google owns extremely valuable ad space but that to me doesn't make a monopoly just because Bing or Facebook's ad space isn't as good for cer…

And if only one company owned all the billboards in the world, that would be a monopoly too.

Monopolies are traditionally assessed in terms of product categories, not entire industries. Nobody ever said "standard oil isn't a monopoly, because you can also buy coal fuel"