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

Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#51

Post by mrtksn »

8note wrote: post #48
mrtksn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP does have better experience from the users perspective. The backlash is from the techies only. I assumed that the non-amp websites were slower due to the JS bloat, I still despise what the Web pages has become, however it turns out Google wasn't a honest broker here and instead of providing a tool that helps them and the users, they provided a tool that helps them and harms the users and bullies the website owner…

Amp gives you non logged in versions of websites. Anyone whos usually logged in somewhere is impacted negatively

Fair. So far there are three issues pointed out here that I'm not happy with too.

To re-cap:

1) Sharing AMP links is weird, feels wrong and Non-AMP links are hard to get

2) Breaks Safari's reader mode

3) Gives sub-par experience for websites that provide better experience when logged in since the AMP version is always the non-logged-in version.

None of those are deal-breaker for me because AMP pages come as a search results and fast loading results are very valuable for me when skimming to find the right one. Once I find it, I can switch to the full version(but Google makes it harder and harder. maybe this should be 4.).

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#52

Post by [deleted] »

IlPeach wrote: post #24
mrtksn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I feel naive now for defending AMP providing better user experience. As it turns out, Google is evil and I simply did not want to believe it.

It's crazy to me that the team dedicated to AMP had no control and awareness of any schemes were pulled behind their back. This is such a huge org problem. Unless, of course, the team leadership was on it and this was an insider job.

[deleted]

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#53

Post by alangibson »

Let's never forget that we techies need to help protect the integrity of the internet even if there is no immediate, obvious harm to consumers. We're all at least suspected that Google was playing dirty with AMP, but it was frequently defended based on some pretty trivial consumer benefits. I see some minds being changed in this thread, especially when it comes to AMP, so that's a step in the right direction.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#54

Post by jiggawatts »

mrtksn wrote: post #20
cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were people defending AMP? Everything I've heard about it was backlash

AMP does have better experience from the users perspective. The backlash is from the techies only. I assumed that the non-amp websites were slower due to the JS bloat, I still despise what the Web pages has become, however it turns out Google wasn't a honest broker here and instead of providing a tool that helps them and the users, they provided a tool that helps them and harms the users and bullies the website owner…

Everything about AMP is strictly worse in my experience.

In Australia, AMP pages load slower, not faster.

AMP breaks the iPhone Safari user interface, by not actually scrolling the whole page.

The URLs don't represent the actual site to which the user will navigate.

Logins break.

App-integrated links don't work properly.

And on and on.

AMP is a cancer on the web enforced by a monopoly for their own shady purposes.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#55

Post by onion2k »

robin_reala wrote: post #7

249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web page…

You do have to wonder what impact this will have on the employment prospects of Google engineers in the unlikely event that it all blows up for Google. Having a toxic company on your resume is never a good thing.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#56

Post by edgyquant »

onion2k wrote: post #55
robin_reala wrote: post #7

249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web page…

You do have to wonder what impact this will have on the employment prospects of Google engineers in the unlikely event that it all blows up for Google. Having a toxic company on your resume is never a good thing.

It’s gonna be a long time before having Google on your resume is seen as anything but good

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#58

Post by stonogo »

throwaway4good wrote: post #19
mathnmusic wrote: post #2

Google should be broken up into 5 parts: Search/Adwords/Mail/Drive, Android, Chrome, Maps & GCP.

Problem is only one of those things make money.

Google has a TON of retired properties that were profit-makers, but not unicorns. Smaller Baby Googles would likely find solid revenue bringing some of them back.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#59

Post by Xelbair »

jfoster wrote: post #5

I've seen lots of comments recently in response to the Google & Facebook advertising issues suggesting that Google should be split into X, Y, and Z. Most of the proposed splits seem like they would do absolutely nothing to address the issue at hand, though. The problem in digital advertising seems to be that Google controls the marketplace, as well as both the buy & sell sides. Even a "breaking apart" that proposes s…

I have slightly simpler proposition - ban digital advertising.

Or at least ban the 'dynamic' one - the one which tries to match the user's preferences. Just static, random ads akin to TV or billboards next to the roads.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#60

Post by conception »

paulluuk wrote: post #27
throwaway4good wrote: post #18

Given that Google is critical for US intelligence supremacy and technological dominance, I am curious what the US chooses to do with it. Surely from a free market perspective and for long term growth, it needs to be broken into pieces in such a manner that would destroy its monopoly power.

But would it still be a "free market" if governments just go around splitting up companies once they get (too) big? Not defending the idea of a free market here, I'm leaning pretty far past socialist myself, but I know that the US in general cares deeply about free market philosophy.

For a market to be free it must be well regulated. If a market is controlled inordinately by a few, it ceases to be free.
Post reply on HN