Google in restraint of trade? 1

[chiph]

Jim Fawcette, owner of Fawcett Technical Publications (Visual Studio Magazine and others), has posted to his blog that Google is in restraint of trade:

http://www.ftponline.com/weblogger/forum.aspx?ID=1&DATE=12/15/2003

The short summary is:
Google, by distributing it's pop-up blocking toolbar, is restraining other ads, while it's own ads (which are embedded in the page) get through.

And, they have changed their EULA to retroactively demand exclusivity (you can't have ads by Doubleclick as well as Google on your site).

Opinions?

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[DrJavaJoe]

It's my understanding that Googles popup blocker blocks all popups equally it doesn't allow only googles popups. The complaint is you they block competitors popups and do nothing about their own banner ads or java based ads, which to me is trying to compare apples and oranges. Now I would see a problem if Google did something like removing all of the competitors banner ads and not their own or blocking competitors popup and allowing their own but that is not what is happening.

 

[harebrain]

DrJavaJoe,

Now that we've established that they can do that, who's to say they won't do that?

 

[DrJavaJoe]

But they're not doing that.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

You could rob a bank and who's to say you won't rob a bank? So what should we do about it?

 

[Grenage]

"Now that we've established that they can do that, who's to say they won't do that?"

What!?

Who's to say windows 2004 won't delete Netscape and Opera on every boot?

You cannot whine about what a company "might" do, it's ludicrous.

 

[harebrain]

It's no more ludicrous than burying your head in the sand and ignoring what they have positioned themselves to do. If you play the game one move at a time, and fail to anticipate what your opponent will do, you're going to lose.

"Hey, we're Google! Trust us!"

Right.

 

[ecobb]

So exactly which popups does Google allow, then? In all of my surfing over the last several months, I haven't found any popups that have gotten through Google's popup blocker. Has anyone here ever seen a Google popup?

If Ford puts radios in their cars, and radio stations sell advertising air time to merchants, can the merchants sue Ford for having a cd player in the car radio to allow the driver the option to not have to listen to the commercials?

I can see the flipside of "What if Ford's radio only allowed Ford's commercials?" Do radio stations play other radio station's commercials? No, the merchants have to advertise with each radio station.

If Hollywood Agent "A" has close connections at Universal, and Hollywood Agent "B" has close connections at Paramount, and you use Hollywood Agent "A", and his first cousin got caught stealing a car radio from Hollywood Agent "C", who happens to be married to Hollywood Agent "B"'s sister, do you think Hollywood Agent "A" is going to recommend you to Universal, Paramount or Fox?

It's just business.

....OK, now I have a headache....

Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"Alright Brain, you don't like me, and I don't like you. But lets just do this, and I can get back to killing you with beer." - Homer Simpson

 

[dgillz]

I agree wholeheartedly with Ecobb's argument....this is not restraint of trade, it is free choice.

Also for what it is worth, I have been using Google's popup blocker for a couple of years now and I have never seen a Google popup ad.

Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Exact Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports

http://www.trianglepartners.com

 

[Grenage]

Never seen one either.

This really is an arguement over nothing.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

CajunCenturion - good point. I should have checked on how it was presented on previous pages. (I still haven't) If it is presented as a complaint (I'll take your word on it) then there is less of an issue of journalistic integrity.

harebrain - You can go with either company. There are a few things to concider.

1) Google and other companies put out software that stops popup adds. If company A advertises via pop-ups and company B advertises via banners then the banner adds will have a better chance at getting through. That said nothing stops Company A from changing their model to Banner advertising which Googles, and other products, does not effect.

2) Google only say that if you want to be paid by them for using their advertisment system (Google is the middle man) that you can not have any other type of advertisement on the same page. This does not mean a web site has to solely choise Google or not. Just means on any given web page they can have google and no other advertising or they can have another advertising. This is basically like google buying a full page add in the newspaper. They are not buying the whole newspaper.

I'm not saying ignore what they are doing. I'm just saying what they are currently doing is not wrong in my opinion.

For those of you that didn't know there was another advertising company that actually covered adds of their competitors. That was bad and that stopped.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-271775.html?legacy=cnet

for those interested

 

[Kjonnnn]

This topic just sounds like "somebody" doesnt have enough real issue to worry about.

