The Australian Politics Thread

All things Rugby

Whos Going to Lead the Labor Rabble

Albo
12
41%
Plibbers
2
7%
Bowen
1
3%
Chalmers
4
14%
Uncle Tony
4
14%
Clive Palmer
3
10%
George Smith
3
10%
 
Total votes: 29

User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:13 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
I should rephrase that. Who uses a search engine other than google?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:11 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
Dominance does not equal monopoly. There are plenty of search engines. Dozens of them. They’re just comparatively shite.
It literally does mean monopoly.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:34 am
towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:11 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
Dominance does not equal monopoly. There are plenty of search engines. Dozens of them. They’re just comparatively shite.
It literally does mean monopoly.
Then it should be easy to post a definition that states this, right?
Even if you were right, which you are not, there is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. Otherwise, all companies that are much better than their competitors would be illegal.

But I’ll wait until you post a definition that states that being the dominant player in a market is the definition of monopoly.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:33 am
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:13 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
I should rephrase that. Who uses a search engine other than google?
No one.
So here’s the question for you, why does everyone choose Google? Why is that bad? Who is harmed by this dominance?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/monopoly

Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

Dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly

Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

That’s a start.

Oh, and Australia doesn’t have any monopoly laws. You are right they are not illegal in Australia. They are in the US and a number of companies have been broken up.
We do have anti competitive laws though: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-c ... -behaviour

Also I haven’t argued they are bad. So here it is. Monopolies are bad. They manipulate prices and suppress competition.
Google gained a monopoly because it was the best search engine. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. You and I using the search engine aren’t really impacted. Except we are directed to where google want us to go. Advertisers are no doubt impacted. They will potentially need to pay higher prices. But more than that. Facebook decided a US election. News Corp and Australian one.

On the sustainability thread I posted about how tech companies seem to generate monopolies far more often than other sectors (we have multiple supermarkets, banks, airlines, etc and they are considered to have limited competition). A big part of that is because they have complete access to their market with limited capital. And there is no real reason to use any competitor
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3527
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:52 am
Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:22 am I am interested in what definition of a monopoly you are using to define media companies as such. The only monopolies I can see here are the new age platforms and major players.

Newspapers have a geographic monopoly (or duopoly) over print news - why aren’t we screaming to break this harmful dominance? Advertisers have had no choice for decades. Readers have had to swallow biased reporting.

TV stations have Government-granted monopolies - the law protects them from new entrants to the limited market.

What definition of monopoly does Facebook and Google meet?
Their dominance doesn’t come from any restriction from competition - it comes from being so much better than their competitors that consumers and users choose them over the others.
Again the only monopolies you have in the above post is Google and Facebook.

Newspapers are a geographically differentiated product and are not monopolies. You may not be aware but there are a few people who have recently become concerned about the influence of News Corp in the Australian media market. Solution is to limit market dominance and encourage/legislate ownership diversity. We used to have laws that limited individual dominance but they have been watered down over the years.

Tv stations are a ologopolous monopoly? Try again.

Market dominance and behaviour of the dominant player with their dominance is the key test. Facebook and Google both use their market power to stifle competition and to strong arm platform usage. That is what monopolies do. Microsoft have been in trouble a few times as have apple.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:45 am
towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:52 am
Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:22 am I am interested in what definition of a monopoly you are using to define media companies as such. The only monopolies I can see here are the new age platforms and major players.

Newspapers have a geographic monopoly (or duopoly) over print news - why aren’t we screaming to break this harmful dominance? Advertisers have had no choice for decades. Readers have had to swallow biased reporting.

TV stations have Government-granted monopolies - the law protects them from new entrants to the limited market.

What definition of monopoly does Facebook and Google meet?
Their dominance doesn’t come from any restriction from competition - it comes from being so much better than their competitors that consumers and users choose them over the others.
Again the only monopolies you have in the above post is Google and Facebook.

Newspapers are a geographically differentiated product and are not monopolies. You may not be aware but there are a few people who have recently become concerned about the influence of News Corp in the Australian media market. Solution is to limit market dominance and encourage/legislate ownership diversity. We used to have laws that limited individual dominance but they have been watered down over the years.

Tv stations are a ologopolous monopoly? Try again.

