3 ms·
Not such a strange combination in my view. As i see it, Google's customers are (for a large part) advertisers, and their product is the ability to get ads in fr
by hectormalot 9y ago
Not such a strange combination in my view. As i see it, Google's customers are (for a large part) advertisers, and their product is the ability to get ads in front of people (and to get people to click on them). In the economical sense you could even argue that Google users are 'suppliers' (of eyeballs and clicks)
Monopoly abuse can of course impact both suppliers as well as customers, but in this case it's probably more likely to only impact advertisers.
- As individuals we can switch to other search engines and browsers, so it's difficult to abuse a monopoly that way.
- However, as long as we keep using Google, advertisers might have no other option to get a reach this valuable. So Google could possibly exploit its position towards advertisers. (e.g. Favor its own ads over other ad networks).
Still looks like a net win for end users.
- nikkwong 9y agoI think you are missing the point. In my opinion it's a valid concern that this policy could be perceived as Google effectively pushing advertisers onto AdWords over other competing platforms
- amygdyl 9y agoForgive me another probably dumb question, but I don't mean to be obtuse or sarcastic at all, this is straight up: Even working on projects where we wanted to see online adverts, all ad networks were null routed at our border. We saw too much variety of risks in letting adverts traverse the lan. I'm (very) out of touch, but is it expected to view pages complete with advertising - unadulterated - in modern corporate setting? If so, is there good reason for this? Or am I missing relevant firewall tech?