Most active commenters
  • DrillShopper(4)
  • spacebanana7(3)

←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 15 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.684s | source | bottom
Show context
spacebanana7 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:37 UTC] No.43718419[source]▶
Google isn't a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Its ad revenue is big because it occupies so much user attention. I actually think many suggested remedies would actually make Google more profitable.

For example, prohibiting Apple-Style search deals would mean that Google gets a smaller amount of traffic, but that traffic would come with zero cost. That could end up being more profitable. A similar argument applies to Chrome or any other customer acquisition vehicle.

The real barriers to making Google competitive are fixable but require a different sort of regulation outside of antitrust.

replies(3): >>43718485 #>>43718488 #>>43720320 #
1. yoshicoder ◴[17 Apr 25 15:41 UTC] No.43718485[source]▶
I mean it wouldn't make sense for it to be more profitable for google if there were no search deals, since otherwise they would just cancel the deal themselves. Clearly they see long term value in blocking out competition even at that high of a price
replies(3): >>43718555 #>>43718563 #>>43718575 #
2. spacebanana7 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:46 UTC] No.43718555[source]▶
Google can't cancel it right now because then otherwise Bing would bid for it. Antitrust rules which prevented anyone from bidding it would protect against this.

A historical parallel is when tobacco advertising was banned, and cigarette companies because more profitable. Advertising greatly affected which cigarettes people smoked but had a smaller (though still real) impact on whether they smoked. So the companies kept most of the revenue with none of the advertising cost.

replies(2): >>43718685 #>>43718799 #
3. elpool2 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:47 UTC] No.43718563[source]▶
It would make sense if Apple decided to still have Google be their default, even without the payment. Not sure how likely that is though.
4. blasphemers ◴[17 Apr 25 15:48 UTC] No.43718575[source]▶
It depends on the what the browsers end up doing. If they just surface a select your search engine dialog during set up, most people will just select google and nothing will have changed besides the cost. If they set a non-google search engine by default, they will lose ad revenue because of people not bothering to change the default.
replies(1): >>43718694 #
5. chii ◴[17 Apr 25 15:56 UTC] No.43718685[source]▶
> Antitrust rules which prevented anyone from bidding it would protect against this.

why would anti-trust rules prevent _anyone_ from bidding? Apple can sell their browser search, just like mozilla can sell firefox search. And anyone with a browser could do the same. Unless the anti-trust rules somehow become so overarching that the selling of space for advertising becomes illegal?

replies(2): >>43718784 #>>43719029 #
6. abirch ◴[17 Apr 25 15:57 UTC] No.43718694[source]▶
Depends on the default search engine. Many people went of their way to download a web browser that wasn't Internet Explorer for many years even though IE was the default.

If the default search were randomly assigned and Google investors were nefarious the investors (not Alphabet) could simply help launch 30 different subpar search engines. Then if a user landed on one of those as a default search engine: the user would switch to Google.

replies(1): >>43718924 #
7. arrosenberg ◴[17 Apr 25 16:05 UTC] No.43718784{3}[source]▶
I think it would be a good move to prevent browser deals. There is no reality in which the winner is Firefox, Kagi or DDG - it will always be Google or Bing. That's clearly anticompetitive - it locks the other browsers out of a major share of the market.
replies(1): >>43718814 #
8. DrillShopper ◴[17 Apr 25 16:06 UTC] No.43718799[source]▶
The real reason that tobacco advertising ended on television is the fairness doctrine.

After the FCC agreed that the fairness doctrine applied here every station was required to run one PSA for every 10 tobacco ads. The industry, realizing that nobody would stop advertising without being forced to, actually lobbied Congress for the passage of the law banning it. One reason total revenue went up was that stations were no longer required to run anti-smoking PSAs.

9. DrillShopper ◴[17 Apr 25 16:07 UTC] No.43718814{4}[source]▶
If you're arguing we should split Chrome development from Google then I'm 100% with you there.
replies(2): >>43718850 #>>43719028 #
10. arrosenberg ◴[17 Apr 25 16:10 UTC] No.43718850{5}[source]▶
Sure, but I'm arguing Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell "default browser" status on iOS. Show the customer a randomized list and let them choose. Google will probably still dominate, but it won't be because they paid to.
replies(1): >>43727877 #
11. datadrivenangel ◴[17 Apr 25 16:15 UTC] No.43718924{3}[source]▶
It would be great to separate the search index/engine from the ads and allow other search portals to pay for the index and choose how to monetize.

If google actually went about organizing the worlds information, that would be wonderful.

12. staunton ◴[17 Apr 25 16:22 UTC] No.43719028{5}[source]▶
Google could argue (correctly?) that if split, Chrome couldn't exist without browser deals?
replies(1): >>43722570 #
13. spacebanana7 ◴[17 Apr 25 16:22 UTC] No.43719029{3}[source]▶
You highlight some genuine points of difficulty for antitrust enforcers.

If the rules were targeted at Google only then Google's lawyers would argue this is unequal application of the law. Even if the courts rejected Google's argument there'd be a real risk end up with exactly the same situation but with Bing in a couple of years time as they become the default search on every device / browser.

If "pay for default" deals were banned altogether then Firefox might be seriously hurt, which isn't exactly good for the competitive tech ecosystem.

14. DrillShopper ◴[17 Apr 25 21:44 UTC] No.43722570{6}[source]▶
That's belied by the fact that Chromium exists, and I speculate they spun up Chromium in case they were ordered to break up.

The engine is also used in several other web browsers, many of which do not have the clout to survive solely on ads. Yet another reason Google claiming this is absurd.

15. DrillShopper ◴[18 Apr 25 13:28 UTC] No.43727877{6}[source]▶
Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to do that? They're not a monopolist adjudicated to have been using their market power to cause harm to others.

Context is important.