Tag Archives: Dina Srinivasan

Once more for the whiners

It started in 2018 when I wrote “A certain play performed by adjusting to the notion of stupid and short sighted whilst the captains of industry have been getting their A-game in gear and others never did. It is merely another stage of the impact of iterative exploitation and profit founding, that whilst Huawei, Google, Apple and Samsung are no longer going iterative, they are now making larger leaps over the next 5 years as they want the largest slice of 5G pie possible and in an iterative setting the others can catch up and that is where we see the clash, because these hardware jumps will also prevail in software and data jumps and some players are in no way ready to play that game”, there was a malleable situation that came to fruition 2 years later. I saw it coming, and whether it was Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, or Apple iCloud (that selfish title), one would reap the benefits. Of course there will always be the negative shouts (on how nut I am), yet less than one hours ago, we see Reuters give us ‘Aramco to bring Google Cloud services to Saudi Arabia’, a stage that was always going to happen and it serves my IP as well, so I merely have to wait, like a spider in the middle of his web. Two years of anticipation about to pay off massively. The article came as ‘Clueless to the end’ on that October 12th and now we get the setting where Microsoft and Apple are basically second to all. 

So as we now see “Aramco said Saudi Arabia is being added to the global network of Google Cloud Platform regions, as part of a strategic alliance agreement signed between the company and Google Cloud this month”, this also means that it can test apps in 5G at full speed in a national setting, implying that the advantage of Google makes more and more headway, this is not about the foresight of Google, it is for the most the lack of foresight to all the other players that scream that they are treated unfair and the large tech companies must be broken up, here we see a stage I foresaw 2 years ago, several people were all up in arms how I didn’t see it right, larger tech companies in a lack of action and here is the advantage that Google now has, and more importantly well deserved has.

So when we see the New York Times 21 hours ago and see in one part ‘The Antitrust Case Against Big Tech, Shaped by Tech Industry Exiles’, as well as “Regulators are relying on insiders like Dina Srinivasan, who left her digital ad job after concluding that “Facebook and Google were going to win and everybody else is going to lose.”” We see a stage of people in  stage of whatever (aka: lack of insight), this is further set in “before she became an antitrust scholar whose work laid the blueprint for a new wave of monopoly lawsuits against Big Tech, Dina Srinivasan was a digital advertising executive bored with her job and worried about the bleak outlook for the industry, which is great, because as she was looking at the bleak prospect I came up with a new piece of IP for 5G, and it is something she could have thought of, but no she didn’t and now I have it (and she does not), so does it make me a genius and her average, or me creative and she a mere advantage seeker with no prospects to advance over, I would like to think it is one, but reality will probably set me in camp two. As such a larger stage is not merely the lack of foresight, it is a whole range of people in a stage of seeing what Google can come up with and how it fits their need for profit seeking, something that was decently clear in every attack on Google and its three tech accompli, a stage that the media milks but seemingly does not care to understand, but that is my take on the matter. As such, does Google matter, or was Google always the martyr? I think both, but the advantage seekers wanted google to suffer their non profits (they call them losses). Yet the stage is seen as per today that these players never looked beyond the length of their nose (we are excluding Pinocchio and Cyrano de Bergerac from consideration). Or in the language of Sergey Brin (Google’s own Papa Smurf), If we smurf what we smurf all the smurf, the smurf we smurf will be better than any other smurf.

So as we see (at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/technology/antitrust-case-google-facebook.html) “With no background in academia but an insider’s understanding of the digital ad world and a stack of economics books, she wrote a paper with a novel theory — that Facebook harmed consumers by extracting more and more personal data for using its free services”, no one is considering that whilst she had the advantage she was quiet, when the advantage went away she started to cry (well sort of) and now we see “she argued in another paper that Google’s monopoly in advertising technology allowed for the type of self-dealing and insider trading that would be illegal on Wall Street”, yes that is what the whiners say (as I put it with diplomatic eloquence), yet the truth is that there are two stages, what the people want, what WE seek and what advertisers push WHAT THEY THINK WE WANT, two very different settings and as they REFUSED to listen, because it was not a contribution to their bottom line, and as some of these digital weavers left things unsettled in 1995-1998 Google had an option and created a search system, one that simpleminded people could not conceive, in addition, in 1998-2000 the digital advertisement players sat on their hands, on their asses and kept on faltering, because their short sighted approach was making them rich and in 2000 Google Adwords came and changed it, they actually LISTENED to those who needed advertising and gave them options and choices, something the others never did, they had the conceited approach like the yellow pages and we merely had to shut up and pay the bill, Google Adwords gave options and choices and a massive way for us not to be taken advantage off, we only paid one cent more than the one before us, so if number 4 paid $0.37 for an advertisement, number three paid $0.38 (regardless of bid), number two paid $0.39 (regardless of bid) and number one, el jefe de advertencia paid $0.40 (regardless of bid), that as something the others NEVER offered.