Market dominance and behaviour of the dominant player with their dominance is the key test. Facebook and Google both use their market power to stifle competition and to strong arm platform usage. That is what monopolies do. Microsoft have been in trouble a few times as have apple.
How is a the Courier Mail in Brisbane not a monopoly?
How does a tv station not meet the text-book definition of a government-granted monopoly?

What definition of monopoly are you using to classify Google or Facebook? What are the qualities of a monopoly that align with Google or Facebook?

Who is Google or Facebook stifling? What actions are they taking to do this? Who is harmed by this action?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

Are you serious?

The courier mail is a monopoly.
The TV channels are not, there are 5 of them and none has full market share.
Google has nearly a 90% market share. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216 ... h-engines/
Who is damaged by that? What is the cost to advertise with Google? Is that competitive? What happens to the search engine results that google either falls out with or don’t want to pay the rates that Google dictate?
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3527
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

If the TV station had an exclusive license to be a sole operator in a given market they would be a monopoly If there are 5 stations licensed to operate in the market none of them are a monopoly. It is not uncommon for the government to regulate markets and to limit the number of players.

Courier mail has a monopoly of print but they limit the market media dominance by having cross media rules. I think they do it because there are limited options they have other than to promote diversity. They could probably legislate if there was a commercial issue but unless they are promoting sedition etc they would have limited ability to control editorial practise.

You could argue that the suburban papers (if there are any) and national papers (AFR and The Australian) provide competition but the CM is dominant because they are better. This is the same argument you are using for search engines after all.

Consumers are being harmed by monopolistic pricing for ads and markets being manipulated by the return of search results for starters. Remember that Microsoft were taken to task for using their operating system dominance to dominate and limit competition in the browser market. If that was not legislated against then bing would probably be the dominant search engine.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

:thumbup:
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:00 am Are you serious?

The courier mail is a monopoly.
The TV channels are not, there are 5 of them and none has full market share.
Google has nearly a 90% market share. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216 ... h-engines/
Who is damaged by that? What is the cost to advertise with Google? Is that competitive? What happens to the search engine results that google either falls out with or don’t want to pay the rates that Google dictate?
You are correct. I meant to say oligopoly for the tv stations. My bad.
Thanks for acknowledging the Courier Mail is a monopoly - I'd wager most papers exercise monopolistic power to the detriment of their customers and no seems to have a problem with that, possibly because they still have influence and their bullshit propoganda has done its job.

Let's talk about Google:
- Firstly, they do not meet any textbook definition of monopoly that I've seen - I noticed your didn't link anything other than their popularity. Being dominant is NOT a factor in whether a company is a monopoly. FACT. The Beatles were not a monopoly and neither was Windows.

- Secondly, You say the advertisers are damaged because of the cost of advertising with Google? Have they complained? Is it high? As far as I know, they haven't complained. But I don't understand something - if I was an advertiser that wanted to target customers, would I want to reach all of them or just a few? To put this another way, advertisers LOVE that Google has domination, because this means they don't have to spread their advertising dollars across multiple platforms. Furthermore, it's important to understand Google's business model - you don't pay them money and they just put up your banner like a newspaper. You don't pay for space. What they do is quote you a price, which is determined by a live auction (supply and demand) that enables you to know how much it will cost to get your advertising to the exact audience you want. Then they deliver this exact service to you. It is amazing!! Advertisers love it because they get way more than they do from any other advertising medium that ever existed for less money than they ever had to pay.
What happens to the search engine results that don't pay? Well, I'm presuming you''re now talking about a small part of their business, which is featured links. Search results are listed listed in order of relevance, but paid links get the first slots. Google clearly labels these. For 99% of searches, this is within three links. Go try it out if you wish - Google a word and see how many paid links are up front. Those that do not pay are not penalised in any way. Google's ability to give you the most relevant search results is their greatest advantage - this is actually their competitive advantage - so it makes no sense for them to do otherwise. i hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
So, let's remove advertisers from the 'damaged parties' list - they are certainly not in any way harmed.

So who is the damaged party? Is it the users? We can choose any search engine we want - is it wrong for us to choose the best one? Does that harm us to use the best? It's a hard argument to make. So who is harmed??

And, with dozens (hundreds) of competitors, how is Google a monopoly? You rightfully said tv stations, which are granted licenses by the government, are not monopolies because they have 4 competitors, why is Google a monopoly if it has 100+?