 

[Tarwn]

The problem I see that isn't getting through is that this (insert deragotory term regarding writers lack of intelligence here) is complaining because google's popup blocker is blocking pop-up add's but not banners. Tihs has been touched on but I am going to make it really, really clear so we will all be on the same page.

Google Toolbar blocks pop-ups, the letter does not disagree with this. What the letter is complaining about is that it blocks pop-up ads but not banner ad's, thus giving banner ad's an unfair market. The argument that google could block (or even replace) banners ads with their own ad's or those that people have paid money to google to display is ludicrous. As far as the browser is concerned that banner ad is simply another image inside an anchor tag.

So here is the fallout in trying to replace banner ad's:
1) Google decides to replace all images in anchor tags with their own banners under the assumption that they must be banners:
1s) The next time you hit a website with images for the menu, they turn into google ad's, kind of obviousd, especially considering how many sites design like this.

2) Google decides to replace all images in anchor tags that link to a certain group of addresses with their own banner ad's
2s) I have a list of banner address numbered in the 5 figures, if google was using a similar list I would not need to block these addresses AND some paranoid user would have found the list by now and published it to places like Slashdot and TT

3) Google magically knows when there is a banner present and replaces it with their own sanctioned banners
3s) I have this magic lamp for sale with 3 wishes to anyone who rubs it, would you be interested in buying it?

-T

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[chiph]

If I had a site that depended on ads for revenue, I think I'd probably go with Google in any case -- they have a history of actually paying, whereas some of the other ad companies have the reputation of not paying (Gee, we know we promised we'd pay monthly, but now we're going to pay once you reach $1000).

Of course, the question is: If Google goes public, will their policies stay the same?

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[theoxyde]

I think maybe this thread is missing the point of the complaint letter. The letter is complaining about Google's practices as a member of the market. Any one of these practices can be innocuous by itself, but considering the combination thereof, it reeks of potential abuse.

First, the popup issue: While Google isn't submitting their own popups, they do use ads on other sites. Having a product that blocks ads from your competition, regardless of its form, is questionable. If Google itself were not an advertiser, the argument would be moot. Google is placing itself in a position to dictate how ads will be delivered (banners rather than popups), which is, coincidentally, the way they deliver their own ads. Again, if Google were not an advertiser itself, there wouldn't be a complaint.

Second: Exclusivity. Google's EULA minces no words here... you cannot show other ads on the same page. Try running a television commercial and telling the broadcaster that they cannot carry any competitive ads during the same commercial break. You will be (polietly?) informed that if you want to prevent competing ads, you will have to buy ALL of the available ad spots. Of the complaints, I think this one has the most merit because Fawcette makes most of its revenue from advertising.

I certainly wouldn't allow a single client to dictate who I sell my services to, or how I sell them. Heck, my competition licenses a local radio station here to play for their on-hold music for tech support. However, they cannot keep me from advertising on that station during their peak volume times (I don't think they even know I'm doing it).

 

[manarth]

Google have decided that forced 'popup' advertising is unethical. So they've developed a tool which allows users to block these types of adverts.

Google don't use pop-ups, because they've decided they're unethical.

If Google were to release anti-spam software, would the author say it were unethical - because Google doesn't send spam?

Exclusivity - Google's EULA says you can't have any other ads on the page.
This is what Google are buying. They are paying for their advert to be the only advert on the page. If you don't like it, you don't have to accept Google's money.

It's all hogwash

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? how to get a better answer: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[harebrain]

theoxyde,

I think maybe this thread is missing the point of the complaint letter...


Thank you!

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

I don't think we are missing the point.

I read the letter. I understand its point of view. I see misinformation in the letter. I see why they are upset. I see how they twist the actual facts to make it worse then it is. I just don't agree with the complaints for the reasons above.

 

[theoxyde]

I agree that the situation is not all doom-and-gloom as they purport -- just use an ad that isn't in a form that everybody hates. However, the underlying issue still remains, and I do think that the complaint has merit, however small it may be.

I might be inclined to think it had more merit were it not people who annoy me making the complaint.

 

[harebrain]

I think you hit the nail on the head: people are too emotionally invested in antipathy for the complainent to consider the merit of the complaint. And if we base our notion of justice on whose ox is getting gored, we might end up being crushed by the dead ox.

 

[theoxyde]

It's hard to drum up a lynch party because somebody gored your weasel. When oxen start getting gored, more people will be concerned.

Heck, I get less concerned about this the more I think about it.