undefined | Better HN

0 pointsclairity3y ago0 comments

apple is in a better position to defend against our (laughably weak) anti-trust enforcement, because the platform is closed, so they'd argue that the ad network is an intertwined part of that one market (mobile computing). google, being an advertising (and surveillance) company first and foremost, has a weaker position wrt the any of their flanking businesses, especially mobile computing, since it's hard to argue that mobile computing is an essential component of the ads business.

i'd vote for anyone who promises (and has a realistic plan) to fund the anti-trust division with 100× their current funding (the IRS too) to crack down on all these distortions in our markets. i have little hope of seeing such a political candidate however.

0 comments

parasubvert3y ago

There is precedent with broadcast affiliates and satellite/cable TV companies who have significant control over Radio or TV ads on some channels.

I also don’t see how giving consumers choice on ad surveillance could be seen as anti-competitive. Where is the consumer harm? Where’s the monopoly?

Heck, even ad networks dying weren’t considered anti competitive when AdSense took the industry over when Google exploited its search engine, or when Facebook took on AdSense by parlaying their social media power. Again, you have to prove harm or attempt to create monopoly.

clairityOP3y ago

i'm not sure what you mean by "choice on ad surveillance", but my point was about anti-trust, not simply anti-competitiveness or monopoly. anti-trust is using market power in one segment to distort another one unfairly.

the precedent you point out is what helps apple claim they're not a trust, because the two components, ads and content, go together in one business model. with google, being paid to place ads is the business model, and competing in the various channels for those ads are potential anti-trust encroachments because they're different markets.

as is usual in these cases, the harm is an inflated market price above the non-distortionary baseline.

parasubvert3y ago

My point was that all Apple has done is let end users disable third party tracking cookies on apps. They gave users choice on whether they wish to be surveilled. That’s it.

The only potential market this capability hurts is the market for ads based on surveillance on Apple devices. Would these be seen as an illegal/unfair practice? I find it highly unlikely to be seen as such by any western government.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsclairity3y ago0 comments

0 comments

parasubvert3y ago

There is precedent with broadcast affiliates and satellite/cable TV companies who have significant control over Radio or TV ads on some channels.

I also don’t see how giving consumers choice on ad surveillance could be seen as anti-competitive. Where is the consumer harm? Where’s the monopoly?

clairityOP3y ago

as is usual in these cases, the harm is an inflated market price above the non-distortionary baseline.

parasubvert3y ago

My point was that all Apple has done is let end users disable third party tracking cookies on apps. They gave users choice on whether they wish to be surveilled. That’s it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse