What is Digg?75 Comments
- op12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24A google story with google ads....it's almost like the ads were relevant to the story content!!
- alexlr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Consider this: When Google gives itself the top ad slot for a search term, it denies itself the revenue of a third-party advertiser who might have paid for that slot. So really, Google pays exactly the same rate as everyone else.
- dono169, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15This has been proven to be innacurate:
http://blog.outer-court.com/forum/78519.html - aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Google doesn't need to allow a single advertisement for a competing service on their site, They could just link to bad reviews for the competitors product if they wanted, Its THEIR site. Note the possessive.
Its perfectly acceptable. How often do you see advertisements for Fox News, Fair and Balanced on MSNBC, Nobody would think thats "unacceptable" Thats just good business. - iamexcite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Take a look at some of the people commenting anti-Google on this story... no diggs (or just one... this article), no profile pic, no friends, etc... and only one comment.
metrix, mitchgroup, vrhans... list probably goes on. Seems spammy. It seems to me Central Desktop is a little worried that Google will be competing with them at some point... the examples given in the blog post aren't even accurate (see the link a few posts down, or check the terms live). - woodsja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10When you read your local newspaper do you complain that it doesn't advertise for another, competing newspaper?
If the people at google are smart (their track record says they are) they have a cost-benefit of how much they make for click-throughs to their own product. As long as someone is willing to pay more than that I bet they'll get their ad placed. - Vandel405, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"1. How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products?"
It is called opertunity cost. If you offer to pay $1,000 dollars for 1 ad, and google, instead "sells it to themselves" then they just payed $1,000 for it by not taking your $1,000 - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What you said was completely true. Some people would confuse the point by saying that, "But Google can still take their money and not place the ad..." That is not possible unless Google commits fraud.
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Read through the comments of parent's link. This post is debunked and the author posts in there as well (and comes across rather negatively, if I do say so myself).
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11MS Windows = $$$$
Google Search = FREE - op12, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8He still didn't prove that his point of *NEVER* being able to take a top ad spot was true, and people have provided counterexamples: http://blog.outer-court.com/forum/78519.html
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6auratus:
Not true. People who paid for the top slot will not be moved down. Their ads will still be displayed as the top ad, just not at the same instance when Google is at the top slot. Maybe another page with the same AdWord context will display the top-slot paying client the top slot. - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But it is their search engine ...and people have the free choice to use it or not.
Also, they aren't trying to make money off of these placements (except for the possibility you may click an advertisers link), they are offering links to a bunch of great free products: like Google docs & spreadsheets, financial, maps, email, video, calendar, start page, etc... They are also doing it at the expense of lost adsense revenue from customers willing to pay for those high placements.
Great article, though! - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yes, the core difference between Google and Microsoft Windows monopolies is this: People PAID for their Windows OS while Google Search is FREE.
- metrix, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Precisely true!
MS Windows + "IE on desktop" = Monopoly
Google Adwords + "Google's product on top of spots" = Monopoly 2.0 - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7now finally a solid reason to buy google stock!
btw, op12: well said. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Unacceptable maybe, but unexpected? I think not.
- iamexcite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"monopoly" = single seller (or consortium), multiple buyers. Seller has the ability to price-fix.
What do you think would happen if Google suddenly decided to triple the price of all their ads? - cougar618, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So wait. Microsoft doesn't promote linux?
ABC won't show CBS News commercials?
Maybe Google should promote Yahoo! email. - draconum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Too skeptical huh?
Everyone complains about MS and loves Google these days, but really, the buy outs and broadening of focus, as well as the 'bundling' that occurs seem to be no different and no better. Google's advantage is, nobody believes that they have any ill intent! - diggfilter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Vandel405 et al.,
You are missing the point.....presumably the #1 position bid wouldn't have been "as high" had they known that Google would insert their own ad and make #1...actually #2.
Had the person known they were ACTUALLY bidding on #2, they probably would have bid lower.
Yes, there is opportunity cost...but more importantly, its false expectation and manipulation on behalf of Google. - dalooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would like to see competition, so not everything is so dependant on Google. I'm sure everyone on Digg is tech savvy and bright may one day come up with a product. I don't think it's good to be too dependant on one source for your income.
I don't know what it'll take but we definately do need competition in search before it's completely monopilized forever. I hope Yahoo doesn't give up on search, I would like to see search numbers spread evenly across few search engines instead one.
I agree Google's cookies are crazy as well, they track you thru various accounts, so don't think you're safe from profiling if you're alternating between accounts. - franksands, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Of course a google story has google ads. The ads are content sensitive, remember?
- mbrutsch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Google does *not* have a monopoly on web search, and the author knows that. The headline is just a troll. Not that the author doesn't have a point, but if you want to call Google out for being dishonest, you should probably try being honest when doing so.
