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

111–120 of 510 posts

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

#111

Post by bilekas »

megaman821 wrote: post #38

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.

Breaking those parts away from google absolutely wouldn’t destroy them, over the years I’ve been so surprised from googlers at most levels explaining how much money they make from all their different services. While advertising is absolutely a big one, it’s by no means the only one, and if i understand the situation correctly, the more advertising options that are actually viable for companies will not even kill their advertising business. But big business real doesn’t like competition.

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

#112

Post by robertlagrant »

lupka wrote: post #86
robertlagrant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just switch away from Adsense.

Do you have a recommendation of an alternative that I can switch to easily and on short notice? The site I'm having trouble with gets 95% of its traffic for the year this week so I'm scrambling.

Sorry I don't - I was purely prompting the idea that there should be no anti-trust related issue that would stop you switching.

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

#113

Post by spamizbad »

tonymet wrote: post #93

the FTC is like Jim Cramer. Once they judge a business to be a monopoly, the business falls apart and the monopoly is irrelevant. Look at the hundreds of millions wasted on the Windows / IE monopoly trial. the AT&T break up set American technology back by decades and killed our domestic chip production.

AT&T was broken up in 1982. Our manufacturing peaked around 1990 and what really pushed it downward was China joining the WTO. We also halted a lot of fab construction domestically after the GFC of '08.

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

#115

Post by 38 »

megaman821 wrote: post #38

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.

use the actual link please

https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2023/01/6371209cd0cce428b526...

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

#116

Post by snozolli »

ajross wrote: post #72
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google seems harder to split up than Bell to me. Bell was split regionally which makes sense since each region has it's own wires and can make money separately. Google has the problem that all their products other than adds lose money (or make money through integration with Google adds)

Yeah. The problem with splitting up Google is that Google products, taken in isolation, are themselves keys to preventing other monopolies. Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Split off Workspace and we go back to the days of MSOffice's monopoly. Splitting out Chrome essentially kills the World Wide Web as an application platform as no one else wants to support it. Cloud would probably…

Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly.

Why? Android appears to be profitable.

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

#117

Post by disqard »

jongjong wrote: post #94

The most surprising thing about big tech is that most of them seem to be less useful than ever and yet they are making more money than ever. For example, it seems like nobody uses Oracle products anymore, yet Oracle stock is at an ATH. Microsoft Windows is less popular than ever and yet Microsoft stock is at an ATH. Apple peaked years ago and yet ATH. Does anyone still use Facebook regularly? FB stock is ATH. Somethi…

> Something doesn't add up

The economy moved away from being founded on Marx's C-M-C to firmly being fixated on M-C-M' which in plain English, means "We now use Money to make more Money, leveraging Commodities as an intermediate step. The Money is all that matters, not the social benefit/harm" -- IMO, that helps explain why, even though many people are suffering financially, the market is at an ATH.

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

#118

Post by shortrounddev2 »

crowcroft wrote: post #107
megaman821 wrote: post #38

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.

When a media buyer puts $1.00 in on one side of the system, on average only $0.60 makes it to the publisher. In some cases less than $0.50 gets to them. Advertising is an intentionally complex system so that companies can clip the ticket at multiple stages throughout the process. Google should be broken up, but the whole ad tech system needs to go into the bin if these problems are going to ever get fixed. https://ww…

The (Open)RTB system makes things more competitive and reduces costs for advertisers by making unsold inventory available to an automated marketplace while also increasing revenue for smaller publishers who otherwise wouldn't have been able to create first party relationships with advertisers. The middlemen are various identity providers and other tracking/data enrichment services, as well as third party exchanges, DSPs and SSPs. Believe it or not this system makes it a lot cheaper than just having someone buy ad space directly on a website

> Three industry studies showed less than 50 cents of every dollar goes to showing ads.

Every penny of what is spent goes to showing ads, by definition. However, that doesn't mean that every penny goes to the publisher. The advertiser may look at the 60 cents being spent on everybody between them and the publisher and say "hey, I'm getting ripped off! I could be paying 4 cents/CPM instead of 10 cents/CPM!" but each middleman (usually) adds some kind of value to increase acquisition rate. For example:

* Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads)

* Geo providers who tell the bidders where the User's location is so that they can target locally-focused advertisements to them

* User intent plugins, "abandoned cart" retargeting, product recommendation providers, etc. who look at user interaction events and build profiles of people who can be retargeted

* Exchanges which conduct auctions across multiple DSPs to get a better price for publishers while also making more inventory available to advertisers

At one company I worked for, we allocated impressions ahead of time. Based on prior years' data and viewer ratings of TV shows, we could predict the future, determining how many viewers a video or TV show would get, and then selling the advertising inventory based on that prediction. That shit ain't free!

All of these things are designed to increase your acquisition rate from x% to y%, where x > y. Sure, you could just pay $5,000 a month to a website to show a banner ad directly, but a larger % of your money would be wasted on users who are utterly uninterested in your banner.

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

#119

Post by lupka »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #100
afavour wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen countless examples, e.g. a business that depends on online advertising gets its account suspended for incorrect reasons and there is literally no-one to reach at Google to get unsuspended.

Do you have a documented example of this?

This is happening to me right now. I have run a site for 14 years that gets most of its traffic during the current two week stretch (it's related to NBA playoffs).

All of a sudden, Adsense revenue has gone to basically zero. $90 of earnings from Sunday has even disappeared.

There is no way to contact a real person at Google. You can just post in their dumb little forum and someone with no authority who doesn't even work there will reply to you with the same pointless info from their FAQ.

If things go the way they have been, it seems like roughly $2k in revenue that's been pretty consistent for the last decade is going to be basically zero this year and there's nothing I can do about it.

Thankfully, this is just a side project and I'll be fine, but its not hard to see how they could screw someone over who relied on it.

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

#120

Post by _mlbt »

rom16384 wrote: post #89
_mlbt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other ad platforms do you recommend for monetizing mobile apps? Any that you’ve had good luck with? My research on this has come up with no good options for non-game apps.

You could try AppLovin MAX, even if it's best for games.

Thanks! That looks like exactly what I’m looking for.
Post reply on HN