So cry me a river, now Google Cloud is also in Saudi Arabia (via Aramco) and hopefully son my system will deploy for consumers and small businesses, all whilst the whiners say they are treated so unfair, I got an optional entire technology arm launched, so how we consider “they can articulate the specifics of what they worry about”, which they are allowed to do, but in that same time I came up with a new 5G technology, at that point, are the whiners really helping us, or stopping us from reaching innovative greatness, merely because they cannot fathom the options?

So whilst w might notice ‘The Facebook Antitrust Case Is a Vital First Step. But More Needs to Happen’ and accept words of a Smoking Gun, is there an actual progress by these whiners? Let’s not forget they were at the helm and let it slip, these executives were riding high and falling asleep whilst Chinese companies hungry for that much revenue are waking up and nipping at everyones heels. This might be a good thing, but those same whiners complaining about actual innovators is taking it one step too far, and as I am showing, that progress started to come in 2018, now that the Google Cloud is going there the others will wake up and wonder why they never thought of it. Well, I can tell you, it was the lack of vision that did not get you to Vision 2030, which was launched well over to years ago.

So there!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics, Science

The time is now

Yesterday, an article in the BBC made me aware of a few items. Now, I was aware to a larger degree of most items, yet I kept it in the second drawer of the third desk of my brain, it was something I took for accepted and then shrug it off, so what changed? Nothing actually changed, but the article seems good enough to take a few items on view.

The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51115315) gives us “Google has announced a timeline for implementing new privacy standards that will limit third-party use of a digital tool known as cookies“, now this is nothing new, it was always going to happen, yet we also see: “analysts say the move gives Google more control over the digital ad market where it is already a major player.  To make advertising more personal web browsers collect small bits of information that allow them to create a profile of the users likes and online habits“, the question becomes, is that actually true? And when we see “This presents a core problem from a competition perspective. It is yet another example of Google diminishing ad rivals’ access to data for the stated purpose of protecting users’ privacy“, a quote from Dina Srinivasan, a lawyer focused on competition issues is not really that truthful, is it? Apple made a similar move in 2017 and when we go back in time, we see Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, Microsoft Edge, and Opera. Most will have forgotten Netscape who became defunct in 2003, and basically stopped making a blip 2 years before that. We seemingly forgot about the exploitative market that Microsoft had in those days with Internet Explorer and all the crap it added to our HTML files (as did Word when we saved as an HTML file), in those days data in files was still an issue because there was a limit to what we could safe when we were not rich. Chrome was the first to keep our files clean, or at least lacking a lot of rubbish. Netscape was however on a different route, an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for MCI. MCI did not want its servers to have to retain partial transaction states which was a killer for storage, as such they asked the people at Netscape to find a way to store partial options and methods of transactions where it mattered the most, at the side of the buyer, Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart, Google found a new way of using that idea and used cookies in the far reaching solution it currently has, they innovated, others merely took on board someone else’s solution and not they are all crying foul. Perhaps when these people had taken the time to innovate, they would have the choice, and the option of two years seems decent, so when I read “advertisers had hoped to have more time before it was implemented” is as I personally see a larger BS issue on timeframes and exploitation, if advertisers are in the now, they would be all about advanced implementation, yet they like their bonus and they seemingly do not like to spend money on investments to counter the timeline (an assumption from my side). 

