8 ms·

Google's investments in the web has been massive. Your whole framing can be flipped on its head be pointing out that Google, unlike Amazon has been willing to

Google's investments in the web has been massive. Your whole framing can be flipped on its head be pointing out that Google, unlike Amazon has been willing to make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got. Obviously Google does it for self interested reasons, but thank goodness they do - you can hate Google and targeted ads all you want but without Google pushing web and ad tech forward it would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms. Your suggestion that Google pay sites for the traffic they generate should like that ridiculous News Corp/Australian shakedown of Facebook and Google, which people were only able to justify based on their hatred of the target companies and a willingness to sacrifice the web to their ends.

judge2020 5y ago
> but without Google pushing web and ad tech forward it would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms. To give some evidence for this, Google pushed hard for PWAs - it serves their interests since they can focus on one platform for their desktop platforms, but also means that on Desktop (via Chrome) and Android each web app can just install themselves without having to distribute a native package or go through an app store.
MisterPea 5y ago
> Obviously Google does it for self interested reasons My understanding was Google works a ton on open source and essentially making "the internet" better so that people will ultimately use Google more (since Google is the backbone of the internet) and therefore consume more ads. All of these tech advancements definitely helps the world more than it helps Google but I'm failing to know why/how FLoC helps the community more than it does Google? Not saying Google is in the wrong to do things out of self-interest, but this scenario is a little different
dcow 5y ago
> would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms Citation needed. What proprietary platforms would have taken hold if not for the grace of gmail? > Your suggestion that Google pay sites for the traffic they generate should (sic.) like that ridiculous News Corp/Australian shakedown of Facebook and Google Facebook is complying: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/facebook-to-lift-australia-news-ban-pay-media-companies-for-content/ar-BB1dVSu5 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/facebook-to-lift-a... because hey, sharing the pot is better than no pot. I think the point is that nobody would go to Google if they didn't need to look something up on Wikipedia. So while Google helps users discover content and funnel them towards sites, Google would be 100% useless without the content that ultimately drives the traffic. The status quo, where Google lays 100% claim to the traffic and gets to control monetization, is frankly not in anybody's interest. So why should we accept it?
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Google's investment in the web is just like Microsoft's "Embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy, just far more sophisticated and nuanced. Just like the new Microsoft's so-called new-found embrace of Linux, open standards and interoperability. It's all a sham. Garbage like AMP, or flexing their dominance in the search market to force websites to comply with this or that or risk delisting, is garbage.
- tomComb 5y ago
  You are kinda' making my point in highlighting AMP: one of the most hated Google 'contributions' to the web. Why did they do it? Because news website were heavy, slow, bad experiences compared to Facebook Instant news and Apple News etc. and so they those proprietary options were winning. AMP was designed to allow web sites compete with that. It was reported that Apple News is taking 50% cut. When media companies keep customers on their own sites they have many options - more are now running their own ad business entirely (NYT most recently). For many reasons I hated to see those proprietary platforms crush the web sites, but the web sites really were too slow and heavy. I'm certainly not telling you to like AMP - my point is that even their most hated, ham fisted product fits into this mold. It is totally open in every important way (look it up if you don't believe me) and it made a big difference in allowing sites to compete with proprietary platforms. MS is happy to use/embrace Linux, Chrome (even AMP) etc. but contributing is new to them. The embrace & extinguish thing is not the same when the company is creating and contributing the tech themselves.
  - passivate 5y ago
    >Why did they do it? Because news website were heavy, slow, bad experiences compared to Facebook Instant news and Apple News etc. and so they those proprietary options were winning. AMP was designed to allow web sites compete with that. They could have prioritized websites with fewer tracking/ads/scripts. I don't believe that Google cares at all about whats good for the web. They simply want to exploit it and pocket the money (as opposed to re-invest any major portion back in the infra/community) - in that sense, they're no different than any other nameless/faceless corporation.
inopinatus 5y ago
