8 ms·

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising com

• fredley 9y ago
  It probably is, but (as with MS and IE), by the time the courts finally give a verdict on the matter it will be too late for everyone else.
• 0xFFC 9y ago
  In HN community: Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.
  • mattjsmith 9y ago
    Microsoft wanted you to buy their software. Google gives it away for free. That's the only thing I've come up with that explains the enduring romance.
    • wef23f 9y ago
      Having a monopoly and abusing it are two different things. MS was in a position to abuse it because no one could switch to OSX or Linux without huge expense; hard to run win32 apps. Google is waaaay different. Alternatives that work just as well exist, and they exist for the same "free as in beer" to users as numerous alternatives. Are we to punish Google because people aren't switching from their from their products to alternatives?
    • musage 9y ago
      It's not "free", they give it away to sell ads. With Microsoft, before the constant update stuff, you could at least say you buy version X of product Y and then you have that, like some tool in a tool shed. Now that's a shifting mess of attached strings, too, but Google was never anything but that.
• saas_co_de 9y ago
  Exactly. I don't see how this can possibly not be considered illegal anti-competitive behavior. Their goals are not really anti-competitive. The point of this feature is to stop the bleed from ad blocking extensions and alternative browsers which are the real threat to their business. But there is no way for them to do this that doesn't end up looking really bad. Probably they know it will get shut down eventually, but it will take years to happen, so worth it.
  • fortythirteen 9y ago
    > Their goals are not really anti-competitive One could make the argument that by putting a web browser in Windows, Microsoft was only providing a common service to their default OS. The problem here is that Google makes almost all its revenue from the very medium that they are now actively blocking from other providers.
    • saas_co_de 9y ago
      The point I am making is that they are not doing this to freeze out competitors. They have already won. They don't have any meaningful competition to worry about. The threat is ad blocking and alternative browsers. That doesn't change the anticompetitive nature of their behavior but it does explain the motivation.
      • mrguyorama 9y ago
        Then I'm really glad sane anti-compete and trust-busting laws wouldn't care about the motivation. This is using large scale marketshare in one market to effect a tangible and monetary benefit in another market.
  • adwhit 9y ago
    I think this is a critical point. I bet that Google has reams of internal research on the use of ad-blockers. I am further willing to bet they have discovered the following: 1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising 2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google! 3) Once they have used an ad-blocker, users are very resistant to browsing the web without one 4) Users who ad-block are among the most educated and tech-savvy, and as such are a valuable demographic to miss out on 5) Ad-block use is growing steadily with no signs of slowing So, Google's provocative and somewhat desperate move is an attempt to gain control of ad-blocking before it becomes a serious threat to their business, even in the face of serious backlash. I hope they fail.
• jicks 9y ago
  According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive? BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers. I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction. [0] https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/
  • jwilk 9y ago
    From the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
    • pc86 9y ago
      Saying "According to the article" is not insinuating someone didn't read it. It's actually very close to "The article mentions that" which is the suggested phrase in your very quote.
      • exhilaration 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure GP edited their comment.
      • jicks 9y ago
        I edited my comment to follow the guidelines.
        • pc86 9y ago
          Thank you for the clarification :) Hopefully jwilk edits their comment accordingly.
          • jwilk 9y ago
• ajnin 9y ago
  Especially that part : > it will be blocking all ads from sites where even one ad displayed on the site doesn’t meet those standards, even if the rest are technically in compliance. Which can be interpreted as : "only run Google ads, if you use other platforms and we don't like even one of their ads we will block all your ad revenue."
  • sly010 9y ago
    We just need a browser extension to _install_ a single non compliant ad on every page and let chrome do the rest :) Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.
    • notyourday 9y ago
      This is brilliant
    • user5994461 9y ago
      It's always been pretty fragmented by browser. The different only affect some edge case around tracking, don't really mind breaking evil websites. It's good on long term. The infestation of ad is really really bad. My mother and my girlfriend can hardly browse the web anymore.
      • epicide 9y ago
        There's a huge but subtle difference between the prevalence of ad blockers vs an ad blocker that is both backed by an ad company and built into the browser (presumably with no way to turn it off). We've seen examples of ad blockers becoming problematic when they have too much market share (AdBlock Plus).
        • user5994461 9y ago
          AdBlock is fine except for not blocking google top links and amazon recommendation. It's still blocking everything else, which is a HUGE LOT.
• jhasse 9y ago
  largest market share != monopoly
• paulmd 9y ago
  Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in Google's own product if you disagree with their stance. It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.
  • kbwt 9y ago
    It's pre-installed. Their built-in adblocker will instantly get a huge market share, on the back of Chrome. There's no parallel to that with physical products.
  • juliangoldsmith 9y ago
    Anti-competitive behavior isn't necessarily monopolistic. Google is leveraging Chrome's dominant market position to (potentially) harm their competitors in an unrelated market. You were always able to install Firefox or Chrome on Windows, but Microsoft was fined for using their dominant market position (Windows) to push a product in an unrelated market (web browsers).
  • fortythirteen 9y ago
    And I used IE to download Netscape. Didn't stop that being anti-competitive. It's about what the average user is aware of. Google just decided to have the majority of computer and smartphone users be opted in to an ad blocker that, of course, won't block Google ads.
  • ksk 9y ago
    Nobody was blocking people from installing Netscape on windows PCs AFAIK.
  • colanderman 9y ago
    Ad companies don't get to choose which browser their ads are viewed with. Google is abusing their position as the market leader in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.
• d0lph 9y ago
  Although that was the central point, they did a lot more than just default the browser. IMO I don't think bundling a browser in and of itself is anti competitive. "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." [1] "Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified" [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
• ralmidani 9y ago
  The only thing that has changed since the 90s is antitrust enforcement, and even then the DOJ did not go nearly as far as they could have with Microsoft.
• wdr1 9y ago
  Google isn't setting the standard, nor are Google Ads immune from being blocked. The Microsoft comparison doesn't apply at all. The standard is defined here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/ The committe membership is defined her: https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/ Note it does include Google, as well as Microsoft, Facebook, the Washington Post, Unilever & others. Far from a "Google" thing, this seems an attempt for an industry to police itself. Given the ad experiences I've seen on many sites, if anything it's overdue.
  • nugget 9y ago
    As someone familiar with how this group came into being, I can tell you that Google is very much in the driver's seat. I don't fault them for that and it's probably unavoidable - but it's worth at least being transparent about it on a forum like this.
• wef23f 9y ago
  Microsoft had a monopoly at a lower level in the stack. When all the software you rely on is win32, it's hard to move to Linux or OSX. People can dump Chrome tomorrow for at least 4 fully-featured alternatives - Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera - which effectively support all the features of the web Chrome does.