And don't forget, companies can be dominant without being monopolies, so give me an actual criteria of monopoly and not this false rubbish again.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:14 am If the TV station had an exclusive license to be a sole operator in a given market they would be a monopoly If there are 5 stations licensed to operate in the market none of them are a monopoly. It is not uncommon for the government to regulate markets and to limit the number of players.

Courier mail has a monopoly of print but they limit the market media dominance by having cross media rules. I think they do it because there are limited options they have other than to promote diversity. They could probably legislate if there was a commercial issue but unless they are promoting sedition etc they would have limited ability to control editorial practise.

You could argue that the suburban papers (if there are any) and national papers (AFR and The Australian) provide competition but the CM is dominant because they are better. This is the same argument you are using for search engines after all.

Consumers are being harmed by monopolistic pricing for ads and markets being manipulated by the return of search results for starters. Remember that Microsoft were taken to task for using their operating system dominance to dominate and limit competition in the browser market. If that was not legislated against then bing would probably be the dominant search engine.
So, we agree that the Courier Mail is a monopoly and that many monopolies are bad because they exploit the lack of competition. Great.

Unless you think Suburban papers are targeting the same customers then it's not really relevant - it's a different market.

We don't need to bring in Microsoft's abuse of monopoly position - let's stick to Google; however this is hard to do because you've hardly mentioned them.

Who is the damaged party and how is Google is exploiting their monopolistic power? Do you think it's the advertisers and are you saying they're paying too much? If so, too much compared to what? What is the market price?

p.s. Bing wouldn't be the market leader because it doesn't have the engine under the hood to compete.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

If Google had 50% of its market share stripped tomorrow, who would benefit?
- Advertisers? Nope
- Users? Nope

Who?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Google promote their brand of evil through hegemony, not monopoly.

Australian government moves to reform media ownership laws and open up more cross platform ownership was a bad move. While the market isn't completely monopolised, the overall reach of NewsCorp across platforms is considerable and counter productive to the nations best interest, never more clearly illustrated than since the beginning of the Covid crisis and the continuing campaign of misinformation run by that stable. The next largest slice of media ownership is a smaller scale version of the same thing and a scattering of smaller competitors along with the publicly owned outlets can do little to dilute the undue influence of two privately owned entities.

Again, it's not monopolies... yet saying that doesn't negate the imbalance within the industry along with the disproportionate influence and commercial advantage that entails.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

I was going to post a link but I'll just put it in my own words.

The internet means a user can go anywhere they want without friction. Any site. Just click a button. So, in a paradigm without friction, users inherently choose the best performing service. For search this is google.

This is why Google has 90% of the market - it's the best and we prefer to use it over all the others.

Advertisers wish to target us and Google has 90% of the market, so it makes sense that it's going to be a service they use. However Google also gives them the best service in the world of any advertising medium. They choose Google because Google is able to guarantee an outcome and set a price. The price is determined by live auctions that go on constantly, so the price is always determined by supply and demand.

Google has massive network effects because it creates more value for the users on each side of the platform (advertisers and users). Any company is welcome to take them on, but good luck with that. Google is astonishingly successful - this seems to be its biggest crime. We hate seeing success and we don't understand why this company is so successful because we don't understand that internet business is totally different traditional business AND because traditional media companies, which were destroyed by the internet, has convinced us that their actual monopolies are being exploited by this evil tech company.

But no one can explain what Google is actually doing wrong other than regurgitating falsehoods that the monopolistic print media has fed us.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Google is a Chinese government front.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:15 pm Google promote their brand of evil through hegemony, not monopoly.

Australian government moves to reform media ownership laws and open up more cross platform ownership was a bad move. While the market isn't completely monopolised, the overall reach of NewsCorp across platforms is considerable and counter productive to the nations best interest, never more clearly illustrated than since the beginning of the Covid crisis and the continuing campaign of misinformation run by that stable. The next largest slice of media ownership is a smaller scale version of the same thing and a scattering of smaller competitors along with the publicly owned outlets can do little to dilute the undue influence of two privately owned entities.

Again, it's not monopolies... yet saying that doesn't negate the imbalance within the industry along with the disproportionate influence and commercial advantage that entails.
Yep. The print media 'monopolies' are bad news. But what is the 'brand of evil' that Google promotes? I don't get the hate.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:21 pm Google is a Chinese government front.
You thought it was fun to tease Dozi. I warned you but you wouldn't listen.

