3 ms·

Notably, this is not Google showing random search/display ads. Those look like ads for Google's own product. I don't think this is the first time. IIRC, Googl

by senko 4y ago

Notably, this is not Google showing random search/display ads. Those look like ads for Google's own product. I don't think this is the first time. IIRC, Google used to show an ad for Chrome if you used the search from any other browser.

londons_explore 4y ago
I'm surprised they advertise their own product in those places... It's such an obvious thing for the EU to go after. "Google has a monopoly position in Browsers/Search, and (ab)used their homepage to advertise their entry into a new field of business, immediately giving it free advertising the competitors could never access." If I were Googles legal team, I would immediately put an end to such cross-product advertising (at least from Search/Chrome/Android).
- Euphorbium 4y ago
  Google does not have a monopoly in browsers or search.
  - eckza 4y ago
    We've always been at war with Eastaisa.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    The poster above you said "monopoly position," which is defined in the EU as more than 25% of the market. Google unquestionably has a monopoly position in both areas. The US similarly defines monopoly as having significant control over a market, not as a literal 100% stake.
  - infinityio 4y ago
    To my knowledge, Google has 90% of search engine traffic in some regions, and Chrome makes up the majority of Web browsers, even disregarding Chromium
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Anti trust requires market power abuses, not a monopoly.
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  I've said the same, how is doing that any different from Microsoft using their OS to push their own products in the past when they got sued? Having that stuff in Chrome would cost millions in terms of normal display ads for the number of impressions they would get
  - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
    The difference is, these anti-competitive tactics bring them more value than the penalty the receive, at this point, it's more of a slap on the wrist and nothing else.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Or the legal team has advised them that the legality is unclear and management has decided the easiest way to resolve murky law is to see the other side in court. There's a lot of law like that, and Google has the war chest to ask the question when merely that act alone could bankrupt smaller companies.
mrweasel 4y ago
While slightly dirty, I got the ad for Chrome, that made sense in the context. Advertising for Fitbits is weird and seems desperate. My sense is that it's a test. If Google decides it went well we'll see ads for other Google products. That's a dangerous path though, at some point some one will make a nice offer for that spot, and I'm not sure the current management at Google have enough integrity to say no. Side note: It might be Fitbits, because Fitbit is a subsidiary of Google LLC, and not Alphabet directly.

by senko 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago

I'm surprised they advertise their own product in those places... It's such an obvious thing for the EU to go after. "Google has a monopoly position in Browsers/Search, and (ab)used their homepage to advertise their entry into a new field of business, immediately giving it free advertising the competitors could never access." If I were Googles legal team, I would immediately put an end to such cross-product advertising (at least from Search/Chrome/Android).

Euphorbium 4y ago
Google does not have a monopoly in browsers or search.
- eckza 4y ago
  We've always been at war with Eastaisa.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  The poster above you said "monopoly position," which is defined in the EU as more than 25% of the market. Google unquestionably has a monopoly position in both areas. The US similarly defines monopoly as having significant control over a market, not as a literal 100% stake.
- infinityio 4y ago
  To my knowledge, Google has 90% of search engine traffic in some regions, and Chrome makes up the majority of Web browsers, even disregarding Chromium
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Anti trust requires market power abuses, not a monopoly.
ren_engineer 4y ago
I've said the same, how is doing that any different from Microsoft using their OS to push their own products in the past when they got sued? Having that stuff in Chrome would cost millions in terms of normal display ads for the number of impressions they would get
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  The difference is, these anti-competitive tactics bring them more value than the penalty the receive, at this point, it's more of a slap on the wrist and nothing else.
shadowgovt 4y ago
Or the legal team has advised them that the legality is unclear and management has decided the easiest way to resolve murky law is to see the other side in court. There's a lot of law like that, and Google has the war chest to ask the question when merely that act alone could bankrupt smaller companies.

mrweasel 4y ago

While slightly dirty, I got the ad for Chrome, that made sense in the context. Advertising for Fitbits is weird and seems desperate. My sense is that it's a test. If Google decides it went well we'll see ads for other Google products. That's a dangerous path though, at some point some one will make a nice offer for that spot, and I'm not sure the current management at Google have enough integrity to say no. Side note: It might be Fitbits, because Fitbit is a subsidiary of Google LLC, and not Alphabet directly.