2 ms·

All the risks of basing your income on a single supplier are true. But that's not the real complaint here. The real complaint is that Google did not consider t

• fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  >The real complaint is that Google did not consider the original site to be "ad supplier worthy". No, that was not the complaint. The complaint is that Google demanded changes that made the site worse for users. These changes are clearly meant to optimise ad revenue. Google is in a position of power that allows them to make these demands. More competition between ad networks would reduce the power of each individual ad network and give publishers more negotiating power. >As you say, there are other advertising players - but if none of them see value (in the original site) then maybe that's telling us something? As I understand it, no other ad networks have even seen the site. Amazon and Facebook are clearly unsuitable. Microsoft may have been worth a shot. For this type of site I think Google has a nearly complete monopoly.
• EasyMark 3y ago
  Their point is that if there were more ad companies then the chance they would have allowed the site to go up as the original. Not to 100% of course but drastically higher than 0%