[HN Gopher] The $300B Google-Meta advertising duopoly is under a... ___________________________________________________________________ The $300B Google-Meta advertising duopoly is under attack Author : acconrad Score : 253 points Date : 2022-09-18 18:17 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | Finally, an archive.org URL at the top instead of archive.ph. | Nice one. | | The later has a "bot protection" page that looks like | Cloudflare's but someone suggested it is not. Makes sense because | archive.today and Cloudflare were in a spat some time ago. | Archive.today wanted to allow monitoring of users' locations, | e.g., via EDNS Client Subnet, but Cloudflare did not send ECS. | | Unlike Archive.today, Internet Archive does not try to force | users to enable Javascript or make them solve CAPTCHAs. Nor does | Common Crawl. | | It is interesting to contrast the Internet Archive (IA) with | Archive.today. The later is vague about how it is funded and | admits it could sell out to advertisers in the future.^1 There is | obviously no small amount of data it could collect about user | interests and behaviours that could be used to support | advertising. For example, what usage data does it store, if any. | How is that data used. There are no public statements about these | details. The operator invites users to "Ask me anything" but has | no Privacy Policy. The operator admits it sends the client's IP | in a X-Forwarded-For HTTP header. This of course is not something | one would experience with IA. The server hosting the page being | archived receives an IA IP address as the client IP address, not | an IA user's IP address. IA has a Privacy Policy, last updated in | 2001.^2 Unlike Archive.today, I feel reasonably confident IA wil | not sell out to commercial interests but who knows. | | 1. From Archive.today's FAQ: | | How is the archive funded? | | It is privately funded; there are no complex finances behind it. | It may look more or less reliable compared to startup-style | funding or a university project, depending on which risks are | taken into account. | | Will advertising appear on the archive one day ? | | I cannot make a promise that it will not. With the current growth | rate I am able to keep the archive free of ads. Well, I can | promise it will have no ads at least till the end of 2014. | | 2. YMMV, but IME but the fewer "updates" to a Privacy Policy over | time the better. | montpeliervt wrote: | No has mentioned Subprime Attention Crisis yet. It's worth | reading. The whole thing is a hyper-inflated, opaque house of | cards, and its collapse will cause a lot of pain. | seshagiric wrote: | I work in online search and recently expanded. In my opinion | there are two major threats to Google and Facebook (I.e., ads | related threats): | | 1. Platform power: Apple was a key supplier to Facebook in the | sense that they provide platform driving a significant % of their | Ads revenue. With Apple tightening privacy they have become an | indirect but significant threat to Facebook. Google is relatively | safe. | | 2. Threat of substitutes: as seen in Amazon, Ecom platforms are | much closer to the customer. Us timer is about to make a | purchase. I think over time Advertisers will eventually shift to | platforms like amazon, Etsy etc so that can reach the customer | right when they are about to make a purchase. Some what same | appeal with snap and TikTok. | | Overall online ad industry will continue to flourish but will see | big changes in who are the big players. | xyst wrote: | the day the ad industry dies, we will all be better off | smoldesu wrote: | What replaces it? People aren't going to host content for | free. I hate ads too, but we have to be pragmatic about | monetization; platforms like YouTube _literally cannot exist_ | without advertising to subsidize the insane architectural | cost. | | The solution is proper oversight. We've gone too long without | regulating advertisements, app stores and video platforms, | and we've witnessed the consequences. It's time that we put | the interests of the people before FAANG shareholders and HN | pundits. | oezi wrote: | > platforms like YouTube literally cannot exist without | advertising | | Why? If you consider Netflix without the cost of content | creation, then less than 1 USD per month per user would | cover the infrastructure cost just fine. Maybe cents | suffice. | | Youtube is just one big profit center for Alphabet. | jsnell wrote: | YT's content isn't free. The majority of the income | (55/45 split) from ads and Premium goes to the content | creators. To compare, in 2021 Netflix had content | acquisition costs of 60% of their revenue. | | And then on the flipside, YT has a much harder | infrastucture problem than Netflix. There's probably like | 1000x as much content (both new and existing), and much | more diversity in what is being watched. That means 1000x | more storage and transcoding, and far lower cache hit | rates. | | (I've got no idea of whether/how profitable YT is. Just | saying that if you're trying to reason about it via | analogy to Netflix, you've got the directionality wrong | on both of the issues.) | xyst wrote: | Decentralized architecture, open source. No one single | entity owns the platform. "Payment" is in the form of | sharing your hosted content (bandwidth, energy, time). | Fully democratized. | winnie_ua wrote: | But what if you can't afford having huge server, to | contribute to the network? | | And how to incentivise people in redistributing content? | | For example in perfect decentralized p2p world, people on | mobile clients would be leaching content from fat | clients. You either have to rent server, to host for your | own phone, or go to some company to do it for you. | | That's complicated :-( | smoldesu wrote: | With blackjack and hookers, too! | wussboy wrote: | > What replaces it? People aren't going to host content for | free. | | Perhaps. But I for one would like to try this just to see | what that Internet would look like. I think it would be a | refreshing change from the Internet we currently have. | visarga wrote: | On the medium term I see another problem for search ads - the | raise of AI powered question answering engines. They are | accessible through voice on mobile, but probably have much less | opportunity for ad revenue. The research grade models are | amazing, but deployed models like Google Assistant very far | behind. I bet Google is dragging its feet with the deployment | of QA technology because the shift is not in their interest. | Site publishers won't like it either because they lose a part | of the search traffic. | | In the meantime a new crop of semantic search + question | answering engines appear (like DeepSet.ai's Haystack). It's | time to ditch link based results. They are primitive and | actually don't work well today. | soco wrote: | "Hey Siri show me the best restaurant in town!" "Sure but by | the way did you know about this new car insurance?" | greatpostman wrote: | YouTube and Facebook tune their recommendation algorithms for | censorship and ad profit. This left a massive gap in their | product, which was filled by tiktok. Capitalism is at work here | baxtr wrote: | The article is based on... nothing? And a bit of TikTok mania? I | thought this was really low quality in essence - providing no | real proof for any substantial change. | crazygringo wrote: | Did you miss the graph in the article? | | Key quote: | | > _For Meta and Google's corporate parent, Alphabet, the | cyclical problem may not be the worst of it. They might once | have hoped to offset the digital-ad pie's slower growth by | grabbing a larger slice of it. No longer. Although the two are | together expected to rake in around $300bn in revenues this | year, sales of their four biggest rivals in the West will | amount to almost a quarter as much. If that does not sound like | a lot, it is nevertheless giving the incumbents reason to | worry. Five years ago most of those rivals were scarcely in the | ad business at all (see chart)._ | baxtr wrote: | So that's saying: | | - today: Google and FB have 75% of all sales combined and | those other rivals have 25% | | - 5 years ago: those other rivals had 0% | | What does this say about the market share of FB and google 5 | years ago? Nothing. That's exactly what I'm talking about. | Maybe it was 90%. Maybe it was 75%! But hey, whatever, let's | publish that clickbait article. | crazygringo wrote: | It's an article about potential competitive threats to | Google-Meta, not a survey of the entire online advertising | industry. The rise of potential competitors is not | "nothing". | | "Clickbait" can be used with a lot of publications. But in | the list of publications it can be applied to... I'd say | the Economist would be ranked about dead last. Maybe tied | with Der Spiegel. | baxtr wrote: | The title is: "the ad duopoly is under attack". The term | duopoly describes how the market is split: two companies | make up the biggest chunk. The article provides no | evidence that the market structure has changed. See my | comment. | | A clickbait can be used by any publication. Apparently, | including The Economist. | pessimizer wrote: | If I'm understanding baxtr's point, they're saying that | the article is attempting to claim a trend without | showing enough evidence to point to one. The fact that | the competitors have gone from 0% to 25% within 5 years | could be evidence that Google/Meta have growing threats, | or it could be evidence that their competitors can't grab | enough of the market to be sustainable so they die within | 5 years, or that they're buying up all of the competition | within 5 years of their launch. Google/Meta could have | gone from 60% of the market to 75% of the market in the | last five years. | | So that's the case for the headline claim that they're _" | under attack"_ being linkbait. It isn't really affected | by how you feel about the Economist's (or even less Der | Spiegel's) brand. