3 ms·
Is there a strategic business reason for this on Google's part other than a safer web is better for all? I don't doubt that a more secure web is better for ever
by shostack 11y ago
Is there a strategic business reason for this on Google's part other than a safer web is better for all? I don't doubt that a more secure web is better for everyone, I'm just more curious about the business drivers of this from their perspective.
The reason I'm wondering is because with AMP, there seems to be a clear strategic benefit from having all of that ad serving data running through them even if the advertisers and publishers are not using the DoubleClick stack or Google Analytics.
By bringing this to market from the standpoint of "improving" the mess publishers have brought upon themselves and speeding everything up, there's definitely a clear win for consumers here. That said, it leaves the door open for something similar to mobilepocolypse where Google updated their ranking signals on mobile to significantly favor mobile-friendly sites. I could easily see this going a similar route where it is a suggestion...until its not because if you don't implement it you'll lose rankings and revenue (and coincidentally feed Google all of your ad serving data in the process).
To be clear, I don't knock them for taking this approach, because if it works it is a very smart business move that will be beneficial to a lot of parties (not just Google). Just looking for other insights into the business strategy behind something like pushing for encryption, and AMP.
- jimrandomh 11y ago> Is there a strategic business reason for this on Google's part other than a safer web is better for all? The two common reasons for MitM are spying and inserting/replacing advertisements. The latter is stealing from Google, so they want to stop it before it grows too common.
- kuschku 11y agoWe can only wonder how long it will be until Google starts openly advertising and buying newspaper articles against that new ad-replacing browser.