←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 1 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.236s | source
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 #
nativeit ◴[17 Apr 25 15:42 UTC] No.43718488[source]▶
> Google isn’t a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term.

Aren’t they? It doesn’t sound like those two interpretations are mutually exclusive.

replies(1): >>43718618 #
spacebanana7 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43718618[source]▶
In the sense of the Sherman Act and similar legislation, monopolies exist in the sense of having exclusive control over some supply and raising prices against consumers.

This isn't what Google does, they generally lower prices for consumers and the competition is only a click away.

replies(4): >>43718732 #>>43718785 #>>43718793 #>>43718817 #
1. arrosenberg ◴[17 Apr 25 16:07 UTC] No.43718817[source]▶
The consumer of the ad platform is the advertiser, not the person clicking the ad. Major advertisers either play ball with Google or their ads don't get seen in search. Doesn't seem very different to Standard Oil controlling who got access to refineries.