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | Tiktok ads have significant better results than Google | Facebook. Not even close. | pessimizer wrote: | My assumption is that Google and Facebook are pushing stories | about how they're in a precarious position and actually have a | lot of threatening competition, some of it dangerous, foreign, | and in need of investigation. | tenpies wrote: | Absolutely, although the risk for them is retaliation, | especially with the US deciding that it wants to be the chief | geopolitical chaos generator in the world. | | Having US social media in your country is a huge geopolitical | risk, especially if you're one of the regimes that isn't just | doing what the US wants at all times. | winnie_ua wrote: | You looks like Russian :D | | But you are blaming US in all problems. Typical. | [deleted] | seibelj wrote: | One reason I'm highly skeptical to claims of monopolies, | especially in an industry as dynamic and volatile as tech, is in | 5 years you already have competition from new upstarts (TikTok) | and old hands (Apple and Amazon) that makes claims of digital | advertising "dominance" by Google and Meta outdated. The monopoly | claims were suspicious from the beginning but now it looks pretty | absurd. | cush wrote: | They can and have swayed elections at the turn of a dial... | rabuse wrote: | TikTok was only able to compete so quickly because it's | literally sponsored and funded by the CCP. | largepeepee wrote: | That's like saying every SV tech company is funded by the | CIA. | | Oh wait.. | pessimizer wrote: | As if the others aren't government supported and coddled | monopolies. | lossolo wrote: | TikTok is better product than Youtube shorts or Instagram | reels, money have nothing to do with it, especially while | FAANG have more money than ByteDance. | encryptluks2 wrote: | The claims of monopoly have always been political. The only | company that comes close to a monopoly is Apple due to them | locking out third-party apps on their phones. | trhway wrote: | "Monopoly" is just a shorthand for a range of market | dominance abuse. I.e. if an 800lb gorilla abuses you, it | doesn't really matter that there are several others 600-700 | lb gorillas ready to do the same to you. | | https://ethique.rexel.com/en/competition-law/abuse-of-a- | domi... | | "A dominant position is not defined merely by market share, | but by classification as a market leader. Typically, a | company is considered to hold a dominant position if it has a | market share of more than 40%, but even a market share of 15% | may be considered dominant if it is the largest player in a | fragmented market. " | blululu wrote: | Monopoly literally means a single seller. Duopolies and | oligopolies are distinct both in theory and practice. | nvrspyx wrote: | I think they're saying that the word "monopoly" is used | colloquially, by many, to simply mean dominant position | and that those people don't mean the literal definition. | It seems they're just trying to say that the parent | comment is arguing about the definition of monopoly | rather than the actual point, which is dominant position | abuse. | | I agree that it's important to recognize the differences | between monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies in theory | and practice, as you say, but I also don't think that | using the wrong term nullifies validity of the actual | point. | pessimizer wrote: | Fine, bring back "trust" if you prefer an archaic | precision. Antitrust is about trusts, not monopolies. | InCityDreams wrote: | Did you[r quote] somehow confuse 'monopoly' with | 'dominant'? | zo1 wrote: | Unfortunately, in the meantime, the "monopoly" has done huge | and world-or-population scale damage in some way. Just think of | how the industry has been affected (potentially negatively) by | the heavy push and funding by big tech giants of technologies | such as React, Angular, and Kubernetes? | [deleted] | warinukraine wrote: | 13324 wrote: | https://web.archive.org/web/20220918181734/https://www.econo... | hardware2win wrote: | Are MSFT and Apple safest faangs rn? | tootie wrote: | Did you look at the graphic? Google and Meta no longer have a | stranglehold on the market, but the market is also bigger than | ever. 70% of the ad market in 2022 is worth more than 90% was | in 2012. | screye wrote: | Facebook and social media companies rely on viral phenomena to | sustain their monopoly. It will take 1 inciting event for them | to fall into an irreversible death spiral. The instagram + | whatsapp acquisition, feeling threatened by 100x smaller dev | shops demonstrates that. | | Google's big advantage is that their core product has | fundamental value (search and by proxy: ads) and their | secondary products are such loss-leaders that outcompeting | those freebies (Google office suite, Gmail, maps, YT, chrome, | ml tooling) is where the real difficulty comes in. But building | a core-search competitor is far easier than competition with | Apple or Msft's core products. Google has a lot more | scaffolding that FB, but they too have a single point of | failure. A sea-change (like Mapreduce, pagerank, the | smartphone) can see them collapse swiftly. | | On the other hand, enterprise / feature-checklist companies lie | in a stable equilibrium. You can't really beat them unless you | invest a similar amount of resources into it. And even if you | defeat them, they'll catch up to you in time if they're run at | similar levels of competency and can throw a ton money money at | it. Microsoft and Apple are exactly that. It's like trying to | start a Boeing or Nvidia competitor. You better at least be at | Airbus's or AMD's level before even trying to compete against | boeing. | | Microsoft's weakness is best displayed by Adpbe's acquisition | of Figma. If Microsoft is run in a similarly predatory manner | and a competitor gets 10 free years to catch up on 1 feature | while you continuously fail to innovate, then you feel a mild | threat, at which point you can simply outbid and acquire them. | That shows how remarkably comfortable of a position Adobe is | in, and Microsft and Apple sit a couple of orders of magnitude | above that. | VirusNewbie wrote: | I'm fairly certain gmail, youtube, and gsuite on their own | would be unicorns still. | scarface74 wrote: | YouTube is barely break even according to most reports and | GSuite is really not that big in the enterprise. | | https://www.computerworld.com/article/3637079/as-google- | move... | | > Google grew its share of the productivity software market | to 10.3% in 2020, according to research from Gartner, | taking about 2% from Microsoft. Microsoft is still the | clear leader however, with 89.2%. Overall, the productivity | software suite market grew 18.2% during 2020. | IceWreck wrote: | Youtube wouldve never grown to that size without Googe's | money. It wouldve inevitably shut down or made huge changes | to their model. | | Gmail, yes it would be huge without google but its only so | bug because google forced it down everyone's throats with | mandatory google accounts for android, maps, youtube, | drive, etc. | | GSuite again this would never be s big without google's | backing. Just look at its non MS competitors. | scarface74 wrote: | What happens if Apple decides to or is forced to stop | accepting a reported $18 billion a year to be the default | search engine on iOS devices? Google will lose its most | valuable customers. | | Microsoft Office adoption in the enterprise dwarfs GSuite. | screye wrote: | Oh yeah, that's exactly my point. | | IMO, The vulnerability from most vulnerable to least goes: | | Facebook > Google >> Apple ~> Microsoft = Amazon | bradleyjg wrote: | Microsoft is reliant on Azure for growth. Although cloud | initiatives are designed to save money in the long run, in the | short run they cost money. If we go into a strong recession | than at the least I would expect Azure to do worse than | projected. | | Likewise, Apple sells luxury goods. | | If I had to bet on one FAAMNG in a sharp recession it would be | Amazon. They have the most diversified revenue streams. | scarface74 wrote: | This could only come from someone who doesn't understand the | enterprise. | | How is a luxury good affordable by over 50% of the US market? | bee_rider wrote: | FAANG is kind of a weird classification: 4 web companies, 2 of | which are primarily ad companies... and then Apple, a devices | company with real low-level chops. | | Why don't we put Apple in with somebody like: MAIA -- | Microsoft, Apple, Intel, AMD. Maybe add NVIDIA, you have to | work out a good acronym though. | [deleted] | classified wrote: | > a good acronym | | MANIA | bee_rider wrote: | Ah wow, that's better than the Lord of the Rings reference. | scarface74 wrote: | Intel and AMD are no longer dominant. | bee_rider wrote: | Well, it depends on how you want to define "dominant" (in | which markets, by what metrics) and to be honest the | ambiguous opener has not reeled me in. | scarface74 wrote: | Intel market cap is 120B. Apple, Microsoft, Google and | Amazon are all worth more than a trillion. | | TSMCs market cap is 4x Intel's and produces far more | processors and has a more advanced manufacturing process. | Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: | Yes, but I don't think there's been a moment where they were | not the safest. | SkyMarshal wrote: | Well except for when Apple lost most of their market share | and almost went bankrupt. | deepstack wrote: | Yup there were even Mac clones then, MS actually came in | saved Apple at one point. | samwillis wrote: | That was very much pre FAANG as a construct. Apple, since | it's second coming, has never be in an unsafe position. | ThrowawayR2 wrote: | Apple is focused on consumer products and consumers can | be fickle. While it won't be anytime soon, it's not | impossible for Apple to someday lose the design mojo that | makes their products popular. Steve Jobs and his RDF | aren't there anymore and neither is Jony Ive. | scarface74 wrote: | Creating hardware at scale is hard. What company do you | think will be able to duplicate Apple's infrastructure, | manufacturing, chip design, retail, etc? | | Not to mention that even with "great design" any Android | phone is still stuck with being Android and the lack of | integration between software, hardware and ecosystem. | bergenty wrote: | Goog and Facebook are still safe as hell. Even if you think | Facebook is waning, is going tk be hard to dislodge WhatsApp | and instagram and I don't really think Facebook is going away. | doktorhladnjak wrote: | Those companies aren't going away any time soon. Heck, IBM, | Cisco, Hewlett Packard are all still around, and all still | making profits. Doesn't mean they're desirable places to work | at all compared to the olden days. | scarface74 wrote: | Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. They have real hard to reproduce | infrastructure. | mensetmanusman wrote: | It's an interesting issue because it is probably Apple's fault. | | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/small-businesses-cou... | | Apple