| |
| ▲ | azemetre 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No but it would stop a single company from accumulating so much power. How you can argue such things are democratic are beyond me. There is nothing democratic about trillion dollar corporations that can ruin your business for refusing to play their game. | | |
| ▲ | fallingknife 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course it's not democratic, but what business ever is? There is no recognized right to access the advertising market on terms that you like. | | |
| ▲ | azemetre 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes there is no right to access an advertising market for Google, luckily the government agrees they are an illegal monopoly. Hopefully the ramifications are massive and company breaking. | | |
| ▲ | fallingknife 6 days ago | parent [-] | | If that happens this will do nothing for you. You will go through some other company where you can't talk to a human. | | |
| ▲ | azemetre 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s fine. As long as Google is broken up. I doubt your scenario will happen either, we all saw the hundreds of billions in investor value that occurred when AT&T was broken up. Breaking up Google will help everyone everywhere. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How can Google ruin your business? | | |
| ▲ | afavour 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've seen countless examples, e.g. a business that depends on online advertising gets its account suspended for incorrect reasons and there is literally no-one to reach at Google to get unsuspended. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition. | | |
| ▲ | Hasu 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money. I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you aren't prepared for the contingency where your counterparty bails, then yes, strategically you are failing to commoditize your product for the specific market. I think that's the basis of competition and free market economics. | | |
| ▲ | azemetre 6 days ago | parent [-] | | lol in what world is breaking paid user contracts and flagrantly getting away with it democratic? What does free market even mean in this context? That the big trillion dollar corporation can bury you in legal fees or remove your means of making money with no way to question the decision to prove it was done in error? This is insane. In no free society would this be just. They need to rightfully be broken up to ensure a free society for everyone, not just the cohort of people that own alphabet stocks. |
| |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Show me the contract where Google promises to bring web traffic to your business. |
| |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wow, all those fortune 500 companies whose infra entirely relies on 3rd party cloud infrastructure really must be in for a rude awakening. You should update them with your cunning analysis and inform them they are failures. | | |
| ▲ | efsavage 6 days ago | parent [-] | | The tone here isn't great but parent is more correct than not. This is why large companies don't use freebie services. They vet companies and partners, sign enterprise deals with support, SLAs, penalties, insurance, even bonds in some cases. It costs more, and it's hardly fun for most people, but it's all part of mitigating those risks. And it's not just tech, you see the same thing in non-tech industries like manufacturing. | | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It really isn't. Most businesses export core business functions to a third party in some way. This is just a snotty navel gazing post without much content that was responded to in kind. It's completely reasonable to use adsense to generate revenue and then be upset when they inevitably fuck you (and they will). It's not a chance to make a (completely uninformed) "ah, that's your own fault" comment, deflecting from scumbag practices google engages in. |
|
| |
| ▲ | CPLX 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party. Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in? | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent [-] | | No, but if he makes himself for example completely dependent on Monsanto, he shouldn't have a business, because he's in practice an employee with all the financial responsibilities of a business and none of the benefits of having a business. And none of the benefits of being an employee either. If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The only way it would be possible for him to become completely dependent on Monsanto is if that company is allowed to monopolize the product categories it sells. |
|
| |
| ▲ | afavour 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party? If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange? | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths. Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising. | | |
| ▲ | afavour 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m sorry, this perspective is absurd. I’m talking about a web site that shows ads. You’re suggesting they pivot to running off billboards? To creating TV shows? > What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly? I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Situation 1: You want to advertise your product or service. There are endless options outside of Google, including some options where the audience is counted in the hundreds of millions. Situation 2: You want to let others advertise their products or service in your space. There is an endless amount of companies which you can contact to make advertising deals. If you are too lazy to do that and want a third party to take care of it, then you can use Google as a middle man. But they are not obliged to do business with you. If the justice wants to go after Google, then they could (and should) prosecute Google (and Meta, and Twitter) for all the scam and malware ads they permit through their platform. That is billions of dollars of money laundering, and the CEOs should be imprisoned for this. For life. |
| |
| ▲ | CPLX 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising You’re commenting on an article with the title “Google is illegally monopolizing” which is reporting on the official verdict of a federal trial where Google was well represented and lost. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Monopoly is a real word with a real meaning. It doesn't matter what any kind of judge "decides", he does not have the authority to change the meanings of words according to his humors. Google might be doing anti-competitive or fraudulent actions, but let's use the proper terms in the proper places. Just like there is a difference between theft, burglary and robbery. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Monopoly, and the degree to which Google obtained a monopoly in the defined market examined in this case, is a legal question. So indeed it does matter what a judge decides after a trial where the evidence was examined and a conclusion reached. You might even argue that there’s no other definition less abitrary than this one, and it’s your understanding of what the word means that needs revision. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 own definition of a kilometer too? | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have a documented example of this? | | |
| ▲ | lupka 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is happening to me right now. I have run a site for 14 years that gets most of its traffic during the current two week stretch (it's related to NBA playoffs). All of a sudden, Adsense revenue has gone to basically zero. $90 of earnings from Sunday has even disappeared. There is no way to contact a real person at Google. You can just post in their dumb little forum and someone with no authority who doesn't even work there will reply to you with the same pointless info from their FAQ. If things go the way they have been, it seems like roughly $2k in revenue that's been pretty consistent for the last decade is going to be basically zero this year and there's nothing I can do about it. Thankfully, this is just a side project and I'll be fine, but its not hard to see how they could screw someone over who relied on it. | | |
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 6 days ago | parent [-] | | You could just go to a different ad network? At that amount of money you're not on the ad exchange. I don't see how this is ruining your business. A vendor is not playing well with you, just go to another one? | | |
| ▲ | lupka 6 days ago | parent [-] | | The key factor is the timing. During the primary week where this product generates income, Google completely screwed me over with no warning and no answers about what's going on. I am of course looking into alternatives, but that takes time, and 3 days from now it'll be too late. | | |
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You have no contract with Google though. You're literally siphoning on what is a really low-barrier, dare I say free service. They didn't screw you over. You chose to use them. You didn't pay them, they're paying you. If you don't like that arrangement, feel free to join a partner agency that can buy and sell ads for you on the ad exchange or go to a different ad network. Then, if they do something you don't like, you actually have very real power to compel them to do something. Remember, you get what you pay for. | | |
| ▲ | lupka 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Your contention is that someone can't screw you over unless you're paying them? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nickff 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not parent, but there are many examples of this; they’re often (but not always) unsympathetic cases due to the business model of the business which has been destroyed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Henchman21 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | By refusing to send you traffic that you rely upon for revenue? For reasons that likely wouldn’t even come to light in a lawsuit? |
|
| |
| ▲ | lupka 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you have a recommendation of an alternative that I can switch to easily and on short notice? The site I'm having trouble with gets 95% of its traffic for the year this week so I'm scrambling. | |
| ▲ | candiddevmike 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Make it so you either sell ad space or offer a marketplace for ad space sellers and advertisers. Don't allow a company to do both and you conveniently catch most social media players too... | |
| ▲ | dlachausse 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What other ad platforms do you recommend for monetizing mobile apps? Any that you’ve had good luck with? My research on this has come up with no good options for non-game apps. | | |
|
