[soared]

The author analyzed one section of the pdf which amounts to a competitor creating a product, and so google creates their own competitive product. That sounds like a normal business practice.

It’s kind of silly to write a short article with an outlandish title, and then your only justification for the title is “just read the table of contents”. That pdf probably has tons of supporting information, but this blog post provides none of it.

(The embedded Twitter thread did not load on my initial read through, and it does provide actual content. But again.. embedded Twitter content when you have a brand new pdf filled with info?)

[JaimeThompson]

It appears that when google says "All participants in the unified auction, including Authorized Buyers and third-party yield partners, compete equally for each impression on a net basis" they aren't exactly being honest. Am I misinterpreting?

[mathteddybear]

is "on a net basis" the same as "auction winners are selected based on highest bid after fees"?

[pessimizer]

If the point you're making isn't "why mention anything unless you're willing to personally write a book on it" I don't understand it. You mention that adequate links are provided, so I'm confused.

[olliej]

Google making a competing product is not the problem.

The problem is when google uses its monopoly presence in other parts of the industry to artificially penalize the product they’re competing with.

[stefan_]

And then competitors meet up to make a contract with each other - oops, was this part of the Smith playbook?