4 ms·

How are ad funded websites "anti competitive"? Start by defining "anti competitive", as I suspect you're using a non standard definition.

arrosenberg 4y ago
They are using their ad business (wherein they have an effective monopoly on search engine advertising) to subsidize their other businesses. That is a fairly standard definition for predatory pricing in the US.
- kylevedder 4y ago
  Their other businesses being what search or maps? Those are ads properties. You could setup competitors that also serve ads.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Thats not how antitrust laws work.
    - kylevedder 4y ago
      You're asserting that's not how they work, but you're also asserting they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... the revenue they generate from selling ads space on their search and maps businesses. I'll leave it as an exercise to the lurkers to decide who is probably right.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        > you're also asserting they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... the revenue they generate from selling ads space on their search and maps businesses. Yes, that is how these things tend to work! Seriously, read some books on antitrust, you have no idea what you are talking about. Tim Wu is a good starting point.
        Jensson 4y ago
        A majority of Googles revenue comes from running ads on their own sites. Their third party ad network is a small part of their revenue, so the correct direction is to say that Google is subsidising its third party ad network via their first party ad business. The effect of antitrust would then be that Google separates the ad service for its own services and third party services, which would force their third party ad service to become more expensive since it can no longer rely so heavily on the draw of all the Google properties.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        > they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... [their ads business] I suspect this is what what @arrosenberg is getting at. If the Search (and maps) business is considered separate from the ads business (Search runs at a massive loss) and it's provided for free because they can subsidize it with the revenue from their ad business, then it's an anti-competetive advantage they have from a monopolistic position that their advertising business has. Anyway, personally I have no clue how that "works" in practice, but that seems to be the perspective.
  - rolisz 4y ago
    And Google Photos, which initially included unlimited compressed photo storage, killed off competitors and then changed it to 15 GB.
    - alcover 4y ago
      Holly.. you made me understand why vertical anti-trust is a thing. (I'm slow..). A single company, google, gives a photo-service for free, while making enormous bread through ads. On its own the free service would be dead on arrival but now it's sustained by the ads branch of the company, making it unbeatable. Then pure-photo-service competitors die and you get a monopoly.
Nextgrid 4y ago
I see 2 problems with ad-funded services: 1) nobody can compete with free. 2) the service and the advertising are tied together, with the amount of money being earned by said advertising is private. The second point can be addressed without necessarily banning advertising, but having the advertising separate from the services - you have some kind of ad platform/etc that by itself is neutral and you can browse it (and look/click at ads) to earn money, which you can then choose to spend on anything, including other services. This means services still have to compete on price, even though that price remains "free" to the end-user as they're using the advertising platform to earn money to then spend it on services.
- kylevedder 4y ago
  >nobody can compete with free Yes you can, just make yours also free and put up ads like DuckDuckGo. >the amount of money being earned by said advertising is private. Google is a publicly traded company with a legal obligation to disclose financial data to their shareholders as a matter of public record. You can go read their quarterly earnings reports stretching back years.

arrosenberg 4y ago

They are using their ad business (wherein they have an effective monopoly on search engine advertising) to subsidize their other businesses. That is a fairly standard definition for predatory pricing in the US.

kylevedder 4y ago
Their other businesses being what search or maps? Those are ads properties. You could setup competitors that also serve ads.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  Thats not how antitrust laws work.
  - kylevedder 4y ago
    You're asserting that's not how they work, but you're also asserting they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... the revenue they generate from selling ads space on their search and maps businesses. I'll leave it as an exercise to the lurkers to decide who is probably right.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      > you're also asserting they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... the revenue they generate from selling ads space on their search and maps businesses. Yes, that is how these things tend to work! Seriously, read some books on antitrust, you have no idea what you are talking about. Tim Wu is a good starting point.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        A majority of Googles revenue comes from running ads on their own sites. Their third party ad network is a small part of their revenue, so the correct direction is to say that Google is subsidising its third party ad network via their first party ad business. The effect of antitrust would then be that Google separates the ad service for its own services and third party services, which would force their third party ad service to become more expensive since it can no longer rely so heavily on the draw of all the Google properties.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      > they're illegally subsidizing their search and maps business with... [their ads business] I suspect this is what what @arrosenberg is getting at. If the Search (and maps) business is considered separate from the ads business (Search runs at a massive loss) and it's provided for free because they can subsidize it with the revenue from their ad business, then it's an anti-competetive advantage they have from a monopolistic position that their advertising business has. Anyway, personally I have no clue how that "works" in practice, but that seems to be the perspective.
- rolisz 4y ago
  And Google Photos, which initially included unlimited compressed photo storage, killed off competitors and then changed it to 15 GB.
  - alcover 4y ago
    Holly.. you made me understand why vertical anti-trust is a thing. (I'm slow..). A single company, google, gives a photo-service for free, while making enormous bread through ads. On its own the free service would be dead on arrival but now it's sustained by the ads branch of the company, making it unbeatable. Then pure-photo-service competitors die and you get a monopoly.

Nextgrid 4y ago

I see 2 problems with ad-funded services: 1) nobody can compete with free. 2) the service and the advertising are tied together, with the amount of money being earned by said advertising is private. The second point can be addressed without necessarily banning advertising, but having the advertising separate from the services - you have some kind of ad platform/etc that by itself is neutral and you can browse it (and look/click at ads) to earn money, which you can then choose to spend on anything, including other services. This means services still have to compete on price, even though that price remains "free" to the end-user as they're using the advertising platform to earn money to then spend it on services.

kylevedder 4y ago
>nobody can compete with free Yes you can, just make yours also free and put up ads like DuckDuckGo. >the amount of money being earned by said advertising is private. Google is a publicly traded company with a legal obligation to disclose financial data to their shareholders as a matter of public record. You can go read their quarterly earnings reports stretching back years.