Ben Edelman

I wrote a similar comment yesterday but worth noting again. This isn't the usual group of MBAs looking for a quick buck. These are the people who have come in from ironSource. A company who has made billions by attaching malware in disguise to personal computers[1]. Executives who green lit projects like mentioned in this post really don't care about their users, its all about maximizing profits while stepping on everyone else [1] https://www.benedelman.org/news-021815/

Per excellent report by Ben Edelman, which I strongly recommend reading for anyone interested in the booking platforms http://www.benedelman.org/publications/ota-bias-12jul2017.pdf Priceline Group: priceline.com, agoda.com, booking.com, cheapflights.com, ctrip.com, KAYAK, Momondo.com, Opentable.com, rentalcars.com, Rocketmiles Expedia, Inc.: Expedia.com, Carrentals.com, Classic Vacations, eLong.com, HomeAway, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz Worldwide, Travelocity, Traveldoo, Trivago, Venere, Wotif Group

The intention was never to break them up. MEPs calling for it is just to show the EU Commission that they have the political support to take the gloves off. If you actually want to know the justification for the EU doing this you should read this paper by Ben Edelman. http://www.benedelman.org/publications/google-tying-2014-10-26.pdf He's consulted for various Google competitors but he's also a professor at Harvard Business School, and the argument he makes is sound.

>>when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess) It is 2014. Modern phones need to do more than just make phone calls. Mobile app developers want to build with the best APIs available. Location, in-app advertising & search features are best when they use the api's associated with google's custom services. The hair you're trying to split misses the point about modern mobile apps & modern smart phones. Google is clearly using API compatibility as a wedge against the OEMs. Samsung's Taizen project wouldn't exist if this pressure was not a real problem. Google is behaving like mid-90's microsoft. This deeper link paints a bleak picture of what's going on: http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html

I can sympathize with Nextag on the topic of Google entering their market and possibly being a little less than objective regarding their own product (Benjamin Edelman has written about this several times: http://www.benedelman.org/). On the other hand, getting 60% traffic from Google is very unhealthy (18 mil. of 30 mil. monthly users?) and doesn't make Nextag look like a site people stick to because of its quality. None of the sites I visit daily (directly) has anywhere near that much search traffic (according to Alexa), so perhaps Nextag hits are perceived by searchers as "generic", interchangeable results that happen to rank well on Google and they don't care much whether the hits are from Nextag, Google Shopping or any other e-commerce site.

Google has confidential "Mobile Application Distribution agreements" that guarantees google services and functionality and stipulates requirements.. Luckily court cases have revealed the stipulations that show Android is anything but "Free" to handset makers.. http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf unfortunately i can't find any cases that show how much of the estimated ~60 dollars per handset is licensing costs for the google apps (as some have been licensed to mfrs) or patent / indemnification agreements needed that google doesn't offer but still are a cost to selling android handsets. I know google makes a LOT more money on ads.. but lets be real, while android was open source its current incarnation is nowhere to be found and his hidden behind represive agrements, advertising, and marketing and android phones in the end are no cheaper than any other phone price wise.. When i buy a surface/tablet/oem pc it just comes with windows.. When i build a PC i buy an OEM license for 30 bucks.. if you know the platform you're running you can know how to save cash and make the best of it.

After Wikia Search failed, there's no risk in Google further subsidizing the growth of Wikipedia so long as Google then gets to scrape back much of the value add via their knowledge graph & Wikia is primarily monetized via Google AdSense. It makes sense Wikimedia didn't see an immediate donation drop. In terms of a conversion funnel, the people who are using Wikipedia for the first time are not likely to donate. My guess is most of the people who are most likely to donate a small amount here or there are the regular users who regularly seek out the site. The drop in donations due to the lower exposure would take years to kick in, because now with 20% or 30% fewer users, there will also be less new future power users who would donate in say 2018 or 2019. But offsetting any decline there for a company making over a billion a month in profits shouldn't be too substantial. Sergey Brin donates a half-million a year grant to the Wikimedia foundation & Google has also donated a few million. It is also worth mentioning the knowledge graph now often contains affiliate links for things like music, ebooks, and so on. Over time more and more knowledge categories will have paid affiliate links in them (say booking a restaurant, heading to a concert, etc.) In some cases Google may temporarily make a link type free to try to drive adoption and awareness, but over time it will be the same sort of scrape-n-displace they've done with hotel bookings. They not only turned the "organic" hotel…

Inital findings report: https://www.benedelman.org/phia-forced-clicks/ Phia's investor list includes a lot of celebs: Sidney Sweeney, Ice Spice, Halsey, the Chainsmokers, Khloe Kardashian, Jessica Alba, Alix Earle, Shaboozey, Jessica Alba, Paris Hilton, Mindy Kaling, Wendi Murdoch, Karlie Kloss, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, etc.

the guy that wrote this blog post also recently wrote about AppLovin, a company who he alleges installs apps without user consent. his response to this was... to short their stock? https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-my-disclosures/

For context, Ben Edelman the author of the blog post was in the video at https://youtu.be/qCGT_CKGgFE?t=1980 Their personal site is also linked in the video description https://www.benedelman.org/honey-detecting-testers/

I think the structure of this article definitely made it harder to find the details to some of these questions—the fact that it's posted as 5-8 different "blog" entries instead of a single webpage made it harder then it needed to be to get to the technical conclusions section. Also, some of the method call listings on this page: https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-execution-path/ were unnecessarily verbose, and duplicative with the later pages that actually explained the flow in more detail e.g. https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-execution-sdk/ Having all of the sections of the article on the same page would have helped surface and resolve a lot of these potential editorial issues.

lukec11, I would enjoy chatting with you about methods and findings. Send a note? https://www.benedelman.org/mail/

How does the platform even allow a single tap on an ad to install an app? Edit: Discussed somewhat here https://www.benedelman.org/applovin-permissions/. Seems like it's abetted by garbage from the carrier. Something for iOS to look forward to?