accidentally attacked small businesses that used to rely on | geographically relevant advertising by increasing privacy | protection. | | There is no easy solution here. | wussboy wrote: | All that geographically relevant advertising could go back to | how it was before Facebook/Google became the only way to do it. | It seem an easy-enough solution to me. | samwillis wrote: | To some extent I disagree with this, not that Google+Meta are | under attack, but that the threat is coming from competitors. | | I've spent most of the last 10 years earning my living from an | e-commerce business I own. The online advertising industry is | unrecognisable from when we started. My thesis, in beef, is that | the industries excessive uses of personalised data and tracking | lead to increased regulation, and then a massive pivot to even | more "AI" as a means to circumvent that (to some extent). The AI | in the ad industry now, I believe, is detrimental to the | advertiser. It's now just one big black box, you put money in one | side and get traffic out the other. The control and useful | tracking (what _actual_ search terms people are using, proper | _visible_ conversion tracking of an ad) is now almost non- | existent. As an advertiser your livelihood is dependant on an | algorithm, not skill, not intuition, not experience, not even | track record. | | Facebook, Google and the rest of the industry were so driven by | profit at all cost, and at the expense of long term thinking, | they shot themselves in the foot. | | Advertisers are searching for alternatives, but they are all the | same. | | I think online advertising, as a whole, is probably f***ed... | civilized wrote: | > My thesis, in beef | | This is a delightful turn of phrase. I wonder if it was | deliberate or an autocorrect happy accident. | verisimi wrote: | In brief, I think | samwillis wrote: | Correct. | samwillis wrote: | I really hate iPhone autocorrect... | hestefisk wrote: | It's a very beefy thesis ... Or a beef with someone? | civilized wrote: | The latter. Since he's complaining about the ad industry | from what sounds like a personal perspective. | xwdv wrote: | Is it really much different from offline advertising in days of | old? That was more or less also a black box. | jeremyjh wrote: | Yes, you would know what content your ad was displayed | between and could draw inferences and do research on that | specific audience. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | "Facebook, Google and the rest of the industry were so driven | by profit at all cost, and at the expense of long term | thinking, they shot themselves in the foot." | | If one subscribes to the idea that reducing spending can help | curb inflation, then the "business model" of online | advertising-supported "tech" companies seem to require that | consumers keep spending, in spite of inflation. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Have you read "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism"? I would say | that your observations - tho they frustrate you - are very much | inline with what the book proposes. | | In short, and paraphrased a bit to speak to your context, | you're no longer buying impressions / clicks in the traditional | transactional sense. Instead you're buying the influence on | behavior within the broader context of what these networks know | about the individuals within a market, but also what other | influence these networks have accrued on the individuals. | | It's a blackbox be because it's no longer a simple transaction, | but also because the AI (?) is in a broader sense exerting | proactive influences. Nudges on behavior that add up and | ideally can not only be predicted but also created. | | The book is long and deep, but it will also change how you view | the world and Big Tech. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capi... | jeremyjh wrote: | But how does an ad buyer know their ads are even displayed to | a relevant audience? | chiefalchemist wrote: | You don't, but that's what's being sold. Not the old | transaction, but instead the boarder awareness from the | network of the market to create and deliver an audience. | | Put another way, the book would argue that with the | traditional way "relevance" was a reactive guess. Going | forward the ability to create the desired behaviour is less | of a guess and more predictable. | martincmartin wrote: | > _As an advertiser your livelihood is dependant on an | algorithm, not skill, not intuition, not experience, not even | track record._ | | In other words, companies now have to compete by making useful | products at a good price, rather than gaming SEO. | deltree7 wrote: | Naive understanding of the world / information. | | Say, In a world of 1,000,000,000+ great products, reaching | consumers through word-of-mouth is hard. | | I bet there are products that solves a lot of your current | problems at a decent price. But you don't know about it and | none of your friends or network have the same problem for you | to give you the solution. | | The only way to solve this problem is for the product/service | provider to know about you and the fact that you have a | problem. | | Advertising is actually an optimal / scalable way for | companies to reach you. | | In a Billion+ product world, you need at least 10 Million | Trust worthy reviewers to give you an unbiased review of | everything. But, how do you trust the reviewers? | NikolaNovak wrote: | >>"The only way to solve this problem is for the | product/service provider to know about you and the fact | that you have a problem." | | Only way?? No. | | No no absolutely not. | | If/Since we are talking ideas and hypothetical, the | _preferred_ way would be for me to search for a product / | indicate my need, and then marketplace to provide / compete | for it. | | The whole notion that advertiser must understand what I | need, all the time, without my involvement knowledge or | permission, then shove what it thinks I need up my throat | constantly, is dystopian. | | Basically, I think we are mixing up a pull paradigm to | satisfy the consumer, with a push paradigm to satisfy the | business. This is not to be naive about realities of world, | business, saturated market, crappy products and | differentiation, etc. But it peeves me when companies lack | self awareness to be honest with themselves about which | model is beneficial to which party. | | Edit (and if we are going to talk about consumers being | ignorant of the realities, let us not please _pretend_ that | the ultimate purpose of advertising is to perfectly satisfy | a need with optimal product. Ultimate purpose of | advertising is to make a sale. Sometimes, that sale is in | fact optimal for the consumer. We can disagree how often | that occurs as a percentage.) | | Edit edit : the more I think the more I disagree. It's the | word "optimal" that really bugs me - there's nothing | optimal about modern online advertising. Clever, | persistent, pervasive, desperate, aobnoxious, hard work, | are some attributes that come to my mind. But it feels far | from optimal - there's so much money and effort in this | arms race which is increasingly hostile between an | advertiser and consumer, and knowingly so; google and meta | are 300 billion worth of not optimal :-> | tsimionescu wrote: | Even though this idea of visibility is often touted, the | vast majority of advertising is in practice all about | obfuscating the actual uses (and especially limitations) of | a product. | | Furthermore, rather than trying to find the few people whom | a product matches, it is often about pushing the product on | people who never needed it in the first place - such as the | diamond industry marketing inventing the practice of giving | diamond rings for engagements, or the toy industry creating | ads to specifically teach children to nag their parents. Or | the vast amounta of pills promising penis enlargement. | | Sure, these things may not happen so much in B2B specialty | advertising, but in B2C they are the norm, and exceptions | are few and far between. | deltree7 wrote: | You can reform the Ad industry in several ways (enhancing | "truth in advertisment") | | i) You can only use factual information. | | ii) You can't use visual props unrelated to the product | (sexy women, beaches, fancy cars, spas) | | But to burn advertisements due to shortcomings is like | hating/shutting down internet because of 4chan or QAnon | tsimionescu wrote: | If 4chan and QAnon were the vast majority of the | internet, I would agree with the comparison. | | But as I said, the vast vast majority of advertising by | any measure you chose to use is of the manipulative kind, | not informative. And this despite the existence of truth- | in-advertising laws for decades. | | And banning advertising is not even that harmful to | industry - we have the case study of the tabacco | industry, which didn't exactly die away once advertising | of all of its products was entirely prohibited in all | wealthy countries. | ajl666 wrote: | Define advertising by segmenting off of Poetry, Prose, | and Aphorism. | | You can't. I don't understand how so many engineers can't | do basic logic. | InCityDreams wrote: | In a funny kind of way, I'd rather have unsolvable problems | than be advertised at. | | If the problems actually need solving, ill go looking. | | If I'm not looking, there's no problem (to be solved). | deltree7 wrote: | Newsflash: There are unknown, unknowns. | | The vast majority of the population, they don't even know | there are solutions that would change their life. | | E.g: In a world of 8,000,000,000 how many people know | that there is Coursera which has top-level courses that | can change their lives, improve productivity and make | impact?. | | "I know everything, don't tell me. I'll ask" is exactly | the attitude that prevents learning (and prevents people | from knowing about coursera). You are just advertising | that personality to the rest of the world | tsimionescu wrote: | > In a world of 8,000,000,000 how many people know that | there is Coursera which has top-level courses that can | change their lives, improve productivity and make | impact?. | | I would bet there are more people who know Coursera | exists than people whose lives would literally change if | they took a few Coursera courses (though that doesn't | mean that there aren't _some_ people whose lives _could_ | be changed by Coursera if they knew about it). | | However, seeing an Ad for Coursera is not likely to help | anyone find out whether