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

Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#111

Post by harimau777 »

ralfd wrote: post #101
bigyabai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible mark…

> Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.

So the market damage would be more than the entire planet's GDP?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#112

Post by ianjc65 »

xp84 wrote: post #87

> Google’s ad tech business brought in $30 billion last year, or about 8 percent of the revenue for its parent company, Alphabet. Its ad tech revenue has declined for 16 straight quarters, and analysts estimate it accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s profit... “This is a business no one cares about" Can someone closer to GOOG explain this? The phrase "ad tech" seems to have a very specific meaning here.…

Google owns Google Ad Manager (the tool third-party website and app publishers like NyTimes use to show ads on their properties), Google Ads (the place advertisers like Nike go to run ad campaigns across both Google properties and also these third party sites), and AdX the ad exchange that runs the auction that sits between Ad Manager and Google Ads.

The lawsuit is specifically about googles ownership of the auction and the ownership of the relationship on either side of the auction. The AdX auction also contains demand (ads from places besides google ads) and inventory (ad slots outside of ad manager). Website publishers allege that Google uses this ownership to artificially deflate the value of ads on third party websites.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#113

Post by xahrepap »

Slightly tangential thought:

My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them.

It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in the US), but it's just impossible to undo or prevent the damage.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#115

Post by randysalami »

xp84 wrote: post #87

> Google’s ad tech business brought in $30 billion last year, or about 8 percent of the revenue for its parent company, Alphabet. Its ad tech revenue has declined for 16 straight quarters, and analysts estimate it accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s profit... “This is a business no one cares about" Can someone closer to GOOG explain this? The phrase "ad tech" seems to have a very specific meaning here.…

Classic capitalism move. It’s not directly making much profit therefore it’s not important! When something that gives you outsized influence or control.. sometimes you would lose money just to control.

Something can be unprofitable but still extremely valuable. These companies are playing strategy games at the geopolitical level and money is not the only resource they want to accumulate to win the game…

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#116

Post by Arainach »

xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

> or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them.

[Disclaimer: I work at Google, all words my own and not representative of anyone, etc.]

There's no such thing. Let's stick to software since it's what HN knows best, but it's a universal truth.

Merging two companies: you take the two sides and they keep running. You probably need some extra accounting work to make sure the mandatory reports from each side get combined, but that's all you have to do.

Splitting two companies: oof. If you split ChildCo out of ParentCo:

* You need to hire all the roles that weren't part of that organization before (HR, legal, compliance, etc.)

* You need to register this new entity in all the countries it operates and/or has employees in

* Technologically it's somewhere between messy and impossible. Now you no longer have Google's build stack or monorepo. You have to rewrite everything. You can't just move some VMs to a cloud provider of choice

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#117

Post by Georgelemental »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #84
Georgelemental wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign. Powerful monopolists restricting our freedoms is not in the interest of Americans long-term.

> As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign How do you prevent another monopoly from forming from a different country than your own?

Same way you prevent monopolies based in your own country from forming. Anti-trust regulation. Your country's government controls how companies operate inside it

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#118

Post by alexashka »

bigyabai wrote: post #28
strictnein wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.

To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible mark…

> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists

We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#119

Post by autoexec »

mpalczewski wrote: post #89
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To all the people pissed about the "Lake America" stuff: why in the actual fuck do you want Google of all organizations to be arbiter of geographical info, instead of federal institutions that are (at least nominally) operated under democratic principles? Don't you understand the horror of what you're suggesting: "I want Google to impose it's own personal value judgments over the government's." Yes, I think it's incr…

I do wonder how many people that criticize the renaming, were criticizing Obama when he rename Mt McKinley. What are the principles here? Or is it just names I like vs names I don't like.

Tons of people complained about the renaming of Mt McKinley for the same reason people complain about "Lake America" now. It has nothing to do with the names and everything to do with the reasons for the renaming.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#120

Post by vlovich123 »

xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

You're basically advocating for unscrambling the omelet to be easier. Should be obvious why it's harder to unmix than it is to mix.
Post reply on HN