Google’s director of Chrome engineering, Justin Schuh gives us “Users are demanding greater privacy – including transparency, choice and control over how their data is used – and it’s clear the web ecosystem needs to evolve to meet these increasing demands“, which seems slightly too political to my liking, but there we have it. Business Day gives us “But GDPR also made life harder for a cohort of second-tier adtech players trying to compete with the likes of Google and Facebook. The regulation’s provision to prevent data being shared wantonly with third parties seemed to give the tech giants an opportunity to tighten their control over user data” where we see that this was one of the foundations that led to the end of SizMek, some state that it was DSP Rocket Fuel that ended the heartbeat of SizMek, yet everyone ignores a simple truth, ‘an overcrowded ad tech market with independent vendors with an inability to face serious cost pressures to their pricing structures‘, they all arrogantly believed that THEIR solution was the real one and they all basically read cookies like the ones Google had distributed. You can all claim to have the magic potion that Asterix drinks, but when the truth comes out that he drinks Darjeeling tea from India, the playing field gets overcrowded and when the customer figures out what they get priced for the end is pretty much around the corner of the next door you face.

So as we are told “third-party ad sellers will need to go through Google to get information about internet users. But critics say that is an advantage that makes the market less fair and safe“, in my view my question becomes: ‘Which critics, names please!‘, the problem is that third party ad sellers have no rights, none at all, the rights should be with the owner of the computer, Google (Apple also) are setting (not by their own accord) that stage, Microsoft is using their Azure Cloud to counter the Cookie option on PC and Microsoft Console, but the hard sight is already there, the people who are unable, unwilling and cannot afford to set the stage still want their freebee and they are now starting to complain as they are made aware that their time has ended, even though this was the direction we saw in US politics and EU politics well over three years ago. The EU had their General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and everyone shrugged their shoulders stating that it would not happen that fast, yet that was three years ago and now the time has been set back to merely two years to go and the ad sellers are feeling the pinch of the cost they will actually face. Moreover, they are seeing the red lights of career ends. The Verge gave us “an industry that’s used to collecting and sharing data with little to no restriction, that means rewriting the rules of how ads are targeted online“, they gave us that on May 25th 2018, so 1.5 years ago, why is this now a problem? The people wanted this, ad soon it will be here, Google has not been sitting still updating their systems accordingly, and as such we see that the flaccid and non-concerned rest is now looking at a deadline a mere two years away. When we look to the larger field we see Criteo, LiveRamp, Trade Desk, Rubicon, and Telaria, all losing value as ad-tech providers, yet the opposite could also be true when they offer to the customer a value, a value where most ad-tech companies never bothered going. Yet the power of any ad-tech was never the cookie, that was for the most merely the revenue. They had 5 years to consider the power of ad-tech and they didn’t. The power of this is basically engagement. Facebook showed this year after year and now it is out on the larger field, those who engage will survive, the rest will end up on a dog eat dog football field and a few will survive but only as long as they push to the next hurdle and make it, if not they will end up on the obituary page (just like Netscape, however Netscape ended there for other reasons). 

I wonder if that is why Google is so adamant about its stadia? It would get a massive tier of small time developers creating engagement content to be released on mobiles. That i me merely speculating. 

Still the words of Dina Srinivasan are not entirely without merit, she gives the Facebook issue (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/yale-law-grads-hipster-antitrust-argument-against-facebook-findsmainstream-support-11575987274), and she makes a good case, yet the history of certain players need to be taken into account. Even as she was her own misgivings about the evolution of the digital advertising market, history had been clear, some of them basically did not bother, they wanted it handed to them for free and in the beginning they got away with it. And she made a point with “How could a company with Facebook Inc.’s checkered privacy record have obtained so much of its users’ personal data?“, yet equally we need to weigh this with the words of U.S. Attorney General William Barr. He gives us “he is “open to that argument” that consumer harm can exist through the use of personal data, even if a service is free. “I am inclined to think there is no free lunch. Something that is free is actually getting paid for one way or the other”“, which is what I have been saying on my blog for around 4 years, so happy to see people wake up in January 2020. So when I see “Ms. Srinivasan would prefer that Facebook be forced to change certain business practices, including how it tracks users when they are off the company’s platforms“, I wonder when they give account to the small truth that Facebook is a free service for a reason and they are no longer alone in this, you are going after the large players when they are in the largest danger by losing slices of that revenue pie to contenders elsewhere in the world (EU and China). 

Whatever you want to do is fine, but realise that it will put a large group of people in the streets without a job, I am not against them losing their job, but that revenue and that data will also flow in other directions and that is the one part that all players (with political support) are trying to counter as much as possible. I wonder if they will succeed. The weird part is that if this group had been properly taxed 3 out of the 5 major issues would also fall away and in that view a workable solution could be pivoted to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics