undefined | Better HN

0 pointsparasubvert3y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

clairity3y 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.

parasubvertOP3y 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.