On the contrary, the end-to-end federated Internet was doing just fine before Google came along, and will do just fine, perhaps better, when it's gone and no longer trying to co-opt every god-damn standards process for their own preferences. No-one has a monopoly on innovation: most inventions are driven by necessity, and large companies stifle genius, they don't foster it. Far from being the greater good, Google is remarkably pig-headed, and often downright incompetent outside of selling ads; even the usefulness of their flagship search is in decline.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  > Far from being the greater good, Google is remarkably pig-headed, often downright incompetent outside of selling ads... As is the nature of dualities, the web has benefit immensely from Google's investments even if it would have chartered a different (and in your opinion, a better) course had Google not existed in the first place. Someone pointed out, you couldn't say the same for Amazon. As for incompetence: imho, webrtc, which Google standardized and open sourced, is likely the single most important innovation on the interwebs (in terms of impact) just ahead of Microsoft's XMLHttpRequest.
  - fpoling 5y ago
    This all assumes that without Google this would not happen. But I fail to see why is this so. Linux happened without single corporation controlling it.
    - ignoramous 5y ago
      > This all assumes that without Google this would not happen. To be fair, I am not the one that's assuming things here. I am speaking of how Google has indeed contributed when they really didn't have to (as pointed out with the example of Amazon). > Linux happened without single corporation controlling it. A consortium of corporations, sure: linaro.org
      - nwallin 5y ago
choppaface 5y ago
Yes, you can definitely flip my argument or criticize it however you please. But I think what would help decide things is to see the hard $$ numbers on why Google thinks FLoC is actually inventive-compatible. They must have done a study here in order for FLoC to get the OK for launch. Maybe that study is right, maybe it’s wrong. But Sundar has—- several times—- admitted that Google has lost trust, and now Google is trying to sell a big change without showing the whole picture. That’s standard MO at McKinsey, but Sundar is now on a much bigger stage. Given the recent evidence showing how closely Google worked with Facebook to bias ad auctions, I think it’s high time we review how Google assesses incentive compatibility. While I agree with you that Google paying for serving requests or some other equity mechanism sounds just plain odd, there are few tools to deal with multinational monopolies. Tesla is making bank right now in no small part from carbon offsets and consumer tax benefits—- that’s all because Aramco and big oil won’t diverge from their shareholder interests. Google usually welcomes novel web/social mechanisms and it’s very telling when they so thoroughly refute the interests of news sites. Or try to solve the problem with something crappy like AMP.
karmasimida 5y ago
By no means I am defending Amazon, but > make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got How are things like AMP justifying this goal? Ofc every company is doing things to advance its own interests, in that regard, Amazon has 0 incentives to share customer data which is truly unique/invaluable, with Google, or any 3rd parties.
dalbasal 5y ago
>> Your whole framing can be flipped on its head be pointing out that Google, unlike Amazon has been willing to make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got. True, as are some of the counterpoints. I don't think it contradicts OP's point though. FLoC is designed by Google, for Google's needs. Some/most of those are genuinely privacy related, the way that they're related is via advertising/targeting/tracking... which Google rely on for all their revenue. Amazon, meanwhile, doesn't benefit from FloC much... hence conflict. These datasets are being used as defining advantages by both companies. Why should amazon want to adopt/feed google's new analytics project?
o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago
"... it would stand little chance against the competing platforms." Little chance of what. It sounds like this is framing the web as some sort of commercial venture. And Google is the gatekeeper. A venture where they can effectively make sites "appear" or "disappear" from the web and they decide what the public will or not see. Google watches the traffic, shows what is "popular" and buries the rest. Everyone begs for Google's favour to show their site "at the top, on page one". If not an organic listing, then Google will let anyone pay to be "at the top, on page one" in the form of an ad that looks much like a search result. That's a very dysfunctional "public platform". (The Google founders wrote about how dysfunctional it was to sell out that way in their 1998 paper announcing their new, alternative search engine.) No one ever agreed the only way the "public platform" would be useful is for a few big corporations to control it. That is a recent idea held only by those who stand to (continue to) benefit from its realisation. News Corp is bad, Google is bad, Facebook is bad, but c'mon this does not mean the web has to be bad. If one cannot see the difference between "the web" and a few big corporations, then some "reframing" is defintely in order. The web is a medium not a destination. Google, Facebook and others trying to emulate them are all acting as middlemen on the medium.
pjmlp 5y ago
Ironically if someone stated the same about Microsoft, I wouldn't be able to read their comment by now. The more the things change, the more they stay the same