Corusera can actually help them | or not - since there is absolutely no way to tell from an | ad whether the product being presented is going to be | even close to fit for purpose. The only thing the ad | tells you that can be trusted is "Coursera is a company | that is trying to sell online courses" (note: that | doesn't mean that they actually _provide_ online courses, | you can only trust that they are trying to sell them - | see the myriads of ads for mobile puzzle games whose | gameplay has literally no relation to the game play shown | in the ad). | | Note: I'm not trying to take potshots at Coursera here - | they are a reputable business and have many good courses | - which I know from my own and friends' personal | experiences. I'm trying to look objectively of what an ad | for a company you know nothing about can actually tell | you. | ajl666 wrote: | Seems obvious. I agree. However I think you're not going | to get through to those with central planning biases. By | which I mean, the notion that perfect planning can beat | the market. | | The Palace Economy central planner says, "give me wheat." | The Soviet central planner says, "more steel comrades." | The American style technocrat planner says, "we will tell | you what you want and then deny market alternatives." | | I think there's no reasoning with these people | ajl666 wrote: | Hey downvoter. If the point is so weak, surely you can | refute my moronic self with some cunning argument. | | Why are so many information scientists afraid of | information? | tsimionescu wrote: | You're not making any points, and your comments are | written to be inflammatory (unlike deltree7's, who is | clearly advancing the conversation, even if I don't agree | with them). | einpoklum wrote: | The thing is, the mass of advertising isn't about helping | you know the unknown unknowns, it's about manipulating | you into wanting things you know about, more, or wanting | things you don't need / wouldn't really want in a fair | evaluation. | | The thing is, in our society, institutions mostly develop | venues for advertising rather than for listing - since | both the owners of the venue and the entities offering | products/services have overarching profit motives, and | advertising is more profitable. | batch12 wrote: | > The vast majority of the population, they don't even | know there are solutions that would change their life. | | > I know everything, don't tell me. I'll ask" is exactly | the attitude that prevents learning | | This feels parental-- a version of mommy knows best. Why | not let me, by default, decide if I want personalized | advertisements? What if I want to be ignorant in regards | to the new fad product? What if I don't want companies to | mine my interests, location, prior searches, etc just to | tell me that coursera exists? Advertisers are afraid of | using an opt-in model because they _know_ most people won | 't do it. | geoduck14 wrote: | >If the problems actually need solving, ill go looking. | | What if you _are_ looking, but an advertisement helps you | find it faster? | | As an example, I was shopping for a keyboard the other | day. I spent several hours looking through different | specs. It would be handy if a website would have popped | up "hey, here are the 3 you are probably looking for, | pick one!". | | The benefit would have been for me (less time looking) | and for three site (less server time serving pages to me) | Larrikin wrote: | In my experience all three options are usually crap and I | would have been better served doing my own research. | | The only time advertising has been of use to me is | advertising clothing. It's an extremely saturated market, | so searching for "cool t shirt" or "nice jeans" is | worthless. Before COVID I would go to a nice area in | Tokyo, NYC, or some other major city and just load up | when it was time to buy new clothes. | | I block most ads, but a couple ads have gotten through | over the years and I've learned about new brands or | atleast new styles and had a jumping off point. | | I still feel I am way better off blocking as many ads as | I can, but can't say they've been completely worthless. | | Most of the HN crowd can't fathom the idea of spending | money on clothing outside of necessity. Shirts that will | last ten years is more popular of a topic than shirts | that actually look good. | plorkyeran wrote: | When I am looking to buy something, ads actively get in | the way of that. Ads are why we don't have websites that | tell you "these are the 3 options you're probably looking | for" any more because people figured out that they can | make sites like that where the three choices are just ads | rather than good recommendations. There's been times when | I've simply given up on buying something because I got | sick of wading through ads looking for any actual | information. | CuriouslyC wrote: | If I have a know I have problem, I'll look for a solution | myself, and perform an objective comparison. I don't need | some marketing asshat's stilted sales copy designed to con | idiots into buying. | | Convincing people who are happy that they have problems | they need to spend money to solve for your personal benefit | is morally dubious at best. | deltree7 wrote: | Unknown Unknowns. | | How would you let people people know that they may be | prone to cancer? | | How can you inform the world population that there exists | coursera that teaches you skills on any imaginable | subject that may change their lives? | | Most people aren't looking for those categories of | information. | micromacrofoot wrote: | don't you form an opinion by looking at reviews made by | the idiots conned by those asshats? | ajl666 wrote: | It's too subtle a point. The argument here is not about | logic, but about intellectual honesty. | | The parent you replied to believes everybody else is | unduly influenced by 'asshats' and that his/her favored | influencers are not 'asshats.' As if Ezra Pound or Edmund | Teller weren't 'asshats' for nuclear explosive mining, or | fascism. | | Dismissing advertisers for being into the 'filthy lucre?' | So what should we do with all the engineers doing the | same? | ajl666 wrote: | Classic central planning answer. | TheRealPomax wrote: | I would venture a guess that companies that already made | quality products are entirely unaffected by this, it's | companies pushing shit that only sells thanks to ads that get | hit, and: good. I hope those all go out of business. | ravenstine wrote: | The Google laughs maniacally in response and says: | | "No, no... we're not competing with _ad_ firms. We 're about | bringing products to users before there's even a need to | advertise them." | simfree wrote: | I have given up on Google AdWords due to the exact issue you | describe. | | Trying to restrict my advertising budget to just one city and | do a hard geographic restriction to just US IP addresses did | not work. I filed 5 tickets over two weeks with Google trying | to get this resolved, only to have over half my budget spent in | another continent making impressions with people that will | literally never buy the local specific product advertised. | heavyset_go wrote: | Same exact thing happened to me when launching a product that | was only available in the US. | | For whatever reason, Google was showing my ads to people on | the other side of the planet and then taking my money for the | privilege. | missedthecue wrote: | I have had the opposite experience. I have tried many | different ad networks for my product and the only two that | work are Google and Bing, but Bing has very low volume. | Facebook's bounce rate is about 80%. I get billed for so many | accidental clicks. | | Most other non-faang ad networks are hot garbage. So many | bots. In my view, Google has a "monopoly" not because of | anti-competitive behaviour... It's because they have the best | ad product. | AJ007 wrote: | I think there is probably a record breaking class action | lawsuit here with the right lawyers. Damages could be 50-100% | of Google's yearly gross revenue, especially when you include | countries outside on the US who really don't like Google. | | Google intentionally modified both geo-targeting and mobile | app targeting, removing the options advertisers set. For | example, you opted out of mobile app targeted. Then they | removed the option and you had to set it in the domain | blacklist. Then they removed that. This wasn't a one off, | hid, modified, and moved these options repeatedly. | | Advertisers didn't know that when you geo-targeted a | location, by default it was set to users searching that | location. You didn't want people in India who were interested | in NYC? Too bad. | | Remember the whole Adwords prescription drug settlement. This | is an organization run by people who would be serving hard | time if they didn't have a legion of lawyers and bottomless | pockets. | Covzire wrote: | That's ridiculous, isn't selecting a target market | Marketing/Econ 101? What possible reason would they have for | not giving some kind of locality options? | heavyset_go wrote: | Google Knows Best(tm) and lack of real competition or | regulation means they can do whatever they want. | hnick wrote: | Yeah I found it quite hard as a novice to actually tell if my | Facebook pixel stuff was all working and firing exactly as | intended. The lack of data means it's hard to map a 1:1 | relationship for a certain visitor (me). "Luckily", our site | was not successful so we could find some matches in the recent | queries list... on a busier site it would have been hard to pin | down. | | It still felt like a total money pit into which you toss | offerings to a dark god which may or may not grant blessings. | whatever1 wrote: | But that is adverting in general. We have billboards, tv ads, | paper ads, product placements. You have no clue how many | people will buy because of these ads. But you burn your cash | anyway. | hnick wrote: | The difference there - you can at least verify your ad is | being _shown_ , even if it is not a guarantee of | effectiveness, and use other estimates to see how many | people see it such as foot traffic or TV viewership. | | I have no real way of knowing how many people see my online | advertising, I just get a number and a bill, and I have to | trust them. The pixel does help for visits but not views | and other metrics. | EGreg wrote: | Yep, it is, and there are far better models out there. | | Here is just one of MANY possibilities: | https://qbix.com/ecosystem#Decentralizing-the-Marketplace | tinus_hn