[flagged]
[deleted]
Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
151–160 of 510 posts
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#152I 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.
The exact company you're asking for existed already, almost two decades ago. It was called Project Wonderful, and initially focused on independent blogs and webcomics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Wonderful
It never managed more than modest success and never expanded far outside its initial sphere. It shut down in 2018 because it was unable to compete with all the monopolist walled garden ad spaces.
There are various small projects that could claim to be successors to that ethos -- but (to a rounding error) no one has heard of them because, contrary to your claim, the revealed "premium" that users place on "quality ads" is dwarfed by the premium that advertisers place on aggressive attention vampires (and the latter are the ones actually paying)
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#153Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The tone here isn't great but parent is more correct than not. This is why large companies don't use freebie services. They vet companies and partners, sign enterprise deals with support, SLAs, penalties, insurance, even bonds in some cases. It costs more, and it's hardly fun for most people, but it's all part of mitigating those risks. And it's not just tech, you see the same thing in non-tech industries like manufacturing.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#155I 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…
As someone who has worked in AdTech I would respectfully disagree. It is indeed complex but it is incredibly efficient. Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative.
Some companies like Google are incredible at this. Google is not a "monopoly" in this space. In fact the world has far too many Google equivalents but absolutely no one comes close to Google in generating top dollars for publishers. I am saying this after working for 10+ years competing against Google.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As someone who has worked in AdTech I would respectfully disagree. It is indeed complex but it is incredibly efficient. Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative. Some companies like Google are incredible at this. Google is not a "monopoly" in this space. In fact the world has far too many Google eq…
Perhaps Google does well for their publishers but do they do well for advertisers? Inherently it seems like it's impossible to do both because what's good for one group is bad for another. Fortunately with healthy competition we solve this problem since alternatives could be used.
But since Google is playing both sides and has so much sway over the market, they're able to manipulate things. Even if they're not manipulating things to their benefit, it's still not great to have a single party have so much control.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money. I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.
If you aren't prepared for the contingency where your counterparty bails, then yes, strategically you are failing to commoditize your product for the specific market. I think that's the basis of competition and free market economics.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As someone who has worked in AdTech I would respectfully disagree. It is indeed complex but it is incredibly efficient. Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative. Some companies like Google are incredible at this. Google is not a "monopoly" in this space. In fact the world has far too many Google eq…
> it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue
Of course it matters if a middleman is skimming off 70% of the revenue in a given market.
> it is incredibly efficient
On what planet is a loss of 70% of the resources to the matching process between buyers and sellers "incredibly efficient"?
> What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative.
Right, which is why it is illegal to prevent there from being a next best alternative via anti-competitive practices which is precisely was was proven in this trial after a detailed examination of the evidence.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#159Google also destroyed journalism as we know it. Who knows how the industry would look like, if it wasn't suffocated by its monopoly
facebook destroyed journalism
Media companies destroyed journalism by making news into entertainment instead of information. For example by finding the one extremest in a group of people and running stories about his minority - but exciting - viewpoint, instead of the boring viewpoint of most of the group.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or design errors in the algorithms doing the bidding! There's serious nerd sniping potential in asking how best to construct an automatic bidder, especially with the speed and scale requirements in place. It's an incredibly deep problem, and I don't believe there is a single right answer.
> There's serious nerd sniping potential in asking how best to construct an automatic bidder, especially with the speed and scale requirements in place. It's an incredibly deep problem, and I don't believe there is a single right answer. The problem is that it is unwise to trust an bidding algorithm designer whose incentives are aligned against yours. Google benefits from higher winning bids.
Key point is that it's a system that you shouldn't trust, not any individual algorithm designer or implementer. Bugs that cost Google money will be found and fixed really quickly; bugs that make Google money will linger and go unnoticed.