"Crazy isn't contagious", you said.

And here we are.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Just to add, even though Google drives revenue for media companies by aggregating users and sending them to the media companies sites at no cost, Google is quite happy to pay them.

That's right. Even though these companies need Google way more than Google needs them, Google is happy to pay them slush money. They gave News Corp Inc. $1b USD and they will keep the gravy train coming.
Last edited by towny on Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

I was joking, more interested in making the distinction between hegemony and monopoly.

Google has competitors, and a few of them have a bit of market share because people prefer them. They've got that freedom to make that choice.

I don't hate on google myself... I'm just kinda careful not to trust them.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:23 pm
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:21 pm Google is a Chinese government front.
You thought it was fun to tease Dozi. I warned you but you wouldn't listen.

"Crazy isn't contagious", you said.

And here we are.
:lol:
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:26 pm I was joking, more interested in making the distinction between hegemony and monopoly.

Google has competitors, and a few of them have a bit of market share because people prefer them. They've got that freedom to make that choice.

I don't hate on google myself... I'm just kinda careful not to trust them.
:thumbup:
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

From the Investopedia definition I gave above.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market
Google has nearly 90% market share. That is near total control of the market. It’s the definition of a monopoly.
Last edited by Farva on Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19138
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

I also haven’t said Google is evil. All of the reasons you say are true, people go to google because it’s the best. And because of the way the internet is structured it means it has an almost complete market share (90% is about as complete as I can think).
Because it’s a monopoly developed through capitalism doesn’t mean it’s not a monopoly.

All monopolies distort the market. That is why some countries outlaw it.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 34481
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ali's Choice »

As an aside, what would it take for a competitor to effectively challenge Google for market share. It's going to happen eventually, but what will it take? Kim Kardashian launching a search engine?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:46 pm As an aside, what would it take for a competitor to effectively challenge Google for market share. It's going to happen eventually, but what will it take? Kim Kardashian launching a search engine?
Some sort of over reach on their part that offers a government the opportunity to legislate against their business model.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:40 pm From the Investopedia definition I gave above.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market
Google has nearly 90% market share. That is near total control of the market. It’s the definition of a monopoly.
It’s not in any way the definition of monopoly anywhere I’ve seen it written.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:46 pm As an aside, what would it take for a competitor to effectively challenge Google for market share. It's going to happen eventually, but what will it take? Kim Kardashian launching a search engine?
Great question!

In my very humble, but should be more humbled, opinion.... I actually changed my opinion while writing this ridiculously long spiel. I am grateful you asked it but I'm not sure anyone else will offer thanks - I'll be surprised if anyone even reads this ramble

The short answer to you question - the challenger will have to unbundle or bundle.

- Unbundle search/advertising by doing either of them significantly/better/cheaper. For example, someone could create tech that does one way better. A limited example that happens now with inferior tech: users often visit other aggregators instead of google to search for niche stuff. I know people that have used this bored to see what news they should view, even though Google offers a free service. More common examples would be http://thedrudgereport.com/ or https://www.breitbart.com/ or https://www.huffpost.com/
While it might not seem like it, these news aggregators compete with Google - users that want news choose to visit these sites to see what is likely to interest them. While this is an adjacent market, in a sense they perform a similar role to Google in a limited sense, and after all, Google is in essence an aggregator itself. If you want to search for holidays you can go to Google or visit booking.com. If you want to know a fact, you can bypass Google and go straight to wiki or dictionary.com. All of these niche examples are in regards this 'search' functionality and these companies , and like Google, these companies make their money from advertising. I use Rottentomatoes.com to see if a film is any good but I remember I used to type the film name and 'review' into the search bar.

But they aren't challenges to Google, and that's what you were asking. In reality, while they get advertising revenue, they all use Google Ads to optimise the ad revenue on their sites. They wouldn't even have a commercial relationship with the advertisers - Google manages it all. They do this because it's advantageous for them and the users to use Google Ads, which is the best in the world. They compete in a sense, but they are really just a different type of Google user. But hopefully you get the idea - there are solutions already that can in specific circumstances perform the Search role better than Google, and this is something that a future player could build from.