wrote: | Ultimately as ad blocking rises im pretty sure ad hosting and | tracking as it is now will go the same way popups went and ads | will end up within the content itself or included in the pages | directly so they can't be blocked. | candiodari wrote: | I look forward to them first AI ad blockers then. | adbro123 wrote: | > what actual search terms people are using, proper visible | conversion tracking of an ad | | I sympathize with this position. I operate a one stop shop for | digital advertising for huge brands. | | First I agree that the regulations (the government ones and | Apple's) have benefitted no one. This is in a sense totally | factual, and I challenge the blowhards here to like, name one | substantive harm someone has experienced from ad ID tracking on | an iPhone. While I believe government regulations should be | proactive, rather than reactive, I believe the sum total | history of ad tracking has pretty much confirmed that there | aren't any substantive harms to correlated ad IDs. | | From the perspective of advertisers: | | An enlightening explanation of the Google value ad I read came | from another guy explaining how he advertised dev tools on | Google. He created a YouTube ad so that Johnny Programmer, | watching YouTube videos on a weekend, would see a demo of his | devops tool because Johnny searched "how to connect git to | kubernetes" or whatever in the previous 10 days. And those ads | converted really well. Even though the YouTube video had no | contextual relationship with the ad the user saw. | | So it sounds like you are complaining about the flaws in | Google's tracking UI. Well, I guess e-mail them some more. | tsimionescu wrote: | > This is in a sense totally factual, and I challenge the | blowhards here to like, name one substantive harm someone has | experienced from ad ID tracking on an iPhone. | | You then give a perfect example right in the next paragraph: | | > so that Johnny Programmer, watching YouTube videos on a | weekend, would see a demo of his devops tool because Johnny | searched "how to connect git to kubernetes" or whatever in | the previous 10 days. | | So now Johnny Programmer's work life is hounding him on | weekends. Even worse, he is being influenced to buy a paid | product to do something that could probably be easily | achieved with open source tools as well. | aidos wrote: | To be fair, you should use different profiles for your work | and personal digital lives. | | And if someone is likely to use an open source solution, | they're also unlikely to be influenced to switch to a paid | product based on an ad instead. | kixiQu wrote: | Why should I have to use a different "profile"? | tsimionescu wrote: | Advertising is actively working against this - trying to | find ways to correlate your activity across as many | devices and accounts as possible. Especially now that | work from home, BYOD and ZeroTrust (which reduces the | need for corporate VPNs) are all blurring the lines and | giving new opportunities for correlation. | | > And if someone is likely to use an open source | solution, they're also unlikely to be influenced to | switch to a paid product based on an ad instead. | | This is assuming that the ad isn't promising something | too good to be true, or using deceptive pricing to make | it seem cheap enough to be better than the OSS, or using | psychological tricks to try to override your rational | choice (which may not work for this particular example, | but may well work for many others). | senorrib wrote: | If you make the example abstract you _might_ understand | what the problem is. | [deleted] | tomcam wrote: | > Well, I guess e-mail them some more. | | That will definitely work | pnutjam wrote: | user name checks out | Guvante wrote: | > This is in a sense totally factual, and I challenge the | blowhards here to like, name one substantive harm someone has | experienced from ad ID tracking on an iPhone | | Building up a huge library of data about you in an | unregulated fashion has never backfired on the public at | large, oh wait those exact data warehouses have been | continuous sources of pain for users. | | The reality is these breaches cost the business next to | nothing. After all even if millions of users have <$100 worth | of damages it is impossible to recover that. So the business | did hundreds of millions of damages at no cost to itself. | doktorhladnjak wrote: | > I challenge the blowhards here to like, name one | substantive harm someone has experienced from ad ID tracking | on an iPhone | | The sense of entitlement from those on the other side of the | ads business, and their disdain for what users might want or | how they feel, shows exactly why this business and industry | is broken. And frankly why the whole thing is being dragged | down right now. Figure it out. Adapt. It's what every other | business has to do all the time. | sameadbro456 wrote: | > Figure it out. Adapt. | | I understand this is a stylized opinion. | | There is actually a great deal of innovation in | advertising! I don't think the ad ID tracking is going to, | on net, matter. For example, Fortnite already has | unavoidable branded advertising that doesn't require | tracking at all to work. Native ads can't be blocked by | uBlock. | | The big forces at play move around where advertising goes, | but it doesn't really get rid of it or necessarily make it | "better". Probably we should not allow advertising to kids, | and yet here we are, Roblox and Fortnite branded | experiences primarily for very young children! Thanks | Obama. | | > disdain | | I don't know, I only have a jokey disdain for the end user. | People have rehashed these arguments a million times. You | can't just righteous your way into being right here. I | would just say you didn't name any harms, and then you went | and blew very hard. | umanwizard wrote: | You didn't answer his question, you just stated your own | opinion. | kingkawn wrote: | One bad substantive harm from ad id tracking on iOS? | | Making zuck and google richer. | timfsu wrote: | Yes, but Zuck and Google get richer because companies are | paying them for a valuable service. It's unclear that | destroying that value helps anyone | callmeal wrote: | >I challenge the blowhards here to like, name one substantive | harm someone has experienced from ad ID tracking on an | iPhone. | | How quickly we forget/forgot this proof of concept: | | http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation- | pranking-... | [deleted] | saagarjha wrote: | > This is in a sense totally factual, and I challenge the | blowhards here to like, name one substantive harm someone has | experienced from ad ID tracking on an iPhone. | | Things don't have to cause obvious harm to still be | inappropriate. | sameadbro456 wrote: | It's all tradeoffs at the end of the day. A better | entertained, better informed public - enjoying their free | IP paid by better ads - is worth the some-abstract-not-yet | harms. | | That said I believe journalists are definitely getting | fucked by the government, Google, Meta and even Apple, with | the shit payouts of Apple News being unsustainable too. You | misunderstand me, these giant corporations are definitely | the antagonist. | | It's just not necessarily most advertisers, who just want | to get you to buy shoes or whatever the fuck. Nobody forces | you to buy anything. But someone has to feed the | journalists. | rs999gti wrote: | Unless these competitors have something groundbreaking, Google | and Meta can counter by undercutting ad spend pricing or | acquiring potential rivals | wharfjumper wrote: | The main rivals referred to are Amazon, Microsoft and Apple so | acquisition doesn't seem a realistic option. | wharfjumper wrote: | Since Apple, Microsoft and Amazon revenue mostly comes from non | ad sources, a price war would weaken AlphaMeta relatively. | nixcraft wrote: | Is it just me, or do major tech companies turn into advertising | businesses even for paid products like Windows OS[1] or | iPhone/iOS[2]? | | [1] https://www.makeuseof.com/windows-11-remove-ads/ | | [2] | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-... | amelius wrote: | This is at least as old as Smart TVs. | cowtools wrote: | this really punches a hole in the idea that "if you're not the | customer, you're the product" | yissp wrote: | Newspapers, magazines, cable TV, product placement in films, | ... even if you're paying you can definitely still be the | product. | daptaq wrote: | To be fair, you can't deduce "A -> ~B" from "A -> B". You can | be the customer and the product. | cowtools wrote: | But doesn't it imply that the only way to not be the | product is to be the customer? In this case, we see that | being the customer is insufficient to not be the product. | daptaq wrote: | No, being a product or a customer stand in no relation to | one another. You can be neither, either, or both. If you | don't want to be a product, you have to work on that, not | on being a better customer. | sneak wrote: | No, the only way to not be the product is to not provide | PII to big tech, or their downstreams that immediately | shuttle your PII to big tech. | tsimionescu wrote: | Advertising doesn't technically need PII, any kind of II | is enough (PII typically refers to things like your name | or face or address). | sneak wrote: | Every app these days requires your unique and unchanging | advertising identifier to log in. You can't get an Apple | ID or Google account, or order a pizza or make a dinner | reservation without it. | | You might know it as your phone number. | kibwen wrote: | It doesn't punch a hole in it. If P implies Q, that doesn't | mean the inverse of P implies the inverse of Q. If you're not | the customer, you're the product. But if you are the | customer, well, sometimes you're still the product. | tshaddox wrote: | It certainly diminishes the usefulness of the rule of thumb | if you add "and you're still the product anyway even if | you're paying" to the end of it. | chucksmash wrote: | Cogito ergo productum | tsimionescu wrote: | "Cogito ergo product sum" (I think therefore I am the | product) would be closer to the original and more | slightly-Latin-like. | cowtools wrote: | Sometimes you are neither the customer nor the product. | (e.g. a service like wikpedia or a project like linux) | | I think the context in which the phrase "if you're not the | customer, you're the product" is often used implies that we | should upgrade our relationship by paying, however this is | not necessarily the case as shown here. | matheusmoreira wrote: | You're always the product unless you're using freedom | respecting hardware and software. If you're a customer, it | just means you paid for the privilege of being someone else's | product. | cowtools wrote: | You're not the customer or the product: you're the | developer. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Okay. I'd rather be the developer than the product. | seydor wrote: | You re the customer, and the product | summerlight wrote: | Technically, advertising business basically solves a market | optimization problem, which means you can keep improving | revenue/profit while your business structure remaining | transparent to customers. This gives you a definite control on | your business as well as removing lots of uncertainties. I have | no doubt Apple or MS want to get their hands into the | advertising business; how to do that is a different question | though. | simfree wrote: | Apple already sells ads, and has been expanding where they | show ads over time. | matheusmoreira wrote: | It's not just you. The business model of many tech companies | consists of creating digital fiefdoms to lock "their" users | into and then selling access to "their" users. They sell access | to "their" users to other software developers. They sell access | to the attention of "their" users to advertisers. | | It's pretty disgusting and dehumanizing. | goosedragons wrote: | I reinstalled Windows 10 on a machine recently and like half | the setup process is now ads for other Microsoft services or | things related to ads. Do you want Office 365? OneDrive? Xbox | Game Pass? Can we use your location for ads? Kind of | ridiculous. I don't think there was any the first time I | installed Win 10? Maybe just Office 365? | | I can't wait for Windows 13 when Microsoft has sold installer | ads to the highest bidder and I'm asked if I want a case of | Mountain Dew during install. | FearlessNebula wrote: | Please drink a verification can | tomcam wrote: | OK that was really really good. Thank you. | FearlessNebula wrote: | Oh I can't take credit for that, it's from 4Chan: | https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/983286-4chan | matheusmoreira wrote: | That's hilarious. It just keeps getting worse. It's like | they have no self-awareness or limits. | Liquix wrote: | These corporations are not bastions of self-awareness nor | moral fortitude. They are machines with the singular goal | of making the red line go up. It will continue to get | worse as long as people continue buying their products. | matheusmoreira wrote: | That's funny. Whatever happened to vision and innovation? | Improving the world and people's lives? Achieving great | things through technology? Empowering people? I guess | founders only talk about this stuff in the startup stage. | | If all these corporations will concern themselves with is | "line go up" then it's time for society to step in and | seriously constrain what they're allowed to do in order | to drive that line up. Frankly, corporations making line | go up by shoving advertising into everything everywhere | aren't adding a lot of value. They're just increasing | audiovisual pollution and that's an _extremely_ | charitable interpretation of their activities. What I | actually think is they 're violating my mind every single | time they show me an advertisement. My attention is mine, | it's not theirs to sell off to the highest bidder. I | couldn't care less how much money it costs them, it | should be illegal for them to do it. | dageshi wrote: | Most of the most successful corporations/businesses have | vision/innovation to begin with, they do create useful | things that people didn't know they wanted but once they | see it they do. | | After a while though, the business gets big enough that | no new innovation can actually move the needle on the | businesses revenues, the people at those companies who do | have ideas are better off getting paid well for some | period of time and then leaving to make it themselves. | | That's the stage google is in more or less, innovation | won't move their bottom line very much so they're trying | to extract as much as possible from their existing | businesses, which basically means as many ads as possible | in as many places as possible. | boplicity wrote: | Unfortunately, it's a very similar situation for MacOS. | Seemingly endless prompts to sign up for one service or | another. At least Linux is viable for _some_ of us. | sithlord wrote: | is that any different than going to Disney World and having | coke products shoved in your face? | matheusmoreira wrote: | Of course. When I go to places like that, it's because I | _want_ to consume. When I go to a store, when I open the | store app, it 's because I _want_ to see products. That 's | the whole point. In those cases, it's not advertising, it's | information. | | The problem with computers today is you get advertised to | no matter what you do. Can't boot goddamn Windows without | it finding an excuse to show you stupid Taboola ads. Can't | open a simple website without being literally flooded with | ads all around the "content". This "content" is just an | incidental abstraction, an arbitrary square on the screen | that ads mold themselves around like parasites. It doesn't | matter what the "content" is, it could be anything that | draws in users, the real product is their attention being | captured by the ads. | grey_earthling wrote: | I describe this problem as misaligned purposes. | | You want to consume plastic stuff; Disney World wants to | sell you plastic stuff; a magical time ensues. | | But you buy Windows because you want a useful OS; whereas | Microsoft make Windows as a shop-front for their paid-for | services; your purpose and the makers' purpose are | misaligned, and you end up frustrated and annoyed that | Windows isn't what you want it to be. | | Similarly, if a website's purpose is to make money (which | is fair enough of course), but you're there because you | want to read interesting stuff, that's a misaligned | purpose and a frustrating time for you. | | Websites that exist primarily to show off interesting | stuff tend not to tax the content-blocker so hard, | because the author and audience's purposes are well- | aligned. And community-governed OSes/distros tend not to | push other services, because the purpose for making them | genuinely is to be a useful OS (for their intended | niche). | | My suggestion for what it's worth: choose tools and | services where the maker's purpose for making it aligns | with your purpose for using it. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > choose tools and services where the maker's purpose for | making it aligns with your purpose for using it | | What if they don't exist anymore? Because not taking | advantage of your users by advertising to them means | leaving money on the table. Eventually some executive is | gonna show up, notice that and demand that it be done | because his compensation is directly tied to revenue | growth or something. | grey_earthling wrote: | Yep. I'm saying: avoid things that exist primarily to | make loads of money. | | Smaller, looser, less-commercial organisations have fewer | or no executives, less concern with making as much money | as possible, and (in my opinion) tend to produce less | bullshit. | | This is distinct from producing good-quality work -- | their output may be unpolished, but it'll generally be | sincere, and free of over-commercialised tat. | howaboutnope wrote: | An OS is not a destination, it's a medium if you will. A | better comparison would be being blasted with ads _no | matter_ where you go. | javajosh wrote: | It's healthier to think of business models more like | organisms. Animals aren't "good" or "bad" for having a | lifecycle that involves parasitism or predation, stealth or | deceit, or any number of behaviors, like cannibalism. Life | doesn't care how you live, just that you live. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Businesses live because society _allows_ them to live. How | about we make humane business models a pre-condition for | existence? | | "It exists in nature" is not a solid argument for anything. | I've read about insects that coerce their mates into | copulation under threat of predation. Yet nobody seriously | argues that humans should be allowed to rape because rape | exists in nature. Such an obviously sociopathic argument | just doesn't fly. | javajosh wrote: | I argue only that organisms evolve to occupy whatever | space is available to them. This true of organisms, it is | true of businesses. Both respond to incentives. | humanizersequel wrote: | > Businesses live because society _allows_ them to live. | | It is not a one way street from "mores of society" -> | "business practices". Large corporations frequently go to | extreme lengths attempting to manipulate what society | does and does not allow. | howaboutnope wrote: | I am not "life". Considering something humans do as "bad" | is kinda like the cultural equivalent of an immune system. | I don't judge a parasite for trying it on with me, because | there is no utility in it. Use those resources for fighting | back harder instead. | jeffbee wrote: | Apple advertises their cloud services in macosx constantly and | there's no way to permanently dismiss these advertisements, | other than buying said services. | berkut wrote: | Turning off the Apple Music / iCloud / Apple Arcade | notification badge "adverts" in iOS (just got a new iPhone) | is also - while not _that_ difficult technically - mildly | annoying... | ur-whale wrote: | >Is it just me, or do major tech companies turn into | advertising businesses | | The fact that matchmakers always make way more money than the | makers is not a new phenomenon. | | As a matter of fact, I'd wager that it's been this way since | the day man invented barter. | [deleted] | londons_explore wrote: | All of retail is in a way a matchmaker. | | Cosco doesn't _make_ the goods they sell - they are just | being an intermediary between you and the the manufacturer. | An intermediary that takes a 60+% fee for their work. | ur-whale wrote: | > All of retail is in a way a matchmaker. | | Disagree. | | A retailer does add tangible value beyond matchmaking. | | For example, to name a few: - transport | - quality control - inventory management - | fine-grained understanding of local demand and providing | the corresponding supply. | | Advertising is _pure_ matchmaking. | hsnewman wrote: | Costco has a variety of products the make, chicken, pizza | etc. | hk__2 wrote: | > Cosco doesn't make the goods they sell - they are just | being an intermediary between you and the the manufacturer. | An intermediary that takes a 60+% fee for their work. | | It can take such "fee" because it's so enormous that it can | negociate prices in a way _you_ couldn't, as well as | handling the logistics and having lots of different | products at the same place. It's not "just an | intermediary", it's an intermediary that adds value. | | If you want to eat a yogurt, would you prefer paying $4 a | pack of four at Costco or $1500 for 4000 yogurts you have | to transport from the manufacturer to your home with your | own truck? | otikik wrote: | Those are not the only two options available. A locally | produced yogurt would cost more than in Costco, but not | that much more. Maybe $20 a pack, with a deposit for the | glass, and you would get it at your door with your milk. | hk__2 wrote: | I don't think this invalidates the point that Costco is | _not_ "just an intermediary". | lotsofpulp wrote: | Would it? You are welcome to start the business and try | to compete with Costco/Chobani/Dannon/etc | meowkit wrote: | > It can take such "fee" because it's so enormous that it | can negociate prices in a way you couldn't | | So what's the solution to this problem? In one way I | think this could be framed as rent seeking via economies | of scale. | hk__2 wrote: | > So what's the solution to this problem? | | There's no problem; Costco is an intermediary that brings | value and so it takes its cut. Why do people buy from | Amazon, who is also "just" an intermediary? Because you | can buy millions of different products from one single | place instead of having to go see each manufacturer where | you wouldn't be able to buy individual items anyway. | | This situation is a lot more effective than forcing each | manufacturer to develop its own customer-facing business | with all the costs and logistics that go with it. | siliconc0w wrote: | If you search for socks and someone shows you a promoted ad for | socks, you are likely trading relevance for money as the best | sock for that person is unlikely to be the most promoted one. | This works in the short term but ultimately what should happen | (and currently doesn't) is users then use a search or retail | platform that gives them more relevant results. | | Second is using my search for socks elsewhere on the platform. | This is essentially using user-data outside of the intent it was | given and that should be controllable by the user and default to | the most conservative option without annoying dialogue boxes or | other harassment. Whether it's within the platform or not | shouldn't make a difference. | | So competition is good, but unfortunately what I'm taking away | from this that companies are going to bake more ads into their | products because the products themselves aren't seeing much | competitive pressure (except maybe for Meta and rightfully so). | cetahfh14615 wrote: | > as the best sock for that person is unlikely to be the most | promoted one. | | not necessarily. I don't see how there could be a correlation | between the two. When you see "sponsored" on a listing, that | doesn't tell you how much the vendor paid. Also many large and | reputable vendors will pay simply to guarantee they are at the | top of the listing. For the vendors that don't sponsor, you | don't know whether the amount they save goes into a higher | quality product | | > This is essentially using user-data outside of the intent it | was given and that should be controllable by the user and | default to the most conservative option without annoying | dialogue boxes or other harassment. | | Except feeding user data back into the system makes certain | things technically possible that weren't possible before. Do | you think modern map applications would have the same degree of | accuracy if they weren't able to use user data to improve it? | | > Whether it's within the platform or not shouldn't make a | difference. | | It does make a difference because keeping it within the | platform could be used to improve the platform itself. Sending | it outside the platform could be used for more malicious | purposes. In the map application example, the user knows their | data feeds into improved accuracy. But they don't know where | that data goes outside the platform | DethNinja wrote: | One problem is that bot amount on the internet is now far larger | than the golden days of internet advertising. | | Real-Life ads became competitive with internet advertising. In | fact, they might be better for a large number companies. | | Unless they can manage to guarantee that ads are being seen by | real humans, I think their revenue will keep dropping. | frozenport wrote: | Many people were paying for SEO, which you can still buy today | mensetmanusman wrote: | Everyone here likely works for a company that advertises. | | It might be in our individual best interest to have super | effective advertising (for increased revenue), but it might be in | the world's interest to not allow that, because effective | advertising leads to consumption... (and for privacy | reasons,etc.) | retskrad wrote: | Is there a way to bypass the firewall and view the article? | jeffbee wrote: | The Economist is available at every magazine stand and most | public libraries in America. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal... | laserlight wrote: | Yes, see this comment for instance [0]. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=32890467 | [deleted] | imiric wrote: | The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as I'm | concerned. | | Advertising ruins every form of media it touches. From radio, | television, newspapers (it's arguably responsible for killing | journalism), and now the internet, and all the services we use it | for. | | Web search is useless because of it. Most websites are pretty | much spyware. A large percentage of them are SEO spam, existing | only to serve ads. Most content on YouTube, the largest video | platform, is unwatchable due to constant ad breaks and sponsored | content. Astroturfing is everywhere, promoted posts flood social | media sites. Advertising is instrumental to spreading of | disinformation, propaganda, toppling of democracies and companies | like Cambridge Analytica. And if all that wasn't enough, _paid_ | subscription services have started serving ads. It's the same | business model from TV, but even more intrusive and lucrative | since user tracking and microtargetting is now possible. | | Stop. Just stop. Users want none of this. Of course, everyone | loves getting services for free, but what adtech companies are | getting in exchange for user data now is worth much more than the | "free" services they offer. *They should be paying us instead.* | | We need new business models that are as easy for content | providers to implement, yet don't come at the expense of user | experience, and don't cause services to deteriorate into a | privacy nightmare. This should be easier nowadays with | cryptocurrencies. I still think the Basic Attention Token[1] is a | step in the right direction. Are there more examples of this? | | [1]: https://basicattentiontoken.org/ | czhu12 wrote: | Isn't basic attention token based entirely on advertising? | imiric wrote: | I'm not a Brave user, but from what I've read, users can | choose to see ads and earn BAT, _or_ they can fund their BAT | wallet and opt out of ads altogether. And the ads don 't seem | to track the user or infringe on their privacy, so it's a | substantial improvement over most adtech ads. | riku_iki wrote: | > The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as | I'm concerned. | | but they perform important economy function: connect buyers and | sellers.. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | It feels like it's a race to the bottom where if it didn't | exist everyone would be better off, but once it does exist | everyone has to compete. | | Without ads we wouldn't pick products blindly we'd simply | have more product-comparison sites. | imiric wrote: | > but they perform important economy function: connect buyers | and sellers.. | | Do they? I've never once clicked on an ad and made a | purchase, and I'm a fairly regular consumer. If I have a need | for a product, I'll search for it. | | All advertising does is create a false desire to own a | product by psychologically manipulating the viewer. It is | dishonest by definition. | | In order to make a purchase, I first have to have a need for | a product. This should arise naturally, not via some | artifically produced desire. Then I'd like to read the true | specifications of all suitable products that I can find, and | read hopefully real and honest reviews by people who've | purchased them. After that, I will narrow down my search and | will only make a purchase if I think a specific product will | fulfill my needs. | | Advertising directly interferes with this concept, steps in | as a middle man between buyer and seller, and introduces all | kinds of psychological tricks to manipulate me to not even | make the purchase--I just need to click on an ad, and I make | the advertiser money. It is unnecessary at best, and outright | harmful at worst. | jeffbee wrote: | Funnily enough, only Google is currently offering paid | subscriptions that delete ads. All of their competitors are | all-in on advertising. Google, by contrast, has that attention- | respecting and affordable YouTube program that makes YouTube | completely ad-free. | nemothekid wrote: | > _Of course, everyone loves getting services for free, but | what adtech companies are getting in exchange for user data now | is worth much more than the "free" services they offer. They | should be paying us instead._ | | This solution is backwards; people should not only create | content for you, but they should pay you for the privilege of | having you enjoy it? | | It wasn't ads that killed journalism; it was the proliferation | of free content that killed the funding for any kind of | meaningful journalism. BAT isn't the right direction; they just | tack on a crypto grift to make other people rich. I'd argue | services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business | models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to | pay for content. | scarface74 wrote: | > Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that | work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for | content | | You don't see an issue with that