In US v. Google, YouTube's CEO Defends the Google Way (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0175015613
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/09/17/1357242/in-us-v-google-youtubes-ceo-defends-the-google-way
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/17/24247066/neal-mohan-us-v-google-testimony
The Justice Department alleges Google built an impenetrable ad empire by owning key parts of the ad tech stack, stifling competition. Prosecutors pointed to internal emails [1]discussing "parking" acquired companies , which they argue shows intent to sideline competitors. Mohan countered that "parking" meant allowing acquired firms to operate independently while integrating with Google's technology.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/17/24247066/neal-mohan-us-v-google-testimony
Weak and lame (Score:3)
> Mohan countered that "parking" meant allowing acquired firms to operate independently while integrating with Google's technology.
Sure thing Mohan - just like a "parked" car is "operating independently" while it's "integrating" with a patch of asphalt. Here's a clue you sad lying fuck - if it's parked, although it may still be operable, it ain't operating.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not good to compare a company to a car. They are obviously not going to park it somewhere, shut it down and leave. It just means there isn't a change process going on to modify it in some way. Parking it in a business sense means to just let it operate as is.
I feel the Google monopoly on advertising is good (Score:2)
Because really, the problem isn't Google controlling the advertisement industry, it's the advertisement industry itself. It needs to die, and there's a special place in hell for people who work in that space.
So when Google corners advertisement, it provides a single, easy target. Just like pregnant spiders: it's better to deal with one fat spider than hundreds of baby spiders.
I dread the day Google gets "remedied" in the advertisement space because it's gonna become exponentially hard to kill off that parti
Re: (Score:2)
How should the costs of things like search engines, maps etc be covered? Consumers are very reluctant to pay even small amounts for those, but someone has to pay for the servers, support staff, developers etc. I can imagine a system where everything was done with micro-payments, but it might price a lot of people out of the ability to use online services .
Re: (Score:3)
> How should the costs of things like search engines, maps etc be covered?
And tell me: how is advertisement better? Do you realize the overwhelming majority of people hate ads and use ad blockers to such an extent that it literally constitutes the [1]largest boycott in history [searls.com]?
This sounds like a doomed business model to me. One day, companies will realize the advertisement industry is a huge scam, their sales don't pick up when they run advertisement campaigns - because, again, people fucking hate advertisement - and this entire pile of crap will collapse on itself.
Anyway, even if a
[1] https://doc.searls.com/2015/09/28/beyond-ad-blocking-the-biggest-boycott-in-human-history/
Um wut? (Score:1)
"We still wanted to compete with them so we bought them, which effectively made them go away, so we don't have to compete with them" - Google, apparently.
YouTube CEO needs to learn how to lie better (Score:2)
I think people like that consider themselves unassailable.
It's worth pointing out... (Score:2)
...that the CEO of YouTube is not exactly neutral in this - YouTube has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google since 2006.
The Google way is fine (Score:2)
The problem is, you can't escape it. That's why they're being sued.