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

141–150 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#141

Post by pstuart »

ElProlactin wrote: post #106
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.

> 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. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.

At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power.

Washington warned us of this threat.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#142

Post by hammock »

Drunk_Engineer wrote: post #105
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.…

If it is a business no one cares about, then why has Google been fighting this?

Great question. The adtech is what rigs the auctions for their moneymaker, the ads.

If they no longer own the adtech then their ad revenue suffers greatly.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#143

Post by pstuart »

slg wrote: post #131
ElProlactin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.

Two things can be true at once, the entire system is corrupt and the current administration is much more corrupt than any prior administration.

The current administration is in a class of its own regarding corruption -- it is the principle driver of everything they do. The nazi stuff is just bonus for them.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#144

Post by hammock »

siliconc0w wrote: post #135

We should just progressively tax monopolies. Companies will break themselves up to compete, no decade long DOJ case needed.

You may be surprised to learn that the US corporate tax (yes, that one, the main one we already have and everyone pays) was originally introduced in 1909 specifically as an antitrust measure, to clip the wings of US Steel and Standard Oil.

Of course the best laid taxes always get abused or turn into something else entirely.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#145

Post by hammock »

tdb7893 wrote: post #85
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…

Democracy works best as a diffuse institution and is more than just voting. People are supposed to have rights and power themselves and I want them to try to make things better (whether I agree with them or not) and "corporations" are just groups of people. Needing to just go with the government, especially on something so clearly within their rights, is counter to the ideals of the system. I can understand Google so…

>Democracy works best as a diffuse institution and is more than just voting. People are supposed to have rights and power themselves

People holding power themselves is called self-governance (in the Jeffersonian way).

People voting for representation is called a republic.

People voting away their own power to another is called democracy.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#146

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

The United States government is fractured and can't get its act together. No one has a credible plan to solve this. Electing your preferred president doesn't solve a broken Senate and other structural problems. The presidency is likely to keep bouncing between parties that care as much (if not more) about undoing the previous four years as they do sketching out a coherent plan for the future four.

How is wielding this weapon against our most innovative companies going to help the United States compete at scale against China? Scale is sort of required to do so.

So if the government isn't going to be in the business of massive capex investment (the kind China subsidizes) well then you need massive private companies.

The American peoples response to a future dictated by the terms of Chinese hegemony is break up the centers of American innovation? What do you think is keeping the capex cost manageable if it's not the government? How does Google work if you take away its cash cow?

So many of you (I assume despite the complaining that > 99% of HN readers can afford it) need to just pay the $20 or whatever for YouTube premium if it's so terrible and get over yourselves. The tax your children will have to pay if the United States is reduced to a second rate power will be far greater. What's with people wanting free access to services and simultaneously offended by ads? I don't like them either but I understand it would be silly to think they should be free. They can be regulated or reformed in many ways, but the government should be highly restrained about cleaving apart companies. Just remember the powers you give the government today the next government will inherit, and it is not so easy for a party to maintain power for more than eight years. Meanwhile China is operating on government initiatives and sustained strategy on a timeline that spans decades. Companies need to be able to match this horizon without fear of whatever the new normal in Washington is every four years. The trend for the United States is not looking good.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#147

Post by Arainach »

xahrepap wrote: post #129
Arainach wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

I disagree with your premise that I shouldn’t express concern/opinions or point out problems with things that affect me simply because I’m not a trained expert in that thing.

"I think that the law should make this happen" without any thought for whether what you're proposing is possible or consistent with the laws of the universe is lazy.

This is similar to people who think we should just legislate secure encryption that has law enforcement backdoors. It's not possible, and people demanding it without an understanding of the area they're trying to regulate is lazy and insulting.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#148

Post by pessimizer »

shevy-java wrote: post #122

The US judges lack courage here. This means they help Google power through with its de-facto monopoly. This is, interestingly, also against capitalism, since now you no longer have a truly free market; no real competition. It is just one giant blob contorlling (almost) everything. Every blind one sees how Google controls WAY too much. Youtube is part of Google too. It is a cash cow that excludes competitors.

This isn't a matter of courage. They're doing what they want to do. Clinton's deregulation, especially of telecommunications, is what lead to our horrible present (he appointed this judge.) The judges that Obama appointed literally don't believe that antitrust should exist.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#149

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75
jordanb wrote: post #2

That "Lake America" is doing a hell of a lot of work for Google

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…

[dead]

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#150

Post by Arainach »

codewench wrote: post #127
Arainach wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

This is far from impossible, and happens all the time when, for example, a company spins off a subsidiary, or any number of other situations. It's hard isn't really a blocker, it's just saying 'this isn't convenient for us', which is why it would have to be forced by legislation.

In none of those two cases is what's being proposed "as easy as a merger" - especially since those companies get to take as much time as they want without any court or law-enforced timeline.
Post reply on HN