←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 5 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
megaman821 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43718617[source]▶
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.
replies(19): >>43718672 #>>43718693 #>>43718751 #>>43718794 #>>43718938 #>>43719033 #>>43719196 #>>43719219 #>>43719246 #>>43719395 #>>43719429 #>>43719463 #>>43720402 #>>43720461 #>>43720510 #>>43721628 #>>43722559 #>>43723479 #>>43724604 #
crowcroft ◴[17 Apr 25 16:51 UTC] No.43719395[source]▶
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://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/02/15/how-muc...

replies(4): >>43719494 #>>43719973 #>>43720688 #>>43724612 #
aiauthoritydev ◴[17 Apr 25 17:39 UTC] No.43719973[source]▶
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 equivalents but absolutely no one comes close to Google in generating top dollars for publishers. I am saying this after working for 10+ years competing against Google.

replies(11): >>43720020 #>>43720098 #>>43720244 #>>43720256 #>>43720282 #>>43720308 #>>43721019 #>>43721231 #>>43721424 #>>43725204 #>>43725868 #
ksec ◴[17 Apr 25 18:00 UTC] No.43720244[source]▶
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 other alternative platform?

replies(2): >>43721356 #>>43722768 #
adrr ◴[17 Apr 25 19:50 UTC] No.43721356[source]▶
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 non relevant ads like all the drug ads for conditions you don’t have. If you’re forced to see ads, wouldn’t you want ads that are relevant?

replies(8): >>43721452 #>>43721918 #>>43722860 #>>43722923 #>>43723499 #>>43723634 #>>43727619 #>>43757915 #
1. thfuran ◴[17 Apr 25 23:50 UTC] No.43723499[source]▶
I choose option three in the false dichotomy: Render it illegal to attempt to force me to see ads.
replies(1): >>43724189 #
2. adrr ◴[18 Apr 25 01:57 UTC] No.43724189[source]▶
You can always pay for service. Kagi, YouTube Premium, Reddit Premium, Spotify Premium, ProtonMail etc. Platforms needs money to run.
replies(3): >>43724914 #>>43725238 #>>43727876 #
3. ksec ◴[18 Apr 25 04:06 UTC] No.43724914[source]▶
Thank You for saying this out now. Again we are finally back to may be Pre 2014 HN where we can talk a little about business and money.
4. udev4096 ◴[18 Apr 25 05:14 UTC] No.43725238[source]▶
Ads are not only annoying but play an extremely crucial part on tracking you across the web. People defending google cannot seem to wrap their mind around the fact that it's one of the most lucrative way to carry out mass surveillance at scale. Paying for the service only partly avoids the service to stop giving you ads. What about the insane amount of telemetry they collect? It's a lost cause
5. thfuran ◴[18 Apr 25 13:28 UTC] No.43727876[source]▶
Yes, platforms need money. So why should a platform not charging its users be permitted? It's dumping. It's anti-competitive behavior unfairly disadvantaging any other business that wants to enter the market the ad platform is pretending to be in. It also creates a ton of perverse incentives.