Google winning 98% ad spots it auctions off, after order to treat others equally

Re:Google winning 98% ad spots it auctions off, after order ... by prepend on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @05:40PM (#16269766)

Good point. Not artificial for Google as it makes money. I meant artificial for users as there is no need and it replaced a better product that made less revenue.

For example, have a free water fountain and then replacing it with a coin operated water fountain that dispenses warm water is using artificial with my original intent.

My main disagreement is in the use of verticialy integrated products that reduce consumer value but yield higher marginal value to the producer. I’m a huge fan of complementary products within an ecosystem that increase consumer value. I’m also fine with loss leaders, but again I prefer ones that lead to increased consumer value.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google winning 98% ad spots it auctions off, after order ... by bomb199 on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @06:03PM (#16269917)

Is it really replacing better products? If those products were better, I'd be interested in using them.

Instead, Google gets me the same results, quicker, 99% of the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google winning 98% ad spots it auctions off, after order ... by prepend on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @06:13PM (#16269967)

My example was froogle vs. shopping. I agree on search and Google superiority. That’s what froogle was. Their new shopping site doesn’t use their search engine and instead only searches advertisers. Instead of the web.

[ Parent | on HN ]