judge2020 5y ago

> but without Google pushing web and ad tech forward it would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms. To give some evidence for this, Google pushed hard for PWAs - it serves their interests since they can focus on one platform for their desktop platforms, but also means that on Desktop (via Chrome) and Android each web app can just install themselves without having to distribute a native package or go through an app store.

MisterPea 5y ago

> Obviously Google does it for self interested reasons My understanding was Google works a ton on open source and essentially making "the internet" better so that people will ultimately use Google more (since Google is the backbone of the internet) and therefore consume more ads. All of these tech advancements definitely helps the world more than it helps Google but I'm failing to know why/how FLoC helps the community more than it does Google? Not saying Google is in the wrong to do things out of self-interest, but this scenario is a little different

dcow 5y ago

> would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms Citation needed. What proprietary platforms would have taken hold if not for the grace of gmail? > Your suggestion that Google pay sites for the traffic they generate should (sic.) like that ridiculous News Corp/Australian shakedown of Facebook and Google Facebook is complying: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/facebook-to-lift-australia-news-ban-pay-media-companies-for-content/ar-BB1dVSu5 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/facebook-to-lift-a... because hey, sharing the pot is better than no pot. I think the point is that nobody would go to Google if they didn't need to look something up on Wikipedia. So while Google helps users discover content and funnel them towards sites, Google would be 100% useless without the content that ultimately drives the traffic. The status quo, where Google lays 100% claim to the traffic and gets to control monetization, is frankly not in anybody's interest. So why should we accept it?

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

Google's investment in the web is just like Microsoft's "Embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy, just far more sophisticated and nuanced. Just like the new Microsoft's so-called new-found embrace of Linux, open standards and interoperability. It's all a sham. Garbage like AMP, or flexing their dominance in the search market to force websites to comply with this or that or risk delisting, is garbage.

tomComb 5y ago
You are kinda' making my point in highlighting AMP: one of the most hated Google 'contributions' to the web. Why did they do it? Because news website were heavy, slow, bad experiences compared to Facebook Instant news and Apple News etc. and so they those proprietary options were winning. AMP was designed to allow web sites compete with that. It was reported that Apple News is taking 50% cut. When media companies keep customers on their own sites they have many options - more are now running their own ad business entirely (NYT most recently). For many reasons I hated to see those proprietary platforms crush the web sites, but the web sites really were too slow and heavy. I'm certainly not telling you to like AMP - my point is that even their most hated, ham fisted product fits into this mold. It is totally open in every important way (look it up if you don't believe me) and it made a big difference in allowing sites to compete with proprietary platforms. MS is happy to use/embrace Linux, Chrome (even AMP) etc. but contributing is new to them. The embrace & extinguish thing is not the same when the company is creating and contributing the tech themselves.
- passivate 5y ago
  >Why did they do it? Because news website were heavy, slow, bad experiences compared to Facebook Instant news and Apple News etc. and so they those proprietary options were winning. AMP was designed to allow web sites compete with that. They could have prioritized websites with fewer tracking/ads/scripts. I don't believe that Google cares at all about whats good for the web. They simply want to exploit it and pocket the money (as opposed to re-invest any major portion back in the infra/community) - in that sense, they're no different than any other nameless/faceless corporation.

inopinatus 5y ago

On the contrary, the end-to-end federated Internet was doing just fine before Google came along, and will do just fine, perhaps better, when it's gone and no longer trying to co-opt every god-damn standards process for their own preferences. No-one has a monopoly on innovation: most inventions are driven by necessity, and large companies stifle genius, they don't foster it. Far from being the greater good, Google is remarkably pig-headed, and often downright incompetent outside of selling ads; even the usefulness of their flagship search is in decline.

