6 ms·

Another sign that several FAANGs exist as a monopoly. When you're so big that you can provide effectively no customer service to a customer spending in the 10s

Another sign that several FAANGs exist as a monopoly. When you're so big that you can provide effectively no customer service to a customer spending in the 10s of millions (and they have no competitor they can go to afterwards) there's a problem.

missedthecue 6y ago
Facebook and google are not the only places to advertise.
- minitoar 6y ago
  Sorta. Where else would you advertise if you’re specifically trying to reach people who are doing web searches for your product category?
  - petercooper 6y ago
    To be fair, ads on Facebook aren't generally appearing in response to searches. But there are plenty of high value lower traffic options, such as specialized blogs and newsletters that have audiences fitting your target market - you have to work to find and work with them but at a certain scale it makes sense (at "I have $57m to spend on ads" scale, potentially not).
- simplecto 6y ago
  Please enlighten us. Porn networks do not count.
  - tiborsaas 6y ago
    I haven't spent a dime on online ads, but if it were my problem, I'd go though the top Alexa websites and see if they accept money for ads.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      The days of that kind of thing are over. Everyone does placements using ad networks. Best you'll manage along those lines is approaching celebrities and youtube/insta stars and getting them to endorse your product.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - underdown 6y ago
      This is typically what companies spending 57m on ads do. Its less expensive per click/impression as fb/Google don't take a cut. More expensive to manage.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- theflyinghorse 6y ago
  what do you have in mind other than Facebook and Google as online advertising (actually any advertising) that has the same reach?
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    believe it or not, advertising existed before 2010.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      It did, and it still does. The biggest difference is that now, FB and Google and a few others have a scope that is an order of magnitude larger than all other advertisers combined. They've gained almost total market control over advertising, hence the word monopoly.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      and then there was a massive revolution in the way that people consumed content, and now FB and Google account for the vast majority of advertising consumption (not spending: consumption)
    - JosephRedfern 6y ago
      Believe it or not, people used to physically borrow movies from shops and return them 2 days later!!! That doesn't mean that I can still walk to my newsagents and borrow a copy of Pulp Fiction on VHS. Things change, and Facebook and Google are now the big players in online advertising, accounting for a large majority of the ad market. Other platforms exist, of course, but by cutting out Google Ads and Facebook you're going to be targetting a very different user base and are cutting out a significant share of the market.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      Online Facebook + Google take something like 50% of all ad revenue. Since the product being advertised is a website, offline advertising is probably a lot less effective than online.
xiwenc 6y ago
I’m curious why the author didn’t take this to court? Perhaps it can evolve into a class action lawsuit. That would teach FB and other FAANGs.
- logronoide 6y ago
  The author is fully dependent from FB. He cannot bite the hand that feeds him. I think it’s a smart move to reach the front page of HN before taking this to court.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    If he’s been kicked off their network, does he have anything to lose by biting the hand that used to feed him?
    - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
      I think the idea is that they might be more likely to reverse the discussion in response to a forum discussion than to being served legal papers.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      The cost of lawyers is >0 and the chance of winning is 0. Better to take whatever cash you have and walk away than sue.
    - slumdev 6y ago
      Whining at the right people has a nonzero chance of getting him back on Facebook. Lawyering up has zero chance.
- gpm 6y ago
  To court... for what? Choosing not to do business with the author? That's not illegal. That doesn't become illegal just because they've done quite a bit of business in the past.
smnrchrds 6y ago
I agree with you. When the issue of Apple's anti-competitive behaviour comes up on HN, it is always rebuffed by saying Apple does not have a monopoly—its US share of smartphone market is merely 40%. This is demonstration that you don't need a 100% market share to act anti-competitively. Facebook and Google each have less than 30% market share in ad spend in the US.
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which they still tax at 30%. Then the fact that they hold Safari backwards to cripple the adoption of PWA's (Modern Web Apps). They don't allow real competitors to Safari either. The competitors that exist like Chrome or Firefox are just Safari under the hood on iOS. iOS and Apple have single handedly crippled the innovation on mobile web. Safari is the modern Internet Explorer but Apple forcing people to use it directly or indirectly and not allowing real competition on iOS. This is straight up anti trust material and they should face scrutiny for it. Sleepy lawmakers should wake up. Not only does it harm American businesses, but also businesses across the world.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Even if Apple shouldn't be subject to an anti-trust suit, I think the whole industry should be regulated to counter how Apple goes about it's business - if Google could get away with acting like Apple does to it's customers they probably would, Microsoft would also love to but they've been bitten before. Basic legislation guaranteeing certain freedoms for the consumers costs Apple and Google et al. nothing but massively empowers consumers in a sector where information about the products is largely controlled by the creators of said products. This also prevents products becoming e-waste when the company is done supporting them.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago

Facebook and google are not the only places to advertise.

minitoar 6y ago
Sorta. Where else would you advertise if you’re specifically trying to reach people who are doing web searches for your product category?
- petercooper 6y ago
  To be fair, ads on Facebook aren't generally appearing in response to searches. But there are plenty of high value lower traffic options, such as specialized blogs and newsletters that have audiences fitting your target market - you have to work to find and work with them but at a certain scale it makes sense (at "I have $57m to spend on ads" scale, potentially not).
simplecto 6y ago
Please enlighten us. Porn networks do not count.
- tiborsaas 6y ago
  I haven't spent a dime on online ads, but if it were my problem, I'd go though the top Alexa websites and see if they accept money for ads.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    The days of that kind of thing are over. Everyone does placements using ad networks. Best you'll manage along those lines is approaching celebrities and youtube/insta stars and getting them to endorse your product.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - underdown 6y ago
    This is typically what companies spending 57m on ads do. Its less expensive per click/impression as fb/Google don't take a cut. More expensive to manage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
theflyinghorse 6y ago
what do you have in mind other than Facebook and Google as online advertising (actually any advertising) that has the same reach?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  believe it or not, advertising existed before 2010.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    It did, and it still does. The biggest difference is that now, FB and Google and a few others have a scope that is an order of magnitude larger than all other advertisers combined. They've gained almost total market control over advertising, hence the word monopoly.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    and then there was a massive revolution in the way that people consumed content, and now FB and Google account for the vast majority of advertising consumption (not spending: consumption)
  - JosephRedfern 6y ago
    Believe it or not, people used to physically borrow movies from shops and return them 2 days later!!! That doesn't mean that I can still walk to my newsagents and borrow a copy of Pulp Fiction on VHS. Things change, and Facebook and Google are now the big players in online advertising, accounting for a large majority of the ad market. Other platforms exist, of course, but by cutting out Google Ads and Facebook you're going to be targetting a very different user base and are cutting out a significant share of the market.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Online Facebook + Google take something like 50% of all ad revenue. Since the product being advertised is a website, offline advertising is probably a lot less effective than online.

xiwenc 6y ago

I’m curious why the author didn’t take this to court? Perhaps it can evolve into a class action lawsuit. That would teach FB and other FAANGs.

logronoide 6y ago
The author is fully dependent from FB. He cannot bite the hand that feeds him. I think it’s a smart move to reach the front page of HN before taking this to court.
- ben_w 6y ago
  If he’s been kicked off their network, does he have anything to lose by biting the hand that used to feed him?
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    I think the idea is that they might be more likely to reverse the discussion in response to a forum discussion than to being served legal papers.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    The cost of lawyers is >0 and the chance of winning is 0. Better to take whatever cash you have and walk away than sue.
  - slumdev 6y ago
    Whining at the right people has a nonzero chance of getting him back on Facebook. Lawyering up has zero chance.
gpm 6y ago
To court... for what? Choosing not to do business with the author? That's not illegal. That doesn't become illegal just because they've done quite a bit of business in the past.

smnrchrds 6y ago

I agree with you. When the issue of Apple's anti-competitive behaviour comes up on HN, it is always rebuffed by saying Apple does not have a monopoly—its US share of smartphone market is merely 40%. This is demonstration that you don't need a 100% market share to act anti-competitively. Facebook and Google each have less than 30% market share in ad spend in the US.

absolutelyrad 6y ago
The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which they still tax at 30%. Then the fact that they hold Safari backwards to cripple the adoption of PWA's (Modern Web Apps). They don't allow real competitors to Safari either. The competitors that exist like Chrome or Firefox are just Safari under the hood on iOS. iOS and Apple have single handedly crippled the innovation on mobile web. Safari is the modern Internet Explorer but Apple forcing people to use it directly or indirectly and not allowing real competition on iOS. This is straight up anti trust material and they should face scrutiny for it. Sleepy lawmakers should wake up. Not only does it harm American businesses, but also businesses across the world.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Even if Apple shouldn't be subject to an anti-trust suit, I think the whole industry should be regulated to counter how Apple goes about it's business - if Google could get away with acting like Apple does to it's customers they probably would, Microsoft would also love to but they've been bitten before. Basic legislation guaranteeing certain freedoms for the consumers costs Apple and Google et al. nothing but massively empowers consumers in a sector where information about the products is largely controlled by the creators of said products. This also prevents products becoming e-waste when the company is done supporting them.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago