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

161–170 of 510 posts

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

#161

Post by JohnMakin »

efsavage wrote: post #154
JohnMakin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manufa…

It really isn't. Most businesses export core business functions to a third party in some way. This is just a snotty navel gazing post without much content that was responded to in kind.

It's completely reasonable to use adsense to generate revenue and then be upset when they inevitably fuck you (and they will). It's not a chance to make a (completely uninformed) "ah, that's your own fault" comment, deflecting from scumbag practices google engages in.

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

#162

Post by ksec »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155
crowcroft wrote: post #107

Earlier 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…

Thankfully HN is finally at a stage people can come out and talk about Ad tech without being harassed or attacked.

Could you explain more on this. What do you think makes Google Ad or DoubleClick so special? And

>What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative.

Correct me if I am wrong, you are suggesting even if publisher only earns 30% of the revenue they still earn more than on other alternative platform?

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

#163

Post by PaulHoule »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155
crowcroft wrote: post #107

Earlier 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 was 10 years ago when I was serious about it but I found every monetization venue other than Google was a joke. If you had the right kind of site you could make money with Adult Friend Finder but everything else paid somewhere between 0-10% what Google did and it wasn’t worth the brand destruction that usually resulted.

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

#166

Post by whiplash451 »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155
crowcroft wrote: post #107

Earlier 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…

> the world has far too many Google equivalents

No it doesn't. As explained by the parent, Google is in a unique position w.r.t to the publishers, the sellers and the bidders.

There's a ton of very talented adtech companies out there, but they only get to play an unfair game.

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

#167

Post by PaulHoule »

xmprt wrote: post #156
aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manipu…

It’s a two-sided market and it doesn’t have to be either/or. Google has a wide range of advertisers so it can find one that converts on your site and it has a wide range of sites so it can find ones that work for a given advertisers. Also Google has a large database and user inventory for personalization so it can find ads that convert on your site even if your site wouldn’t attract ads otherwise. the personalization economy has all sorts of ads and might be brand destroying in the case of retargeting but you see that crap everywhere whereas many Google alternatives run brand-destroying ads and pay you $0.00 after rounding.

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

#168

Post by CivBase »

DrillShopper wrote: post #14
CivBase wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water is obviously wet, depending on your definition of "wet". Likewise Google is obviously an online advertising tech monopoly, depending on your definition of "monopoly". There might be legal or technical rationals for why these statements are not true. But practically speaking, they are obviously true and that's what should matter.

Something is wet when it is covered in water, so how can water be wet? It's just water.

Because unless you're talking about a single molecule of water, water is always covered in more water.

But that's beside the point.

Practically speaking, a person considers something "wet" if contacting it will make them wet. If a person contacts water, they will become wet. It's not about the technical definition of "wet" - it's about the practical implication of the word and the effect it has on people and things around it.

Just like how even if Google does not technically have a monopoly, their influence over the market is monopolistic in practice and has the same adverse effects as a monopoly.

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

#169

Post by hamp95 »

CPLX wrote: post #158
aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> On what planet is a loss of 70% of the resources to the matching process between buyers and sellers "incredibly efficient"?

One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market. E.g. Steam takes a 30% cut for providing the infrastructure required to distribute games. Some people/companies can do it for less but it is the best option for a majority of sellers.

If the market maker did not the seller would get more revenue but would also eat the cost directly instead of paying someone else to do it.

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

#170

Post by crowcroft »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155
crowcroft wrote: post #107

Earlier 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…

In theory, I agree. In practice the whole system is rotten.

* Google unilaterally changing bid mechanics raising costs 15% https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-changed-ad-auctions-ra...

* Conversion attribution and cookie bombing fraud from both Criteo and Steelhouse https://finance.yahoo.com/news/criteo-versus-steelhouse-clic...

* Phunware click flooding fraud https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/17/ubers-l...

* A nearly unending list of different mobile ad frauds https://www.fraud0.com/resources/ad-fraud-cases-of-the-past-...

* Viewability fraud https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/procter-gamble-chief-markete...

* Session hijacking fraud https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/ad-indus...

This doesn't sound like a healthy and efficient industry. Not only do vendors clip the ticket aggressively, they divert dollars that advertisers are intending to go to quality media/real publishers, and siphon it off to fraudulent sites and apps where they generally take a higher margin.

Post reply on HN