IronSource is known for leveraging their ad network and installers to distribute spam, malware, and adware bundlers. What the fuck Unity. [1] https://www.benedelman.org/news-021815/ [2] https://blog.infostruction.com/2018/10/26/adware-empire-ironsource-and…

From the wiki page on TrustArc: "In January 2006, Harvard economics researcher Benjamin Edelman published a study showing that sites with TRUSTe certification were 50 percent more likely to violate privacy policies than uncertified sites: https://www.benedelman.org/news-092506/ And perhaps ironically (if honestly true - maybe it never was the intention), TrustArc was nominally/purportedly started to promote privacy at TrustE. A lie perhaps. "TrustArc, was founded as a non-profit industry association called TRUSTe in 1997 by Lori Fena, then executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Charles Jennings, a software entrepreneur, with the mission of fostering online commerce by helping businesses and other online organizations self-regulate privacy concerns." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustArc

P.S. This has been going on for a very, very long time. IAC/Ask Toolbar has just been constantly tweaking itself to remain compliant (in Google’s Perceptions), by farming out responsibilities of user acquisition to 3rd party performance marketers, and then blaming the 3rd party marketers whenever Google catches them. Here’s detailed research on their practices from 2006: https://www.benedelman.org/spyware/ask-toolbars/

Ben Edelman (Harvard, Microsoft) published a study [0] about how dark patterns in the online travel industry help them reach margins up to 25%. He also mentions the consolidation where most well-known booking sites are owned by just two large groups. [0] http://www.benedelman.org/impact-of-ota-bias-and-consolidation-on-cons…

This isn't accurate. Google's search ad auction started as a generalized second-price (GSP) auction[1][2], which is not the same as VCG. In particular, GSP is not truthful, while VCG is. The display ads auction (formerly DoubleClick Ad Exchange, now Google Ad Manager) has always been separate, and it used to use an Optional Second Price (OSP) auction[1]. It's transitioning to a first-price auction for the reasons mentioned in the blog post you linked to. As stated in the blog post: "This change will have no impact on auctions for ads on Google Search, AdSense for Search, YouTube, and other Google properties". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_second-price_auction [2] https://www.benedelman.org/publications/gsp-060801.pdf [3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0535.pdf

Seriously dude : https://www.benedelman.org/news-021815/ https://blog.infostruction.com/2018/10/26/adware-empire-ironsource-and…

The article is correct, you're mistaken. While AOSP is licensed under Apache 2.0, in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to agree to MADA[0]. No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's Services. Arguably many of Android's core APIs now flow through Play Store Services (e.g. Location Services). [0] PDF warning: http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf

"Certified" means they have signed Google's Mobile Applications Distribution Agreement, a confidential contract where Google permits access to Google Apps in exchange for the manufacturer agreeing to load up all of Google's required bloatware, set Google Search as default, comply with all of their compatibility requirements, and agree to not release any devices running alternative versions of Android. We don't have a current version of the MADA public, but you can see some old ones from 2011 here: http://www.benedelman.org/news-021314/

if they are "clearly labeled" now, what terms do you use to describe what he ad labels were in the past? http://www.benedelman.org/adlabeling/google-colors-oct2014.html

What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part. I can see it coming - "Host on AMP, and your ads will get through". "Use Google Ads, and your ads will get through." "Pay dues to the Acceptable Ad Consortium, and your ads will get through." Look what happened with TrustE and their ratings. It started out as a good idea, and ended up as a cover for scumbags. Today, a TrustE seal has negative value.[1] [1] http://www.benedelman.org/news/092506-1.html

This is hilarious because Rolfe Winkler took a shot (https://twitter.com/RolfeWinkler/status/571079879497781249 ) at Reuters yesterday for their article about this because apparently no one has read Ben Edelman's recent post ( http://www.benedelman.org/news/021815-1.html) tearing IronSource's business practices apart.

Is the strategic priority of Google leadership a subjective judgement? Are these subjective judgements objectively implemented? There are always winners and losers for any given ranking algorithm, the question is whether perception of neutrality has improved or declined in the last 7 years. What is the perception of Google's neutrality in enforcement of rules against traffic arbitrage, e.g. search toolbars: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html ?

The DOT ruled[1] against AA and fined them a whole $60,000 after a complaint[2] from Edelman. [1] http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2013-0024-0032 [2] http://www.benedelman.org/airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html#co…

Ironically, Google's own toolbar(which was bundled by OEMs who took money from Google), sent people's web site visits even after configuring it to say no. http://www.benedelman.org/news/012610-1.html

They are bundling in the Ask toolbar, a known piece of malware/spyware. See: http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/ask-toolbars/ Whenever you see the word "toolbar," just think "virus," because that's pretty much what they amount to. See: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-guy-whos-fixing-your-computer-ha… (#2) An organization claiming to be for "open source" should not be distributing KNOWN malware, by ANY means. PERIOD. I have one major project on SourceForge that is pretty much inactive. If I ever do the rewrite of it I'm thinking of, that new code will not be hosted there. It'll probably be on GitHub.

It's most likely done intentionally to protect against leaking the clicker's identity. See the issue Facebook had back then: http://www.benedelman.org/news/052010-1.html

Inadvertently like the Bing toolbar. It has been shown to log every pageview like Bing toolbar. Whether they filter out the pageviews when a user goes to Bing no one knows besides Google. (ie: The article below shows they definetly do not filter it out at the application level as a Yahoo query is sent back by the Google Toolbar and Yahoo now runs on Bing). http://www.benedelman.org/news/012610-1.html