4 ms·

I would have expected them to wait with ads until OpenAI starts first and users switch to Gemini. Google is probably the player that could afford to wait the lo

I would have expected them to wait with ads until OpenAI starts first and users switch to Gemini. Google is probably the player that could afford to wait the longest with this and increase their market share that way.

akoboldfrying 5mo ago
100%. This is the only part that I find surprising/confusing. Surely whoever blinks first incurs a massive reputational hit with the public (who don't think about this deeply enough to see that it was always inevitable), so why do that if you don't have to? Perhaps the bright side from Google's POV is that it means that they can be the first to start wooing advertisers to their platform. First-mover advantage there might outweigh reputational damage with the public, especially if OpenAI follows suit with ads in 6 months.
- gomox 5mo ago
  OpenAI starts from excellent UX and needs to prove that they can monetize all those empty pixels. They will no doubt succeed. Google starts from horrid UX where every advertiseable pixel has been squeezed dry. Only way to go is down.
  - lobocinza 5mo ago
    You're confounding your subjective personal experience with the whole. Google can eat the cake and have it. They already are profitable, they already have scale, they already have market penetration, Google is already installed in 72% of mobile devices, they have cost efficiency due to TPUs, they probably have the best data, at least for serving ads. OpenAI has no chance in outcompeting Google, not in ad-based revenue.
    - gomox 5mo ago
      Importantly: OpenAI doesn't need to outcompete Google, it just needs to show it can bleed. As to the rest of Google's dominant position, it's an advantage for sure, but every leading vendor whose products turned to shit went the way of the dodo one way or another. And it's important to mention that this includes GAds, not just the loss leader (Search). They have been so good at squeezing advertisers dry that ROI is barely there in many categories.
      - lobocinza 5mo ago
        Who do you think will bleed when they race to enshitify their products? The company where users have lower expecations or the one where they have higher?
        gomox 5mo ago
        Both, but the cat is out of the box with LLMs and Google no longer monopolizes the firehose of consumer purchasing intent even if OpenAI disappears tomorrow. Someone else will come up. I can ask a local LLM that I download for free what's a good lawnmower and it will tell me. Google is no longer in control and therefore I believe it won't be able to command the crazy premiums it used to squeeze out of advertisers.
gomox 5mo ago
Actually I believe Google is the one caught between a rock and a hard place here because their stock will reprice once the market realizes how much their position has weakened re: search ads. They commanded an absurd premium on ads by virtue of being monopolistic leaders of search. They don't have a better product anymore, only a scale/distribution advantage.
- criddell 5mo ago
  I have a hard time believing the stock price is based on anything other than vibes. It's up 125% from a year ago!
  - saghm 5mo ago
    Given how nowadays the payoff of a stock seems to just be from selling it later rather than having any direct correlation to the companies finances, it's all just a Ponzi scheme based on vibes.
    - akerl_ 5mo ago
      When was the payoff of a stock not from selling it later?
      - gomox 5mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend
      - Jensson 5mo ago
        > When was the payoff of a stock not from selling it later? This is such a funny comment, historically you bought stocks to extract profits, ie dividends. Now you make money from houses and stocks by value appreciation instead of rent and dividends, you can see how that leads to very different behaviours and how that is not very stable compared to buying based on rent and dividends.
MattRix 5mo ago
The idea that users will switch because a platform has ads has never played out in the past. The average user just doesn’t care.
- Forgeties79 5mo ago
  The average user appears to care enough to go out of their way to use browsers and extensions and such that block ads, to the point that Google has spent enormous amount of time and money breaking those tools. I think that’s definitely something to consider. Anecdotally, the number of people who have asked me about VPNs over the last 12 to 18 months has skyrocketed. I probably get a message a month from people of all backgrounds.
  - thewebguyd 5mo ago
    > The average user appears to care enough to go out of their way to use browsers and extensions and such that block ads The average user isn't going out of their way to use ad block, at least globally. Last estimates I remember are still around only 30% of internet users using an ad blocker unfortunately. Ad blocker adoption is heavily skewed toward techies. It's an even lower amount of people on mobile, where the 'average user' spends the majority of their time.
    - Forgeties79 5mo ago
      30% of the general population is a staggering number for basically anything voluntary. I don’t know how you can possibly trivialize that number. If you can get 30% of the population to boycott anything it’s not only significant but forces a response out of the group on the other side. You’re talking almost 1 in 3 people. Those are literally historic numbers. Do you have any idea how much companies spend to increase their conversions by single digits?
      - MattRix 5mo ago
        Ok but using adblock isn’t switching platforms. It doesn’t inconvenience the user at all, and there are no negative network effects.
intrasight 5mo ago
They could afford to wait, but... profits. Also, they have to start experimenting now to get the formula right for AI ads.
rockinghigh 5mo ago
It may be a push from advertisers who want access to this format. Google Search competes for their money against the competition.

