4 ms·

The part that I don't get is: why would end users switch their search engine to an inferior one just because advertisers are harmed by Googles monopoly? As a us

by jupp0r 6y ago

The part that I don't get is: why would end users switch their search engine to an inferior one just because advertisers are harmed by Googles monopoly? As a user, I like ads being super expensive because that means there will be fewer of them.

markeg 6y ago
Maybe because most end users are also consumers of other products (e.g., foods, housing, electronics) who eventually pay for ads via purchases?
ineedasername 6y ago
There don't actually seem to be fewer adds though. In face, more and more real estate seems devoted to then. And their auction system would result in the same number of adds not matter the price because there will always be a highest bidder, and unless there are fewer bidders that ad placements, all placements will be filled. That will pretty much always be the case for and keywords of even moderate popularity/demand.
- jupp0r 6y ago
  Google is alleged in the lawsuit to artificially inflate prices.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Yes, I'm saying that I don't think that reduces the number of adds actually displayed though. Not unless there are fewer buyer for spaces than there are spaces, and any moderately popular keyword will have ample demand. That doesn't mean Google is not a a monopoly, but I was just responding to the part of the comment that indicated more expensive adds would mean fewer adds. It hasn't so far, as I now sometimes have to scroll down below the first screen to actually get to real results instead of ads.
jdeibele 6y ago
I switched to DuckDuckGo and FireFox because I disapprove of Google's footprint and the way that they're trying to watch everything I do. When I switched, about 2 years ago, DuckDuckGo was clearly worse. Now I feel like DuckDuckGo has gotten a little bit better but Google Search has definitely gotten worse. I'm now using Pocket and Pinboard a lot more because I can't count on search being able to bring up something I saw a couple of months ago.

by jupp0r 6y ago

markeg 6y ago

Maybe because most end users are also consumers of other products (e.g., foods, housing, electronics) who eventually pay for ads via purchases?

ineedasername 6y ago

There don't actually seem to be fewer adds though. In face, more and more real estate seems devoted to then. And their auction system would result in the same number of adds not matter the price because there will always be a highest bidder, and unless there are fewer bidders that ad placements, all placements will be filled. That will pretty much always be the case for and keywords of even moderate popularity/demand.

jupp0r 6y ago
Google is alleged in the lawsuit to artificially inflate prices.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Yes, I'm saying that I don't think that reduces the number of adds actually displayed though. Not unless there are fewer buyer for spaces than there are spaces, and any moderately popular keyword will have ample demand. That doesn't mean Google is not a a monopoly, but I was just responding to the part of the comment that indicated more expensive adds would mean fewer adds. It hasn't so far, as I now sometimes have to scroll down below the first screen to actually get to real results instead of ads.

jdeibele 6y ago

I switched to DuckDuckGo and FireFox because I disapprove of Google's footprint and the way that they're trying to watch everything I do. When I switched, about 2 years ago, DuckDuckGo was clearly worse. Now I feel like DuckDuckGo has gotten a little bit better but Google Search has definitely gotten worse. I'm now using Pocket and Pinboard a lot more because I can't count on search being able to bring up something I saw a couple of months ago.