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

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 510 posts

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#31

Post by blasphemers »

yoshicoder wrote: post #22
spacebanana7 wrote: post #17

Google isn't a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Its ad revenue is big because it occupies so much user attention. I actually think many suggested remedies would actually make Google more profitable. For example, prohibiting Apple-Style search deals would mean that Google gets a smaller amount of traffic, but that traffic would come with zero cost. That could end up being more profitable. A similar argu…

I mean it wouldn't make sense for it to be more profitable for google if there were no search deals, since otherwise they would just cancel the deal themselves. Clearly they see long term value in blocking out competition even at that high of a price

It depends on the what the browsers end up doing. If they just surface a select your search engine dialog during set up, most people will just select google and nothing will have changed besides the cost. If they set a non-google search engine by default, they will lose ad revenue because of people not bothering to change the default.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#32

Post by tiltowait »

internetter wrote: post #18

Kinda surprised. Google's core business is advertising. Some vertically integrated aux services (like chrome) feel ripe for antitrust, but I wasn't expecting ads themselves. What is Google without ads?

Being a monopoly, in itself, isn’t illegal. The question is whether the company maintains its monopoly through illegal tactics or leverages that monopoly in illegal manners.

(NYT really ought to add “illegal” to their title.)

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#33

Post by whoknowsidont »

lupka wrote: post #9

Happy to see this and hopefully there are some changes. Right now I'm dealing with a crazy Adsense issue and there is no recourse, no customer support and no alternative.

There is no shortage of other ad platforms. Breaking up Google isn't going to solve your specific issue lol

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#34

Post by TechDebtDevin »

Pretty crazy how this case gets the full support of thr DOJ, along with actions against Harvard, Colombia ect. I dont mind Google being broken up, but how am i supposed to respect the law when the same DOJ lets out ponzi schemers and bond villians because they donated 500k to a Trump friendly super pac.

If im Google or anoother tech company im going to be Divesting from the United States as much as possible.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#35

Post by bdcravens »

charcircuit wrote: post #19

The market is being unfairly defined based on how things worked decades ago instead of looking at the modern landscape. Tech evolved rapidly and the way things worked decades ago may not be optimal for the end user as things change.

You're right, but probably not in the way you think.

This probably calls for even stronger consumer protections, since the natural limit of human scalability created something of a limitation as to how large and dominant a company could be.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#36

Post by bdcravens »

charcircuit wrote: post #25
seydor wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how things worked decades ago you mean, before monopolies?

Everything is a monopoly if you limit the market enough.

Monopolies in and of themselves aren't a problem, and aren't illegal. Unfair leverage to prevent competition is.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#37

Post by internetter »

bdcravens wrote: post #26
internetter wrote: post #18

Kinda surprised. Google's core business is advertising. Some vertically integrated aux services (like chrome) feel ripe for antitrust, but I wasn't expecting ads themselves. What is Google without ads?

("Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist") Everything else. Cloud provider, operating systems, browsers, hosting business apps, phone licenser, Internet provider, smart home manufacturer, and various moonshots. Their ad company is a monopoly because of those other services. Google as an ad company that can't leverage those other lines of business to gain an advantage over other ad companies still has a viable a…

Thanks, I like the last quote. But I'm curious... Would it be preferable to have Google owning all of these services you listed—just not the ad company they depend on, or the inverse—all the companies are spun out?

I see your point, but also, if Google continued to own all these other things, it would still be a terrifyingly large spread, no?

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#38

Post by megaman821 »

I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7. Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#39

Post by spacebanana7 »

nativeit wrote: post #23
spacebanana7 wrote: post #17

Google isn't a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Its ad revenue is big because it occupies so much user attention. I actually think many suggested remedies would actually make Google more profitable. For example, prohibiting Apple-Style search deals would mean that Google gets a smaller amount of traffic, but that traffic would come with zero cost. That could end up being more profitable. A similar argu…

> Google isn’t a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Aren’t they? It doesn’t sound like those two interpretations are mutually exclusive.

In the sense of the Sherman Act and similar legislation, monopolies exist in the sense of having exclusive control over some supply and raising prices against consumers.

This isn't what Google does, they generally lower prices for consumers and the competition is only a click away.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#40

Post by aprilthird2021 »

lupka wrote: post #9

Happy to see this and hopefully there are some changes. Right now I'm dealing with a crazy Adsense issue and there is no recourse, no customer support and no alternative.

If you think antitrust has anything to do with why it isn't profitable for a company at Google scale to pay a human being for every one of the hundreds of millions of people who use AdSense to have customer support...
Post reply on HN