akoboldfrying 5mo ago

100%. This is the only part that I find surprising/confusing. Surely whoever blinks first incurs a massive reputational hit with the public (who don't think about this deeply enough to see that it was always inevitable), so why do that if you don't have to? Perhaps the bright side from Google's POV is that it means that they can be the first to start wooing advertisers to their platform. First-mover advantage there might outweigh reputational damage with the public, especially if OpenAI follows suit with ads in 6 months.

gomox 5mo ago
OpenAI starts from excellent UX and needs to prove that they can monetize all those empty pixels. They will no doubt succeed. Google starts from horrid UX where every advertiseable pixel has been squeezed dry. Only way to go is down.
- lobocinza 5mo ago
  You're confounding your subjective personal experience with the whole. Google can eat the cake and have it. They already are profitable, they already have scale, they already have market penetration, Google is already installed in 72% of mobile devices, they have cost efficiency due to TPUs, they probably have the best data, at least for serving ads. OpenAI has no chance in outcompeting Google, not in ad-based revenue.
  - gomox 5mo ago
    Importantly: OpenAI doesn't need to outcompete Google, it just needs to show it can bleed. As to the rest of Google's dominant position, it's an advantage for sure, but every leading vendor whose products turned to shit went the way of the dodo one way or another. And it's important to mention that this includes GAds, not just the loss leader (Search). They have been so good at squeezing advertisers dry that ROI is barely there in many categories.
    - lobocinza 5mo ago
      Who do you think will bleed when they race to enshitify their products? The company where users have lower expecations or the one where they have higher?
      - gomox 5mo ago
        Both, but the cat is out of the box with LLMs and Google no longer monopolizes the firehose of consumer purchasing intent even if OpenAI disappears tomorrow. Someone else will come up. I can ask a local LLM that I download for free what's a good lawnmower and it will tell me. Google is no longer in control and therefore I believe it won't be able to command the crazy premiums it used to squeeze out of advertisers.

gomox 5mo ago

Actually I believe Google is the one caught between a rock and a hard place here because their stock will reprice once the market realizes how much their position has weakened re: search ads. They commanded an absurd premium on ads by virtue of being monopolistic leaders of search. They don't have a better product anymore, only a scale/distribution advantage.

criddell 5mo ago
I have a hard time believing the stock price is based on anything other than vibes. It's up 125% from a year ago!
- saghm 5mo ago
  Given how nowadays the payoff of a stock seems to just be from selling it later rather than having any direct correlation to the companies finances, it's all just a Ponzi scheme based on vibes.
  - akerl_ 5mo ago
    When was the payoff of a stock not from selling it later?
    - gomox 5mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend
    - Jensson 5mo ago
      > When was the payoff of a stock not from selling it later? This is such a funny comment, historically you bought stocks to extract profits, ie dividends. Now you make money from houses and stocks by value appreciation instead of rent and dividends, you can see how that leads to very different behaviours and how that is not very stable compared to buying based on rent and dividends.

MattRix 5mo ago

The idea that users will switch because a platform has ads has never played out in the past. The average user just doesn’t care.

Forgeties79 5mo ago
The average user appears to care enough to go out of their way to use browsers and extensions and such that block ads, to the point that Google has spent enormous amount of time and money breaking those tools. I think that’s definitely something to consider. Anecdotally, the number of people who have asked me about VPNs over the last 12 to 18 months has skyrocketed. I probably get a message a month from people of all backgrounds.
- thewebguyd 5mo ago
  > The average user appears to care enough to go out of their way to use browsers and extensions and such that block ads The average user isn't going out of their way to use ad block, at least globally. Last estimates I remember are still around only 30% of internet users using an ad blocker unfortunately. Ad blocker adoption is heavily skewed toward techies. It's an even lower amount of people on mobile, where the 'average user' spends the majority of their time.
  - Forgeties79 5mo ago
    30% of the general population is a staggering number for basically anything voluntary. I don’t know how you can possibly trivialize that number. If you can get 30% of the population to boycott anything it’s not only significant but forces a response out of the group on the other side. You’re talking almost 1 in 3 people. Those are literally historic numbers. Do you have any idea how much companies spend to increase their conversions by single digits?
    - MattRix 5mo ago
      Ok but using adblock isn’t switching platforms. It doesn’t inconvenience the user at all, and there are no negative network effects.

intrasight 5mo ago

They could afford to wait, but... profits. Also, they have to start experimenting now to get the formula right for AI ads.

rockinghigh 5mo ago

It may be a push from advertisers who want access to this format. Google Search competes for their money against the competition.