- Bundle search/advertising with something else. For example, Amazon.com is more than a challenger to Google in the US - users search for stuff, which they then purchase and organise delivery without leaving the site. In time, Amazon is going to challenge Google everywhere and they have a different business model, which means they don't have to fight fair. They can make money from the product advertising, the product sale, boxing up the product and storing it at their warehouse, the customs services, delivery, etc. Their business model is incredible - so much so, that Google, Shopify, Facebook and other giants are joining up to be a challenger to them.

Another example is Apple is giving itself means to challenge Google by focusing on Advertising, and like Amazon, they have the means to pull it off. In this example they would unbundle Search/Advertising and re-bundle (I may have just invented that word) Advertising with their IOS operating system, which is the iPhone. Recently under the guise of 'user privacy' - which means the world cheered them for their selfless magnanimity - Apple banned the use of 'tracking cookies' so apps and websites couldn't track users' activity once they left the app/site. Even though they allowed 'first parties' (which means the browser owners) to still track activity, it limited how they could do it. This means that Google has had to fundamentally change their approach for the first time and this may reduce the effectiveness of their advertising. Of course, Apple's rules do not apply to themselves so they will have this capability to track what they like and this may give them the capability to perform this functionality better than Google on iPhones in the future. I don't think they have a hope in hell - they're a product company that makes things, which means they suck with services like this, but they're going that way. Apple's new rules are written for Google though - loopholes specifically allow Google to still do its thing while limiting would-be competitors. And they have one massive competitor.


But, when we are talking about challenging Google, what are we talking about? In Australia it's their competition with old media companies, but this is a sideshow designed by Murdoch to prop up his failing business model. Google saved these shitty old companies - it didn't destroy them. The internet did that - Google gave them a tool to stay alive for a few more years. It would be like blaming Henry Ford for ruining the blacksmith industry and making him pay them sit-down money. Google isn't a publisher and in no way competes with old media companies - Google is an online advertising business that utilises world's best search functionality and user data to increase advertising effectiveness. Old media companies use Google Ads and optimise their sites so that they appear as relevant as possible for Google searches.
But if we forget the political sideshow, we are talking about what could challenge Google's online advertising business, and so the big challenger is Facebook. Google cannot see inside Facebook - it cannot track users' activities or see what's going on. Facebook is obviously massive, and includes Whatsapp, Messenger, Oculus and instagram. While Google bundled Search/Advertising, Facebook bundled Social Media and Advertising. Facebook and Google don't look the same, so they aren't considered competitors, but they have exactly the same business model and perform the same role to the same customers. in the same way, Tiktok bundles videos of scantily clad girls lip-syncing with advertising, Snapchat bundles dick pics and porn with advertising and Linkedin bundles the motivational speeches of real-estate agents in their cars with advertising. Facebook is pushing more and more into Search/Advertising - users can now buy and sell new and used stuff online at no cost. Later there will probably be a cost, but for now Facebook is building up a user based and collecting user data. fwiw, those Apple privacy restrictions seem to be targeting Facebook so we'll see how that goes.

The reality is that Google has lots of very real, very successful competitors, and before long, one of these or perhaps a new player we don't yet know, will perform the job better and knock Google from the top of the pile. There is little chance that this will be a Search/Advertising company due to Google's massive advantages, but its not relevant whether the usurper is a Google clone. Of course, Murdoch stooges and the world's governments will continue to demonise Google and Facebook because that's the only strategy they have to deal with stuff they cannot control; especially if it upsets their traditional donors and gives individual users the power to broadcast their opinions to the world.

Those with power never give it up without a fight.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 34481
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ali's Choice »

towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:28 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:46 pm As an aside, what would it take for a competitor to effectively challenge Google for market share. It's going to happen eventually, but what will it take? Kim Kardashian launching a search engine?
Great question!

In my very humble, but should be more humbled, opinion.... I actually changed my opinion while writing this ridiculously long spiel. I am grateful you asked it but I'm not sure anyone else will offer thanks - I'll be surprised if anyone even reads this ramble

The short answer to you question - the challenger will have to unbundle or bundle.