ignoramous 5y ago
> Far from being the greater good, Google is remarkably pig-headed, often downright incompetent outside of selling ads... As is the nature of dualities, the web has benefit immensely from Google's investments even if it would have chartered a different (and in your opinion, a better) course had Google not existed in the first place. Someone pointed out, you couldn't say the same for Amazon. As for incompetence: imho, webrtc, which Google standardized and open sourced, is likely the single most important innovation on the interwebs (in terms of impact) just ahead of Microsoft's XMLHttpRequest.
- fpoling 5y ago
  This all assumes that without Google this would not happen. But I fail to see why is this so. Linux happened without single corporation controlling it.
  - ignoramous 5y ago
    > This all assumes that without Google this would not happen. To be fair, I am not the one that's assuming things here. I am speaking of how Google has indeed contributed when they really didn't have to (as pointed out with the example of Amazon). > Linux happened without single corporation controlling it. A consortium of corporations, sure: linaro.org
    - nwallin 5y ago

choppaface 5y ago

Yes, you can definitely flip my argument or criticize it however you please. But I think what would help decide things is to see the hard $$ numbers on why Google thinks FLoC is actually inventive-compatible. They must have done a study here in order for FLoC to get the OK for launch. Maybe that study is right, maybe it’s wrong. But Sundar has—- several times—- admitted that Google has lost trust, and now Google is trying to sell a big change without showing the whole picture. That’s standard MO at McKinsey, but Sundar is now on a much bigger stage. Given the recent evidence showing how closely Google worked with Facebook to bias ad auctions, I think it’s high time we review how Google assesses incentive compatibility. While I agree with you that Google paying for serving requests or some other equity mechanism sounds just plain odd, there are few tools to deal with multinational monopolies. Tesla is making bank right now in no small part from carbon offsets and consumer tax benefits—- that’s all because Aramco and big oil won’t diverge from their shareholder interests. Google usually welcomes novel web/social mechanisms and it’s very telling when they so thoroughly refute the interests of news sites. Or try to solve the problem with something crappy like AMP.

karmasimida 5y ago

By no means I am defending Amazon, but > make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got How are things like AMP justifying this goal? Ofc every company is doing things to advance its own interests, in that regard, Amazon has 0 incentives to share customer data which is truly unique/invaluable, with Google, or any 3rd parties.

dalbasal 5y ago

>> Your whole framing can be flipped on its head be pointing out that Google, unlike Amazon has been willing to make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got. True, as are some of the counterpoints. I don't think it contradicts OP's point though. FLoC is designed by Google, for Google's needs. Some/most of those are genuinely privacy related, the way that they're related is via advertising/targeting/tracking... which Google rely on for all their revenue. Amazon, meanwhile, doesn't benefit from FloC much... hence conflict. These datasets are being used as defining advantages by both companies. Why should amazon want to adopt/feed google's new analytics project?

o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago

"... it would stand little chance against the competing platforms." Little chance of what. It sounds like this is framing the web as some sort of commercial venture. And Google is the gatekeeper. A venture where they can effectively make sites "appear" or "disappear" from the web and they decide what the public will or not see. Google watches the traffic, shows what is "popular" and buries the rest. Everyone begs for Google's favour to show their site "at the top, on page one". If not an organic listing, then Google will let anyone pay to be "at the top, on page one" in the form of an ad that looks much like a search result. That's a very dysfunctional "public platform". (The Google founders wrote about how dysfunctional it was to sell out that way in their 1998 paper announcing their new, alternative search engine.) No one ever agreed the only way the "public platform" would be useful is for a few big corporations to control it. That is a recent idea held only by those who stand to (continue to) benefit from its realisation. News Corp is bad, Google is bad, Facebook is bad, but c'mon this does not mean the web has to be bad. If one cannot see the difference between "the web" and a few big corporations, then some "reframing" is defintely in order. The web is a medium not a destination. Google, Facebook and others trying to emulate them are all acting as middlemen on the medium.

pjmlp 5y ago

Ironically if someone stated the same about Microsoft, I wouldn't be able to read their comment by now. The more the things change, the more they stay the same