statement? | imiric wrote: | > people should not only create content for you, but they | should pay you for the privilege of having you enjoy it? | | I was specifically referring to "free" services from the | likes of Google and Meta. The value they extract from user | data is worth much more than the value users are getting from | their services. Tech companies paying users isn't a novel | idea[1]. | | For content providers I'm arguing that there should be new | business models they can rely on that doesn't detract from | the user experience. Patreon is also a good alternative. | | > BAT isn't the right direction; they just tack on a crypto | grift to make other people rich. | | That's the cynical take, and, sure, I don't trust Brave Inc. | either. That said, funding a crypto wallet from which I can | selectively pay for the content I consume is a sound model, | even if this specific implementation isn't ideal. | | > I'd argue services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of | business models that work without ads, its just that people | dont want to pay for content. | | People are definitely paying for it. For a short while there | a few years back, there was probably a reduction in pirated | content. But large studios got greedy, enforced region | locking even more, the market split up into dozens of similar | services, and now consumers are expected to subscribe to many | different streaming services to access content, which is | exactly what we were trying to escape from TV by cord | cutting. | | [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/3 | 0/sh... | UltraViolence wrote: | There are always threats, but these companies being paranoid, are | always on the lookout for competitors. Facebook in the past had | success defusing the threat by simply copying the competitor's | app verbatim (Snapchat) and is trying to repeat this by altering | both Facebook and Instagram to work like TikTok. | | The reason I see TikTok as a threat is largely because the | company ignores all the rules and regulations that protect the | privacy of minors and adults alike and companies will want that | data regardless. Facebook won't be able to supply it to them | since it has to abide by our laws. | | OTOH TikTok being based in a nations that's a strategic | competitor to the U.S. may well mean the company is simply | banned. IMHO it would be more fortuitous for Meta and Google to | lobby for a ban. Fighting TikTok will not work. | dgudkov wrote: | We know already how they will optimize to compete - more | surveillance, more algorithms, and more annoyance. | hey2022 wrote: | A somewhat tangential question. Why is Alphabet not decoupling | Google from Google Ads / Google AdSense? Having Google's name | constantly in the news cycle because of their ad practices has | ruined their reputation (deservingly). Wouldn't a separate legal | entity also be a safer approach from the legal perspective in the | light of the ongoing antitrust investigations? | tsimionescu wrote: | Because Google would then become a business with virtually no | revenue - and no chance of producing revenue. Even though | Alphabet itself would remain just as profitable, a business | organization can't survive long if its goals are not in some | ways associated with producing revenue, by the nature of how | corporate politics work. | endisneigh wrote: | monopoly aside the bigger threat is prolonged stagflation in the | economy which will result in dramatic consumer pullback which | will kill the RoI of advertising. of course, this will hurt far | more than Google and Meta | torginus wrote: | Somebody always brings this point up so it might as well be me | this time - but does advertising work at all, particularly online | advertising? | | I refuse to believe I'm some kind of one of a kind special | snowflake, but whenever I wanna buy something cheap or | disposable, like food, socks etc. I just see it and buy it. | | On the other hand when I'm looking for something I'm planning to | get a bit more mileage out of, like a laptop, a pair of | headphones or a cordless drill, I usually read the reviews and | buy the product I think is most appropriate for me, not what the | ads show. | sidvit wrote: | A lot of the reviews are subject to the same advertising | practices. Astroturfing on Reddit in particular has become | especially egregious | cryptoegorophy wrote: | It works. It works a lot better than you think. My biggest | mistake was relying on organic traffic. Once I switched to paid | ads business went 10x. Don't assume everyone is like you, you | are the 1% of the 1% of the 1%. Majority people follow ads | that's why it still exists. | amelius wrote: | Ok, but it works for the wrong reasons. | | I.e., people buy stuff they wouldn't buy if they got honest | information. | | It works against the main argument in favor of the free | market: not the best product wins, but the one with the | biggest advertising budget. | bolt7469 wrote: | Tracking users with online advertising is actually a good | thing for economic efficiency. People tend to see more | relevant products, and are able to allocate their resources | to products that better meet their needs. The best ads | aren't lying to people. | amelius wrote: | How is that true if the "best" ads are still paid for by | companies who might not sell the best stuff? | | Ads just try to drive up sales. This is something we | don't need given current energy/climate issues. | | There are better ways of bringing supply and demand | together. Several decades ago we had yellow pages, and | they worked fine. I'm sure in the internet age we can | come up with an even better system that doesn't involve | user tracking and/or distracting ads. | granshaw wrote: | Mind elaborating what's your general business and which ad | platforms worked for you? | | I have a broad-market/horizontal smb Saas and tried google | ads to not much success. Was getting charged ~$3/click for | quite irrelevant searches even after lots of negative | filtering. Suppose I could've tried some more... | bolt7469 wrote: | _particularly online advertising_ | | Online advertising is far, far better than other forms. | Marketers can tie individual sales to specific ads and improve | ads by making them more like successful ones. This kind of | specificity isn't possible with TV or print ads. | | _what the ads show_ | | A good chunk of advertising is "brand awareness" not | necessarily just selling one product. The point of brand | awareness is to associate your brand with its brand values in a | person's mind. | huitzitziltzin wrote: | This is a great question and one which is quite difficult to | answer. | | One place to start on the difficulties is an excellent paper by | Lewis and Rao from the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2015. | The original title was something like: "on the impossibility of | measuring the returns to advertising." Just getting enough data | to reject the hypothesis "this ad campaign did nothing" is | extremely challenging. Lewis is a great producer of research on | this topic and has written papers based on his experience at | Yahoo. | | Another great paper is by Blake, Nosko and Tadelis from | Econometrica in... 2014? They turned off _all_ of eBay's | keyword search ads in some markets as an experiment. They found | that they maintained about 95%+ of their business while saving | $50 eBay million dollars or so. | | Beware confident assertions from people in the ad industry that | ads clearly work. It is not so obvious that they do. This isn't | to say they don't work! But it's a challenging scientific | question. | CryptoBanker wrote: | That experiment simply means _their_ ads don't work | grok22 wrote: | When you "see it" and if you not going just by cheapest price, | one of the things you might go by is "familiarity" (for | products in the same space that are similarly priced). That | "familiarity" which introduces a sense of "maybe it's good" | because you've seen it mentioned many times is sometimes | introduced by the advertising of the product you constantly see | as you go around the Internet. All that happens prior to you | actually buying the product. | franczesko wrote: | It's not a duopoly - it's a cartel: | | "a combination of independent commercial or industrial | enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices" | phendrenad2 wrote: | The advertising duopoly is a crown with no kingdom in 2022. | Online advertising is dead - most people online aren't worth | advertising too. This isn't 2010 when most people online were | from wealthy countries. Google and Facebook are having a harder | and harder time finding high-net-worth individuals to advertise | too, because they all use adblock or avoid the open internet, | preferring to stick to walled gardens like reddit and tiktok | (which serve their own ads). | adventured wrote: | > Online advertising is dead | | Everything you just said is voided by the fact that Google's ad | business continues to boom. It's going nowhere. And I say that | as someone that dislikes Google. Your pitch is emotionalism, | I've been reading rants like that on HN for the past ~15 years. | They're in practically every thread on Google or advertising. | Meanwhile Google has gotten 17 times larger in that span of | time. | | Their business has doubled in size since the beginning of 2019. | Their operating income has skyrocketed. | | When did the death struggle begin for them exactly? | candiddevmike wrote: | Google booming doesn't necessarily mean OP is wrong. Go read | some PPC forums and you'll see a pretty consistent trend on | ad ROI going down everywhere. Folks may just be spending more | trying to spend their way back to a low CPA. | tbihl wrote: | So, maybe the rot is there, but it hasn't quite died? And | even then, we'll need the strong storm to knock it over. | scarface74 wrote: | Blackberry saw it's highest revenues in 2010. The iPhone has | been out for 4 years and Android was just becoming popular. | visarga wrote: | That's also because they have to sell things we don't need to | buy, 99.9% of the time. They don't have an offer for what I | would buy today, they offer me something completely unrelated. | The ads are not helpful. But if they focused on helpful ads | their profits would be too small. | | Google once had the right approach - showing ads related to the | search terms. It was polite and nicely delineated. But that | wasn't going to earn them money from unrelated ad campaigns. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-18 23:00 UTC)