No Digg. - WolfDV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We are Google . . . You will be assimilated
Its unfair, but my few shares in GOOG obligates me to say that :p - alexlr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Google has nothing like a monopoly on web searches. There are countless close substitutes. Even if Google has a large portion of the market share, as long as those substitutes exist (or can exist), Google cannot function as a monopoly. (If Google could function as a monopoly, they could charge for their search services and anyone wanting to search would have no choice but to pay.)
We're talking about their advertising business, though. In that context, whether they have a monopoly on searches is irrelevant because they're competing against the entire internet for eyeballs. In this context we would be even less justified in calling Google a monopoly. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Do no evil? That's like me saying Eat no Fat.
- lastberserker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, if they take money from their competitor for a front page ad I _do_ expect them _not_ to post this ad in classifieds section.
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's barely been mentioned, but how much it costs google for their own AdWords is fairly simple. It's a lost revenue opportunity when they run their own ad.
When somebody clicks on one of their ads, they make no money, and if it's an Adsense ad, they have to pay it out to the partner. Now, they could potentially cheat their own auction and pay the partner less for position one then they'd normally pay the partner for position one on those keywords..
But this is nothing new. Newspapers run their own ads. Television stations run their own ads. Radio stations run their own ads. And their advertising inventory is a market as well. - WOTEugene, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I think Google is gradually becoming evil empire #2. They're just doing it more subtly than Microsoft did.
- chevas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3*****
"It's like Exxon filling up their tanker trucks with their own gas. BFD" - hoppdawg
See above
This statement is PRECISELY what I was thinking, only I had a different analogy that was not quite as simple and concise as this analogy is. "Big F'ING Deal" is exactly what I thought as well. If you have a problem with Google doing this, then ALL of you should go tell your employers to stop giving you discounts to the products they sell and to stop getting free services that they offer. I work for a large telcom. Part of working for them is FREE service.
Google created the damn thing, they can use it for free however they like. Damnit, articles like this are just ignorant. - mickoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, at least we're not playing with monopoly dollars.
- koko775, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Web services aren't tangible objects. There is only marginal costs for selling additional products. Price fixing is a problem when the competitor simply can't produce at a low enough price. Servers should be easy for a company to come by if they have the traffic to match Google's (and a sensible business plan, duh).
As has been said before -- Google is free. Nobody pays to search or expects to. Nobody pays for ads or expects to either - the "price" is having them on the page they're giving to you. Price fixing? Give me a break.
No computer depends on google services. Don't wan't picasa? Install something else. Don't want gmail? use something else. Don't want gtalk? Use jabber or something else. Don't want google calendar, spreadsheet, or documents? Use their respective MS or OSS alternatives. Want a coherent, integrated platform? You have a choice, and its name is Google.
This language might get me modded down (or up, *rolleyes*), but seriously. Don't give me this bundling *****. Computers by default don't explicitly need Google to function, and retailers don't have to pay google for licenses to use it. How is google analogous to microsoft when its "crime" is completely different in nature?
And at the risk of using the same tired argument as many OSS enthusiasts, users have choice - they can walk away from google and use/create something better. The user/independent business decides she/he/it needs google. This is not the case for Windows. Ultimately, this article fails to take into account the progress of internet business since Bubble 1.0 -- products have become services, and as a result, benefit from the coherence this so-called "bundling" gives them.
Article takes shots at google that frankly aren't warranted. As for Adwords? Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but we'll see if or how much Google's clients care about such things. After all, its Google's ad service, to some degree (let's say...to the point that it's not evil ;) they have the power and the right to use it for themselves. - scbysnx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1my father's a builder.. what this is saying is.. that he should say other builders are better then him. In the spirit of co op etition. Sorry johnny my name comes first if I can't help then I'll sell 'em on something else. This is retarded btw .. "lame"
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But Google does not control over 60% of the search market. Google provides a service that is voluntarily utilized in over 60% of searches. By using the term control you are implying that Google has some form of leverage in the search market. They don't. Anyone can use a competing service at any time. I can remove the Google search plugin in Firefox whenever I want and start using the Yahoo plugin. There is no negative impact on me.
- shazbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine
I don't think you can argue with that now can you? :) - bradbaxter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Maybe this has been covered... but for a blogger running AdSense Ads... and a Google Ad shows on his page (let's say for one of Google's paid services) and a visitor clicks the ad, does Google pay anything to the blog's owner (like a typical AdSense revenue share)? If not, this is the only thing I can really see hammering Google for, at this time.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21. Google doesn't have a monopoly. They have the leading search engine, but it's not even close to a monopoly. Just because you and most of your friends use Google doesn't mean everyone does. Yahoo and MSN still take about 35-40% of the combined web searches in the U.S., and outside the U.S. Google isn't even #1.
2. Every search engine does this. At least Google puts their sites in the paid listings. Yahoo and MSN just drop them in as the #1 "organic" result. Try it for yourself.
3. The practice of promoting your own product over the competition is not illegal. Having a monopoly is not illegal. ABUSING a monopoly by using it to gain or hold position in a new market IS illegal. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@iamexcite: Well spotted. It sure seems as if those accounts have been created specifically to slag google over this.
- kufurex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This post is just full of crap. It is just 'link bait' nothing more nothing less. Instead of reading a bunch of allegations on a blog, why doesn't everyone take two min and go do a few searches on Google. Their ads don't show up on the top of the listings all the time. One interesting example I came across is 'cpc advertising'.
The author of the article should get a life. - dalooo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Google created the damn thing, they can use it for free however they like. Damnit, articles like this are just ignorant."
I agree, they created it and can do whatever they want. They created their own monopoly thru better products. But if you're company depended solely on Google to make survive, you may have a different perspective.
Hypothetically speaking, say one day you wake up Google decides the telecom industry is no longer relevant and you lose your job...
Thats the kind of power Google has on the online world. That's why I would like to see competition or more searches on other engines.
Will probably get dugg down, for my negativity on Google, but those are just my perspectives from being in the industry I'm in. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a monopoly is when its impossible to have an alternitive
thats why microsoft isnt one nor is google or yahoo
google> msn yahoo snap ask
Microsoft>apple and linux based oses and possibly google anytime soon
yahoo> snap google msn ask - dalooo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2alexlr,
It's not so much their's no other substitutes, but because of the name recognition with Google 63% of searches are done on Google, altho I'm starting to find Yahoo is getting decent results for what I'm looking for at times. I do online advertising and am dependant on Google Adwords for my traffic thru their PPC engine. I mainly limit my options to only show on their search results.
With Google controlling 63% of the search market from the latest stats I've read, many in the online advertising world are dependant on the traffic that Google generates.
Now if you had a competing product with Google, or if they decided to just change the rules as they so often do for PPC or for on their search engine, we're left without income.
It is their product and they're free to do as they please, but being dependant on one company or one source for making a living is a never good.
And who's to say one day when they control 80%-90% the search market, they could set the rules for the internet.
Would you want 1 single company to control what they decide to be important on the internet or if your business is relevant or not?
I might be rambling, I hope I make sense. - LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For a second, I thought this was about a Google based Monopoly game. I wonder what boardwalk and Parkplace would be replaced with?
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dalooo,
Alex's point was that, technically what Google has is not monopoly, unless you are using the term monopoly outside of its economics definition. Like he said, if Google has monopoly they can charge for search. - OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on, does anyone expect google to put up ads for Yahoo? This is a mute point. If I own Ford I am not going to advertise for Chevy.
- franksands, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is FUD.
I searched for "search engine" and top result was MSN Search
I searched for "email" and the top result was Yahoo mail
see for yourselves - egotripping, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Googles own *ads* are in a different spot. So what? Shouldn't the customer be given a choice?
- enjourni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A few points.
- Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending upon how you look at it), google owns search on the web. In that case I don't see a problem with them putting themselves at the top of certain keywords. Microsoft put their name on a lot of computers sold with windows pre-installed. This is a free market guys, and google has a right to get their name out there for their own services.
- Knowing something about adwords, you have to understand that fat cats will always get the top spot if not the top 3. Amazon, yahoo, ebay. These kinds of companies don't care about ROI or making a good ad- what they care about is building brand name. To do that, they will simply outspend the competition to get the #1 spot. Trying to compete with a company like that (with massively big pockets) not only is foolhearty, it's a waste of time.
- How do I know google or what-have-you's strategy is to outbid the competition? Easy. "intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar" .... these are all extremely vague and untargeted keywords. Few people bid on them, because they convert so poorly. One of the golden rules in business is to target the right person (niche, or market). A person searching on "calendar" could be looking for what this month's calendar is. Or to buy a calendar for their grandmom. Or to compare the gregorian calendar to some other calendar. We have no clue, based on the keyword "calendar", what the person is looking for- it could be almost anything. In this case I think google is right. There's a strong possiblity that a person searching google itself for calendar might be looking for google's calendar service. So showing google's calendar as an option is relevant to the keyword searched. So long as google's results are relevant and there is a chance I can get into the top 10, then I don't know what people are complaining about. Those are the rules google established, and they seem to be playing by them (google calendar is relevant, so I don't mind them showing it). - krylm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/im-on-debunking-duty/
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is