Live data from Hacker News

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

nytimes.com

121–130 of 510 posts

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

#121
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Google ruin your business?

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.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

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

#122
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.

the *case started in 1973 and was threatened for almost a decade beforehand. That put the entire industry on edge.

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

#123
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.

the AT&T break up ... killed our domestic chip production That's an interesting take that I've never heard before. Do you have any source that goes into detail?

[flagged]

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

#124
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer? Splitting off the integration means those devices have to pay for it or go without. Even Amazon failed in this space.

Which is to say, the parts of Android that are "profitable" are the parts tied to the broader corporate product suite.

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

#125
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A drop-in replacement for Adsense is a very good idea though. I wonder if someone knows of one here.

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

#126
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.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party.

Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in?

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

#127
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.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

Wow, all those fortune 500 companies whose infra entirely relies on 3rd party cloud infrastructure really must be in for a rude awakening. You should update them with your cunning analysis and inform them they are failures.

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

#128
Weird calling them a monopoly when they only control 26% of the market for digital marketing. For comparison when Microsoft was found guilty, they had 90% of the desktop market. Att was at 100% when they were broken up. Standard oil was at 90%.

Is this lowest percentage of market for a company being found monolopy?

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

#129

I would love to see a company compete in the ad space with the goal of making ads less intrusive . If ads didn't attack me and cause the viewport to jump and become obscured while reading, my first impression with the products would be better, and the sites the ads are on would get more viewership. Quality ads would be at a huge premium.

If we must have ads, the best quality ads I see online are dumb ads. Just an image as a link. The most effective ads I see are ones on blogs where the blogger sells ad space (side columns) and they're just images that directly link to the product. The ads are relevant to the blog and readers. 99% of other online ads I see are visual garbage and irrelevant. The "targeting" is abysmal.

Convincing all of these sites that Google, Meta, or other services, are "superior" for ads genuinely seems like incredible marketing. They've siphoned up enormous amounts of money and in return put in place a miserable user experience while making media companies wholly reliant on them.

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

#130

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 thei…

Everyone related to the company, from shareholders down to the lowest on the totem pole are incentivized in some way to show quarterly growth, so they will do so at all costs.
Post reply on HN