Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by PaulHoule » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

tonymet wrote: post #122

spamizbad wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To the contrary AT&T proved itself incapable of delivering end-to-end innovation. Sure it lowered the cost of intercity links for long-distance calls dramatically but couldn’t pass savings on to the consumer. Picturephone was a technical tour de force but demonstrated AT&T couldn’t deliver new services other than little things like call waiting and caller id.

Notably high profits from long-distance dialup calls kept online services stuck at 2400 bps for most of the 1980s. Futurists circa 1960-1970 thought online services were going to become widespread about 15 years than they really did and AT&T was the #1 thing to blame.

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

#182

Post by adrr » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #144

adrr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never said it was illegal. Hence my phrasing monopoly and not an illegal monopoly aka monopoly that abuses their position. But was defines a monopoly? 26% of market doesn't sound like a monopoly to me looking at past antitrust actions. Which why i ask my question, is this lowest percentage of the market for antitrust action?

In the global search engine market, Google maintains a dominant position. In January 2025, its market share was approximately 89.62% across all devices, and 93.89% in the mobile search market. While Bing, Yandex, and Yahoo! hold a smaller share of the market, Google continues to be the leading search engine.

What does search have to do with this? This is on their display ads.

You can read decision here. No mention of search.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.53...

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

#183

Post by ndiddy » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:19 PM UTC

tonymet wrote: 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.

> Look at the hundreds of millions wasted on the Windows / IE monopoly trial.

That trial found Microsoft guilty of antitrust practices and ordered the company to be broken up. What caused it to be a waste of time was that Microsoft appealed the decision, which bought them enough time that the 2000 election happened and the Bush DoJ decided to give them a slap on the wrist instead of continuing to pursue a breakup.

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

#184

Post by afavour » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #121

afavour wrote: 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.

Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party?

If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?

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

#185

Post by glitchc » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #38

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.

Decoupling the advertising marketplace from the platform would be a huge win for consumers. It would also help Google focus on products again instead of constantly bowing to the almighty ad dollar.

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

#186

Post by bdcravens » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

whoknowsidont wrote: post #79

bdcravens wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business apps division is probably a billion dollar business. Their cloud generates a couple of billions in profit each year. Besides that, I don't think giving away anything for free justifies any activity. If we're trying to compare to Microsoft, remember that Internet Explorer was free, and modern day Microsoft literally owns Github.

Revenue is not really a consideration when talking about _illegal_ monopolies. That is an incorrect way to view this. It's about anti-competitive practices. That's what the laws are about (and the reason for their existence). Google is not anti-competitive. At no point am I forced or even "guided" into doing business with Google, at any stage, in any department. There are 8 billion other ad-networks out there, and th…

> Internet Explorer was not free. You needed Windows. And if you had Windows you HAD IE, regardless of whether you wanted it or not, or even tried to remove it.

Can you use Gmail, Google Drive, Chrome sync etc and opt out of allowing Google to use any of your data for advertising services?

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

#187

Post by tlb » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:28 PM UTC

tmtvl wrote: post #178

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (Open)RTB system makes things more competitive and reduces costs for advertisers by making unsold inventory available to an automated marketplace while also increasing revenue for smaller publishers who otherwise wouldn't have been able to create first party relationships with advertisers. The middlemen are various identity providers and other tracking/data enrichment services, as well as third party exchanges, D…

> * Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads) > * Geo providers who tell the bidders where the User's location is so that they can target locally-focused advertisements to them > * User intent plugins, "abandoned cart" retargeting, product recommendation providers, etc. who look at user interaction events and build profiles of people who can be…

Geotargeting of ads is essential for local businesses. Banning it would make advertising only practical for national brands. It would be bad for the world if only national brands could advertise.

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

#188

Post by guywithahat » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:29 PM UTC

I've always been somewhat opposed to this, because there's already like 10 different search alternatives, and now AI is taking over, which will further weaken their grip.

Google is on top because they do the best job; I use Yandex primarily, but I switch back to google all the time for coding related questions. In terms of advertising, there's billions of views on Facebook/Instagram/X to get, in addition to all the other sites. I get they're a big player, but I worry we're just beating Google because they're down, not because it's good for the consumer.

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

#189

Post by crowcroft » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:29 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #38

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.

And sometimes they're the publisher as well!

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

#190

Post by bdcravens » Thu, Apr 17, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #104

bdcravens wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a business model problem then. Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point, which underscores the point of an unfair monopoly. Google isn't operating at a loss in all products. About 12% of revenue is cloud; about 12% is everything else. Their business apps is estimated to be a billion-dollar business on its own. Cloud is profitable, and earns probably 1.5-3 b…

> Any other business burying money into various endeavors would have to cut losses at some point Google has a massive graveyard full of killed projects, they are cutting their losses, few companies cut as much as they do: https://killedbygoogle.com/

While at first glance this may disprove the idea that they don't cut losses, it actually furthers the argument that advertising revenue creates perverted incentives, since they blew massive amounts of money on projects with no financial value. Moreover, while those products are dead, the data gained likely made its way into the advertising information flow. If you were a competitor to one of those dead products, or an advertising company that has to carefully evaluate the cost effectiveness of an auxiliary product, Google has an "unfair" advantage over you.