3 ms·

But then again, Google's argument (saying they only influence 2.66% of the advertising market) is also correct, given they also do TV advertising http://www.go

by froo 17y ago

But then again, Google's argument (saying they only influence 2.66% of the advertising market) is also correct, given they also do TV advertising http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ ...and have dabbled in radio ads http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have.

shiranaihito 17y ago
If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have. So you're letting them off on a technicality then.
- froo 17y ago
  So you're letting them off on a technicality then. I wouldn't say Google are getting off on a technicality. I'm just saying that the premise of the article is false given that Google has shown in the past that they are trying advertising in many sectors (not just online) and so, their market position argument can be assumed to be correct, regardless of whether they dominate one area of the total market that they address.
  - shiranaihito 17y ago
    Well, talking about having a 2.6% market share of.. all of advertising is disingenuous at best. If they do something morally incorrect, it happens in the market segment they totally own. It's just a distraction. The bigger a company gets, the closer the probability that they do something evil gets to 1.