Comments on: Yahoo makes its Google search advertising agreement public

A copy of the controversial search advertising agreement--albeit a heavily redacted version--is released in an SEC filing, marking the first public unveiling of the deal's specifics.

[t8]

Microsoft, however, contends the deal is anticompetitive in that it pushes two of the top three players in the Internet search advertising market together.

OK, so who is the third player?

[joeynp]

What a hater. Nevermind the third, the first and second are bad enough.

[steveaustin24]

Google is a new breed monopoly, here's why:

1) Google controls the ad space
2) Google can "out monetize" any "internet service" by using their superior ad
inventory
3) "internet service" does not include retail/commerce product-related sites
4) Google can therefore out-compete any up and coming web service
5) The money Google makes from the ads goes back into improving the service
6) The ads strengthen their other services, and the services strengthen their ads
7) The more services that display their ads, the more advertisers they get, and
the more they can monetize services
8) Their strength grows unbounded in a feedback loop
9) The monopoly of the network is quite different and arguably superior to mono
polies of lore, notably desktop/software monopolies

Examples:
Take the search space. Their ad dominance gives the funds to improve their search relevance, which grows in popularity and thus feedback into the ads.

Now they are seeking to beat wikipedia using knol, and their ad market dominance.

and Google pays "portal" companies CPM rates 15-20 times over fair market value
to show their search results and ads to their users. Thus starving out any google competitors using a stack of cash.

and, yes, they do have a better mousetrap, inarguably, but it is very difficult
for anyone to compete against them because of the amount of cash their ad monopoly generates, because a lot of that cash goes back into making the mousetrap
better and better.

imho, they really should be broken up into 3 pieces:

1) the ad group. the ads should be made equally available to all companies, so
everyone can monetize their web services at the same rate. this will help level
the landscape.

2) the search group. their search is already very powerful, and, like ads, can
also significantly enhance the value of other web services. so it should be carved out.

3) all the other services. news. maps. groups. orkut. etc.

[limefan913]

@steveaustin24: You used a key phrase. Out compete. Google holds a large share of the ad market online because they truly are better. They've won based purely on true strength of technology.

How many parts would you like to break Microsoft into?

Google's services all act as one, and are built upon the same technologies.

I'm a publisher in AdSense. Their ads are available to me, so long as their relevant. Of course they're going to cut deals with larger sites while offering me the standard rates. It's called an economy of scale.

Search and ads are one in the same. If you insist on Google doing this, then Microsoft and Yahoo should be forced to do so as well.

As for Gmail, Maps etc, why? Gmail is superior (at least for my needs, and apparently many other people as well) to Yahoo and Live Mail etc. Why? Because of Google's technology and Google's willingness to COMPETE. Microsoft BOUGHT Hotmail. Yahoo had let their mail stagnate. Google innovated, and convinced millions to switch from another e-mail provider. That's a feat.

Google might have a huge portion of the market, but they've gotten there in a legit manner. When someone offers a better service, I'll switch, I promise you that.

[benjaminstraight]

Why is there so much argument over this issue? Let it be private, or public, or whatever.

[Petrifiedwood]

So if they redact a publicly released report and I can't see this public info then I will just redact Yahoo.com for my network!

When they release their info I will unblock them.

Yah-who?

P