5 ms·

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than vi

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than violently shoving as many ads as possible into their users faces as fast as possible. It's also pretty clear that they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy over chasing short-term cash.

yomly 10y ago
Bit like how Bezos said if something is going to canniblize your business, you may as well be the one doing it
- _jal 10y ago
  Pretty sure that line predates anyone paying attention to Bezos. It is a natural implication of the disruption model of product design, and was discussed heavily in terms of changes in the computer industry before the web existed, let alone Amazon.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    None of that changes the usefulness or correctness of the idea. If a new tech comes along that destroys your business, you should invest in that tech or you risk becoming blockbuster while Netflix rises. If Blockbuster had taken its opportunity to buy netflix or build a competitor it would still be in business today. Same thing with all those oil companies becoming energy companies. Solar and wind are displacing coal and oil, and all the big energy companies are in on it. They don't look at risk of going under soon.
tyingq 10y ago
It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't. Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?
- ouid 10y ago
  If you request it, it's not an ad. I think that's a pretty reasonable line to draw.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    By "request it", you mean typing something into the search box and hitting enter? That would mean everything on the current search results is not an ad, right?
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    I didn't request the ad, I requested the page. If you put ads on page e.g. Amazon product that relates to your content with affiliate link, that's fair and acceptable and appreciated. If you put an ad that your audience may be interested in, unrelated to your content e.g. content creator reviewing restaurants also advertises for gyms in my area. It is fair and tolerated. If you outsource what ad gets shown to me, leaving me at mercy of brokers and exchanges who target me with ads based on my entire profile, ads not just related to content that I requested, but ads created based on what the ad broker/exchange know about me personally. Seeing ads for athletes foot remedy that I searched for last week, when I am looking at camera reviews is not acceptable and makes me feel totally ethical when I use ad-blockers. You, the content host, is basically luring me in with promise of content and pulling bait and switch by bombarding ads on me, things like splitting content into bite size pieces across 20 pages to convert single request into 20 impressions is waste of my time, I don't have to deal with it and will use ad-blockers without any guilt on such sites. People have trained their eyes to not register the ads, e.g. mobile ads that scroll over the page. This is similar to browsing a print magazine and not registering ads at all consciously. The advertisers declared war on people, looking at them as crop to be harvested. Well, the people have an opinion about this and I am totally fine with the battle raging on.
  - ajnin 10y ago
    That definition would make sense only if there was a way to explicitly tell that you request ads or promoted content of some sort, most of the time you don't, you type a search query in Google's text box or click on a link to some web page, that's all. The extra content gets bundled and is loaded without asking.
PaulHoule 10y ago
I think it is more about destroying the competition and also that they believe that there will be no antitrust enforcement whatseoever in the Trump Administration.
- mseebach 10y ago
  Yeah, because Google only does business in the US, and there's no political capital to be reaped anywhere in the world from standing up to rich American firms, especially when such standing up can at the same time be construed as standing up to the Trump administration. Also, Google has specifically and most certainly never been slapped around by the European Union for anticompetitive practices, so there's nothing to worry about there.
_jal 10y ago
> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google FIFY. I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached. The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. The ad blocker-makers are tiny, fragmented and unfortunately muddled with some crappy products that sell whitelist entries; this is a good time for Google to try to knife them, before a market leader emerges.
- mseebach 10y ago
  I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
  - cat199 10y ago
    > what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
    - greenshackle2 10y ago
      Or that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.
      - sdflkd 10y ago
khana 10y ago
That, my friend, is the money shot. Shrewdness that only #corporate can exude.
infogulch 10y ago
> they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy Except when it comes to chat/text communication. In that case they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

yomly 10y ago

Bit like how Bezos said if something is going to canniblize your business, you may as well be the one doing it

_jal 10y ago
Pretty sure that line predates anyone paying attention to Bezos. It is a natural implication of the disruption model of product design, and was discussed heavily in terms of changes in the computer industry before the web existed, let alone Amazon.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  None of that changes the usefulness or correctness of the idea. If a new tech comes along that destroys your business, you should invest in that tech or you risk becoming blockbuster while Netflix rises. If Blockbuster had taken its opportunity to buy netflix or build a competitor it would still be in business today. Same thing with all those oil companies becoming energy companies. Solar and wind are displacing coal and oil, and all the big energy companies are in on it. They don't look at risk of going under soon.

tyingq 10y ago

It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't. Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?

ouid 10y ago
If you request it, it's not an ad. I think that's a pretty reasonable line to draw.
- tyingq 10y ago
  By "request it", you mean typing something into the search box and hitting enter? That would mean everything on the current search results is not an ad, right?
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  I didn't request the ad, I requested the page. If you put ads on page e.g. Amazon product that relates to your content with affiliate link, that's fair and acceptable and appreciated. If you put an ad that your audience may be interested in, unrelated to your content e.g. content creator reviewing restaurants also advertises for gyms in my area. It is fair and tolerated. If you outsource what ad gets shown to me, leaving me at mercy of brokers and exchanges who target me with ads based on my entire profile, ads not just related to content that I requested, but ads created based on what the ad broker/exchange know about me personally. Seeing ads for athletes foot remedy that I searched for last week, when I am looking at camera reviews is not acceptable and makes me feel totally ethical when I use ad-blockers. You, the content host, is basically luring me in with promise of content and pulling bait and switch by bombarding ads on me, things like splitting content into bite size pieces across 20 pages to convert single request into 20 impressions is waste of my time, I don't have to deal with it and will use ad-blockers without any guilt on such sites. People have trained their eyes to not register the ads, e.g. mobile ads that scroll over the page. This is similar to browsing a print magazine and not registering ads at all consciously. The advertisers declared war on people, looking at them as crop to be harvested. Well, the people have an opinion about this and I am totally fine with the battle raging on.
- ajnin 10y ago
  That definition would make sense only if there was a way to explicitly tell that you request ads or promoted content of some sort, most of the time you don't, you type a search query in Google's text box or click on a link to some web page, that's all. The extra content gets bundled and is loaded without asking.

PaulHoule 10y ago

I think it is more about destroying the competition and also that they believe that there will be no antitrust enforcement whatseoever in the Trump Administration.

mseebach 10y ago
Yeah, because Google only does business in the US, and there's no political capital to be reaped anywhere in the world from standing up to rich American firms, especially when such standing up can at the same time be construed as standing up to the Trump administration. Also, Google has specifically and most certainly never been slapped around by the European Union for anticompetitive practices, so there's nothing to worry about there.

_jal 10y ago

> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google FIFY. I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached. The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. The ad blocker-makers are tiny, fragmented and unfortunately muddled with some crappy products that sell whitelist entries; this is a good time for Google to try to knife them, before a market leader emerges.

mseebach 10y ago
I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
- cat199 10y ago
  > what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    Or that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.
    - sdflkd 10y ago

khana 10y ago

That, my friend, is the money shot. Shrewdness that only #corporate can exude.

infogulch 10y ago

> they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy Except when it comes to chat/text communication. In that case they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.