- Unbundle search/advertising by doing either of them significantly/better/cheaper. For example, someone could create tech that does one way better. A limited example that happens now with inferior tech: users often visit other aggregators instead of google to search for niche stuff. I know people that have used this bored to see what news they should view, even though Google offers a free service. More common examples would be http://thedrudgereport.com/ or https://www.breitbart.com/ or https://www.huffpost.com/
While it might not seem like it, these news aggregators compete with Google - users that want news choose to visit these sites to see what is likely to interest them. While this is an adjacent market, in a sense they perform a similar role to Google in a limited sense, and after all, Google is in essence an aggregator itself. If you want to search for holidays you can go to Google or visit booking.com. If you want to know a fact, you can bypass Google and go straight to wiki or dictionary.com. All of these niche examples are in regards this 'search' functionality and these companies , and like Google, these companies make their money from advertising. I use Rottentomatoes.com to see if a film is any good but I remember I used to type the film name and 'review' into the search bar.

But they aren't challenges to Google, and that's what you were asking. In reality, while they get advertising revenue, they all use Google Ads to optimise the ad revenue on their sites. They wouldn't even have a commercial relationship with the advertisers - Google manages it all. They do this because it's advantageous for them and the users to use Google Ads, which is the best in the world. They compete in a sense, but they are really just a different type of Google user. But hopefully you get the idea - there are solutions already that can in specific circumstances perform the Search role better than Google, and this is something that a future player could build from.


- Bundle search/advertising with something else. For example, Amazon.com is more than a challenger to Google in the US - users search for stuff, which they then purchase and organise delivery without leaving the site. In time, Amazon is going to challenge Google everywhere and they have a different business model, which means they don't have to fight fair. They can make money from the product advertising, the product sale, boxing up the product and storing it at their warehouse, the customs services, delivery, etc. Their business model is incredible - so much so, that Google, Shopify, Facebook and other giants are joining up to be a challenger to them.

Another example is Apple is giving itself means to challenge Google by focusing on Advertising, and like Amazon, they have the means to pull it off. In this example they would unbundle Search/Advertising and re-bundle (I may have just invented that word) Advertising with their IOS operating system, which is the iPhone. Recently under the guise of 'user privacy' - which means the world cheered them for their selfless magnanimity - Apple banned the use of 'tracking cookies' so apps and websites couldn't track users' activity once they left the app/site. Even though they allowed 'first parties' (which means the browser owners) to still track activity, it limited how they could do it. This means that Google has had to fundamentally change their approach for the first time and this may reduce the effectiveness of their advertising. Of course, Apple's rules do not apply to themselves so they will have this capability to track what they like and this may give them the capability to perform this functionality better than Google on iPhones in the future. I don't think they have a hope in hell - they're a product company that makes things, which means they suck with services like this, but they're going that way. Apple's new rules are written for Google though - loopholes specifically allow Google to still do its thing while limiting would-be competitors. And they have one massive competitor.


But, when we are talking about challenging Google, what are we talking about? In Australia it's their competition with old media companies, but this is a sideshow designed by Murdoch to prop up his failing business model. Google saved these shitty old companies - it didn't destroy them. The internet did that - Google gave them a tool to stay alive for a few more years. It would be like blaming Henry Ford for ruining the blacksmith industry and making him pay them sit-down money. Google isn't a publisher and in no way competes with old media companies - Google is an online advertising business that utilises world's best search functionality and user data to increase advertising effectiveness. Old media companies use Google Ads and optimise their sites so that they appear as relevant as possible for Google searches.
But if we forget the political sideshow, we are talking about what could challenge Google's online advertising business, and so the big challenger is Facebook. Google cannot see inside Facebook - it cannot track users' activities or see what's going on. Facebook is obviously massive, and includes Whatsapp, Messenger, Oculus and instagram. While Google bundled Search/Advertising, Facebook bundled Social Media and Advertising. Facebook and Google don't look the same, so they aren't considered competitors, but they have exactly the same business model and perform the same role to the same customers. in the same way, Tiktok bundles videos of scantily clad girls lip-syncing with advertising, Snapchat bundles dick pics and porn with advertising and Linkedin bundles the motivational speeches of real-estate agents in their cars with advertising. Facebook is pushing more and more into Search/Advertising - users can now buy and sell new and used stuff online at no cost. Later there will probably be a cost, but for now Facebook is building up a user based and collecting user data. fwiw, those Apple privacy restrictions seem to be targeting Facebook so we'll see how that goes.

