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

381–390 of 510 posts

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

#381

Post by precommunicator »

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 you look at the actual decision, Google court cases are quoted there many times (Search, Play etc.) as the precedent of e.g. what monopoly is.

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

#382

Post by TZubiri »

crowcroft wrote: post #107
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.

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…

The argument here being that the fee is too high? I don't think prices being too high is a strong argument of the existence of a monopoly, but it might be of the exploitation of one.

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

#383

Post by econ »

crowcroft wrote: post #170
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…

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/ub…

I was most impressed by a Google Ad that showed up if you searched for the Dutch tax office. It would only show the name "Tax office" with a free to call phone number under it. Only the hyperlink pointed at a paid number 90 cent per minute.

Depending on how busy it is or how exotic your question one can easily be on hold for an hour or two. Then you get the bill and pay 54 euro per hour.

Google thought this was a great way to make money. The ad ran forever.

Makes you wonder which other phone numbers they highjacked.

Would they provide the same service if I copy some website?

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

#384

Post by kaashif »

CPLX wrote: post #132
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 The fact that we actually were enforcing antitrust at the time absolutely prevented MS from getting a strangehold on the consumer internet as it was taking off. It's the reason you're posting on this forum in the first place, as it was essential to the success of tech startups in the first dot-com era. Then we stopped enforcing antitrust law…

If breaking Google up would be good for Google shareholders, surely the shareholders would have made it happen already, right?

Unless the argument is that shareholders don't know what's good for them.

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

#386

Post by fsckboy »

tdb7893 wrote: post #361
foobarian wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not to be overly pedantic but what he described isn't communism, monopolistic private corporation is pretty much the exact opposite of communism.

price discovery through invisible hand, competitive markets are the the opposite of communism. crony capitalist monopolies are more like fascism vs communism

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

#387

Post by dragonwriter »

fsckboy wrote: post #386
tdb7893 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be overly pedantic but what he described isn't communism, monopolistic private corporation is pretty much the exact opposite of communism.

price discovery through invisible hand, competitive markets are the the opposite of communism. crony capitalist monopolies are more like fascism vs communism

“Crony capitalist monopolies” are a prominent feature of the real world system for which socialist critics coined the name “capitalism”.

They do have a lot to do with “Communism” if by that you mean Leninism and its derivatives, all of which are state-capitalist systems in practice (in theory as a transitional developmental phase to socialism, but few ever transitioned out except a few like China that transitioned to something like the fascist form of corporatism, which is in many ways, as an economic system divorced from the rest of fascism, a midway point between private capitalism and state capitalism.)

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

#388

Post by sidcool »

TriangleEdge wrote: post #385

I think this decision would have been impactful 10 years ago. Why did the government wait until Google started becoming irrelevant?

Google becoming irrelevant is the most naive take in technology. It's more if wishful thinking. Google is equally, if not more relevant today. Their AI models are currently one of the best in the world. They still have a commanding search market share. YouTube and Android rule in most countries in terms of number of users. Chrome is the leading browser. Google maps is omnipresent. Gmail is the biggest email service online. Their revenues are steady.

They are not doing well with certain areas like social, GCP, messaging, enterprise etc. But it's not an existential threat.

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

#389

Post by CPLX »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #297
CPLX wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is not anti-competitive. While you're welcome to this opinion you might want to address the fact that Google has recently lost THREE separate trials, each of which individually and separately produced a verdict that they are, in fact, in violation of laws against unfair competition.

You mean the three trials which are definitely not politically motivated, right?

Considering the cases were prosecuted in collaboration across both the Biden and Trump administrations, and decided by longstanding federal judges, then, no, these are not accurately characterized as politically motivated except insofar as all government actions have a nexus to politics by definition.

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

#390

Post by astrange »

shadowgovt wrote: post #351
milesrout wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are wealthier than we have ever been so I fail to see how capitalism has made us poor. Poor compared to what? The past when we were poorer?

You can hide a lot of bad experiences behind averaging over 300+ million people. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-... ... And, to be blunt, if things are better than ever, why is the US sliding straight into fascism?

Mostly because of covid trauma causing people to forget who was president in 2020.
Post reply on HN