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

211–220 of 510 posts

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

#211

Post by gregw134 »

guywithahat wrote: post #188

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 o…

There's really only one alternative, Bing. Virtually all the other western search engines are using the Bing api, and just slightly modify the results.

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

#212

Post by matthest »

First, let me say I'm glad the FTC is going after monopolies. True capitalism requires competition, not massive corporations.

That said, I feel like going after Big Tech is a massive misuse of resources. Not because it's not a monopoly (it is), but because there's a far more important monopoly that should be broken up: healthcare insurance.

Something like 7 corporations dominate 70% of the healthcare insurance market. The AMA had a study last year that concluded these insurance companies are charging monopoly pricing.

This is why Americans are paying astronomical prices for healthcare.

This is IMO by far the most pressing issue. Yet the FTC is seemingly spending all its time going after Big Tech, which has a comparatively lower impact on the quality of everyday Americans' lives.

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

#213

Post by toast0 »

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…

> 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.

There's certainly some tension between advertisers and publishers, in that advertiser would like to pay less and publishers would like to be paid more; but there's a lot of things an ad exchange can do that are good for both. Selecting ads to display that result in meaningful downstream conversion is good for both advertisers and publishers, because they'll both get paid and maybe something about the user getting something they want too.

Showing inappropriate and ineffective ads isn't great for the advertiser, and it might make the publisher money in the near term, but it can drive users away and tends not to be sustainable --- advertisers stop advertising in venues where they don't get results.

The value of a good ad exchange for the publisher and the advertiser is when it provides reasonable matching at a lower cost than the parties arranging advertising directly. Possibly some amount of assurances for both sides too --- the exchange should ensure the advertising code and destinations aren't going to compromise the publisher or their user and should ensure that the ads paid for are actually seen (to the degree possible). There's room for the exchange to profit from scale while still being lower cost than self-managed advertising.

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

#214

Post by hash872 »

ndiddy wrote: post #183
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.

An appellate court overturned & greatly limited the Microsoft decision and found that the judge had engaged in misconduct. An appellate court has nothing to do with the administration in charge at the time

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

#215

Post by secondcoming »

shkkmo wrote: post #109
fidotron wrote: post #96

Earlier 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.

Well yes, a higher winning bid will win the auction, unless it's a Private Marketplace auction.

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

#216

Post by smj-edison »

matthest wrote: post #212

First, let me say I'm glad the FTC is going after monopolies. True capitalism requires competition, not massive corporations. That said, I feel like going after Big Tech is a massive misuse of resources. Not because it's not a monopoly (it is), but because there's a far more important monopoly that should be broken up: healthcare insurance. Something like 7 corporations dominate 70% of the healthcare insurance market…

Or Visa and MasterCard...

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

#217

Post by foobarian »

Frieren wrote: post #202

This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back. Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market. Google does this…

If only Marx et al. knew that the end game of capitalism is communism! Would have probably slept much better at night.

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

#218

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

I'm confused how this is a monopoly, is it just the "if we define a market as Google ads, then Google has a monopoly problem"? Like defining iOS apps as a market (and somehow failed)?

Even if they play games with the auctions to keep the price up, at the end of the day X company is spending $5 per thousand clicks (or whatever) because they think it's worth it. Google can charge whatever they want, they run the platform, and it's not as if anyone is forced to use them.

I just don't see how you could in the same breath (how the government basically has) that the app store isn't a monopoly, but Google ads are. There's other ad companies, there is no other way to get an app on iOS.

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

#219

Post by foobarian »

Henchman21 wrote: post #99
ndiddy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original Google research paper by Brin and Page explicitly points out that a search engine financed by advertising is inherently anti-consumer: > Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for cell…

They were really smart guys. But smart guys don’t stand a chance in the face of all that money because it attracts people who know how to manipulate and control smart people . Smart people think they’re at the top of the totem pole. But really its those without ethics who sit at the top in our society. This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO.

> This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO.

Who's to say that this is not actually an evolutionary adaptation that allows the more ruthlessly led tribes to dominate their enemies? The stat about 1/25 of individuals being sociopaths is very telling

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

#220

Post by dabockster »

ndiddy wrote: post #183
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.

9/11 also happened during that time. Punishing the people that declared war upon the United States and destroyed the Twin Towers was the larger priority than breaking up one company.
Post reply on HN