The reality is that Google has lots of very real, very successful competitors, and before long, one of these or perhaps a new player we don't yet know, will perform the job better and knock Google from the top of the pile. There is little chance that this will be a Search/Advertising company due to Google's massive advantages, but its not relevant whether the usurper is a Google clone. Of course, Murdoch stooges and the world's governments will continue to demonise Google and Facebook because that's the only strategy they have to deal with stuff they cannot control; especially if it upsets their traditional donors and gives individual users the power to broadcast their opinions to the world.

Those with power never give it up without a fight.
Top post Towny. Your work is wasted on this forum :thumbup:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

No way I'm reading that shit.



Negative gearing and tax cuts... disappointing. Further proof there is little difference between the two main parties.

Federal ICAC enshrined as an election policy... not disappointing. Further proof that there is a difference between the Lib / Nat coalition and the mighty ALP.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 34481
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ali's Choice »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:43 pm No way I'm reading that shit.



Negative gearing and tax cuts... disappointing. Further proof there is little difference between the two main parties.

Federal ICAC enshrined as an election policy... not disappointing. Further proof that there is a difference between the Lib / Nat coalition and the mighty ALP.
I agree with your sentiment on both issues. The ALP took a massive suite of policies to the last election, and lost. We've lost two elections in a row arguing against negative gearing. The most important issues facing this country are managing the pandemic, stopping political corruption at the Federal level and a Federal ICAC. Those are the issues that the next election needs to be fought on.
User avatar
shanky
Posts: 24067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by shanky »

I didn’t read any of it

That’s so when Towny is famous he can thank people like me (those who doubted me) in his acceptance speech for the World Media Studies Excellence Awards
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3527
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:19 pm
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:40 pm From the Investopedia definition I gave above.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market
Google has nearly 90% market share. That is near total control of the market. It’s the definition of a monopoly.
It’s not in any way the definition of monopoly anywhere I’ve seen it written.
It is almost the exact definition of any text or subject I have studied that covers the subject. Any serious businessman, regulator or academic would use the same definition.
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 7334
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:56 pm
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:43 pm No way I'm reading that shit.



Negative gearing and tax cuts... disappointing. Further proof there is little difference between the two main parties.

Federal ICAC enshrined as an election policy... not disappointing. Further proof that there is a difference between the Lib / Nat coalition and the mighty ALP.
I agree with your sentiment on both issues. The ALP took a massive suite of policies to the last election, and lost. We've lost two elections in a row arguing against negative gearing. The most important issues facing this country are managing the pandemic, stopping political corruption at the Federal level and a Federal ICAC. Those are the issues that the next election needs to be fought on.
For those who think that the Murdoch/Nein Axis don't dominate Australian Politics, the fact that the ALP is getting crucified in the press whilst we are in the midst of such a clusterfuck from the LNP illustrates this clearly>

Yes, it's a disappointment but they are clearly responding to why they didn't get elected last time - what else are they supposed to do?

:|
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ellafan »

Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:33 am
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:13 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
I should rephrase that. Who uses a search engine other than google?
I use duckduckgo. I'm such a lefty, eh?
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:27 am
towny wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:19 pm
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:40 pm From the Investopedia definition I gave above.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market
Google has nearly 90% market share. That is near total control of the market. It’s the definition of a monopoly.
It’s not in any way the definition of monopoly anywhere I’ve seen it written.
It is almost the exact definition of any text or subject I have studied that covers the subject. Any serious businessman, regulator or academic would use the same definition.
Can you please give me a link to such text?
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Ellafan wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:23 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:33 am
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:13 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
I should rephrase that. Who uses a search engine other than google?
I use duckduckgo. I'm such a lefty, eh?
You’re using Google right now and every time you’re on the net.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 6565
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Best using an economic text but here is dictionary definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

Best thing it has recent best examples from the net - it quotes an article about google…
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

towny wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:28 am
Ellafan wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:23 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:33 am
guy smiley wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:13 am
Farva wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:09 am They still have a monopoly. What competition does google have for search engines?
?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alt ... es/271409/
I should rephrase that. Who uses a search engine other than google?
I use duckduckgo. I'm such a lefty, eh?
You’re using Google right now and every time you’re on the net.
That would make it a monopoly then, yeah?
Post Reply