Ad Blockers, AT&T and Weird Antitrust Questions

Chrome’s new ad blocker raises antitrust concerns; a new consumer right to control grounded in an old AT&T rule may help

On February 15, Google’s Chrome browser began blocking certain types of advertisements. Many news outlets have raised legitimate concerns about the limited scope of Chrome’s new ad blocking efforts in addition to the “process” through which Google arrived at its implemented solution (the process was basically this: Google creates “Coalition for Better Ads”; Google performs research about most annoying types of ads for new Coalition; Google “forgets” to test annoying pre-roll YouTube ads in research; Google blocks 17% of ads tested; Google will not address issue of user tracking, raising privacy concerns).

Many of the reactions to Chrome’s ad blocker have suggested potential antitrust issues associated with the internet’s biggest advertiser using its market-leading browser (59% of internet users use Chrome) to dictate which ads are shown to users. And they’re right: Google didn’t test YouTube’s pre-roll ads in its initial “research” even though the Coalition has said these are “least preferred” and Chrome’s ad blocker has set out to block other such pre-roll ads. There’s an argument to be made that this is an anti-competitive move by Google, leveraging its market dominance to suppress competing advertisers.

If it looks like a banned ad and smells like a banned ad, it’s probably just one of those annoying YouTube ads that Chrome conveniently forgot to block.

Continue reading Ad Blockers, AT&T and Weird Antitrust Questions


Uber, Waymo and the Future of Transportation-as-a-Service

With Google and Uber settling their lawsuit, there might yet be room for a partnership of competitors

By now, everyone has heard that the Waymo-Uber trial came to an abrupt close after the two reached a settlement. It was Waymo’s case to prove, and reports were their case was lacking a “smoking gun”. From the Verge:

So who gets what? Waymo gets 0.34 percent of Uber’s equity at the company’s $72 billion valuation, which works out to a value of around $245 million (…)

According to a source familiar with the matter, Uber cannot use any of Waymo’s hardware or software trade secrets as one of the conditions of the settlement. That’s interesting, especially since the trade secrets at the heart of the case were all related to hardware (emphasis mine).

Not enough attention has been paid to the ways in which the long-term business strategy may have impacted the litigation strategy on both sides. There are the obvious points: Uber wanted to clear the deck for its impending IPO, and Waymo (owned by Google/Alphabet) wanted to protect what many believe to be market-leading self-driving technology. But, the reality is both companies possess critical components of self-driving technology, leaving the field open for competition or collaboration in the future.

The Verge calls out perhaps the most important point: Uber cannot use any of Waymo’s hardware or software trade secrets. Given that the trade secrets at the center of the case were hardware related, protecting their software seems like a major win for Waymo. After all, Google is still a software company; they’ve shown limited ability to succeed in hardware of any type (No, selling 4 million Pixel phones doesn’t really do the trick).

Remember, Google Ventures invested in Uber in 2013, and owns about 7% of the company overall. Google also invested $1 billion in Lyft in late 2017. In addition, Google’s Waze is piloting a carpooling app in select geographies. In short, Google has its money (and technology) placed on multiple bets in the self-driving and ride-hailing market. It almost calls to mind the strategy SoftBank has taken on an international level, investing not only in Uber, but also in Uber competitors Didi Chuxing (China), Grab (Southeast Asia) and Ola (India).

This gets to the unifying thesis underlying SoftBank’s $100 billion “Vision Fund”: data collection. Ride-hailing companies are all collecting massive sets of location and logistics data, crucial in building the connected fleets of the future. The New York Times did an excellent write up on SoftBank’s strategy, calling out the enormous amounts of date they all its portfolio companies collect that will be needed to power the automated machines of the future. Google’s self-driving efforts similarly reflect an ethos of data collection; and which company better knows what to do with massive quantities of data than Google? Google is playing the long game: these various companies all provide potential routes to market for its self-driving technology. And while Google may provide both the hardware and software for this self-driving future, its expertise would seem to lie on the software side of things. In particular, Google’s mapping and image recognition capabilities are unmatched.

Through all this, it’s important to remember that as self-driving cars come to market, Uber’s business model will likely change dramatically. We’re currently experiencing Uber 1.0; at some point in the future, an Uber x.0 will be powered by a self-driving fleet of cars, always on call. It’s also important to remember that Uber (or Google) isn’t the only company pursuing this future: from Detroit to Silicon Valley, everyone in the car industry wants a self-driving play. How will consumers navigate the many options that may exist for us to get from point A to point B in a self-driving future? I’ll give you a hint: the same company that helps us navigate the internet now may just be the answer.

Continue reading Uber, Waymo and the Future of Transportation-as-a-Service

Local News Is Dead; Long Live Local News

The old local news business model is dead, but technology might just empower journalists to deliver something better

During all four years of college, I wrote and worked for my student newspaper. Our little operation was a microcosm of the decimation occurring to local journalism outside our bubble. In short, we were beholden to our advertisers, but the only advertisers left were the very university and administration we were tasked with covering in a fair and honest manner. The conflict of interest was untenable, and it was happening to newspapers across the country.

The Chicago Tribune will be leaving its long-time home in the Tribune Tower (right) later this year. While local journalism has been decimated by the digital age, a new business model is emerging. Photo by Sawyer Bengtson on Unsplash.

Continue reading Local News Is Dead; Long Live Local News