501–510 of 510 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue. This is already the case for most newspapers. Helas, most users prefer the free but ad-ridled version. > Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and vi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll be charitable, what is your actual argument? In case you didn’t see, the user has already claimed to believe the entire comment chain is irrelevant, so your a bit late.
They specifically said their original point still stands, and I agree with them. > what is your actual argument Was it not clear? Okay I can try again. When advertisers claim that relevant ads are something people want, that's very far from being universally true. Lots of people don't want that. Don't let them use that unsupported claim to support tracking. Note that the desires of advertisers are not part of this pa…
Anyone can have an unlimited number of irrelevant opinions that they believe to possess this or that attribute, they may even genuinely believe so, yet it doesn’t amount to anything.
Even if the claimed argument was flawless… it seems strange to put a non sequitor at the beginning.
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 platfo…
Um, no, the market is obviously not defined as “google ads.” You could bother to do one single search (maybe even with google!) before spewing nonsense. Specifically, part of the case found google liable for “unlawfully [tying] its publisher ad server and ad exchange” in violation of the Sherman antitrust act. Basically, google has locked down both the supply side (sites with space the sell for ads) and demand side (…
>Two years ago google lost an antitrust case brought by epic games about their android store practices:
It's wild this ever happened when their competitor literally doesn't allow third party apps installed in any way.
>supply side (sites with space the sell for ads) and demand side (market of advertisers bidding on that space) so it can play both sides - and (crucially!) it has integrated them so as to lock in both advertisers and publishers.
You could argue every grocery store does this, they provide the 'supply side' (shelving), brands negotiate for both shelf space and shelf positioning. There's not a super obvious bidding market like Google setup, though ironically Google's method actually makes it easier for smaller companies to participate. Getting a small item in a major grocery store chain is a major move that many companies simply can't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully HN is finally at a stage people can come out and talk about Ad tech without being harassed or attacked. Could you explain more on this. What do you think makes Google Ad or DoubleClick so special? And >What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative. Correct me if I am wrong, you are suggesting even if publisher only earns 30% of the revenue they still earn more than on othe…
I am on the purchasing side. Google is very efficient when delivering traffic especially their Max Performance product. Probably the cheapest of all platforms. So they are serving relevant ads to users who engage with the ads. This is win for me and I assume also a win for publishers who get revenue due to higher engagement. Also users should benefit because they are getting relevant ads. Linear tv is notorious for n…
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…
> Sure, you could just pay $5,000 a month to a website to show a banner ad directly, but a larger % of your money would be wasted How do you know that the waste is higher with the banner ad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, you could just pay $5,000 a month to a website to show a banner ad directly, but a larger % of your money would be wasted How do you know that the waste is higher with the banner ad?
Because the banner ad generates less revenue than $5,000 worth of advertising spent on something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is simply appeal to authority. The truth is still the truth no matter what men do or decide. If the judge calls Google a monopoly in advertising, he is obviously wrong, and nobody has any duty to pretend that he is right. Both you and I can think for ourselves.
Yes my argument is an appeal to authority. That’s the right approach to answering a legal question. An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question. Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are. Do you have your o…
You and me however, are not involved in any way, and do not have to respect anything this ignorant judge says or decides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes my argument is an appeal to authority. That’s the right approach to answering a legal question. An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question. Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are. Do you have your o…
Who are the persons who has to respect the judge (the authority) when he is flagrantly wrong in his decision? The justice system has to respect that decision. Google and the other involved parties have to respect that decision. You and me however, are not involved in any way, and do not have to respect anything this ignorant judge says or decides.
It's also not one party, it's successive Democratic and Republican administrations that prosecuted the cases.
It's also not just Federal, the most recent victory was also prosecuted by the Attorneys General of 17 separate states, also from a mix of political parties.
Google is a monopoly engaged in anti-competitive actions that have severely harmed the markets it participates in. That's a demonstrated fact at this point.
You're welcome to advocate for a redefinition of the words we're using here, or just to legalize monopoly power, which presumably is a political goal you have and would have the effect of causing judges to reach different outcomes based on this new law, but there's no value in arguing with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? I don't see any mention of that here: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...
Search "chili recipes" on bing. Now search kagi or any other alternative search engine. They all show the exact same recipes because they're using the bing API.