marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
Heh, Microsoft should be concerned with Google; they're everywhere that Microsoft wants to go, and if you don't keep moving as a corporation, you lose investors.
When I saw this headline, all I could think was "Google buys up another chunk of the internet." Seriously -- DoubleClick is everywhere. It's almost like google's trying to become the web.
if you don't keep moving as a corporation, you lose investors.
I always thought the name of the game was to keep your focus and not dilute your efforts. And as far as I can tell, the only reason Google is everywhere that Microsoft wants to go is because they see what Google does, and want to emulate that. That is reactive, and seems like a sure way to lose your way. I dont like Microsoft much as a company, but in the past you had to give them credit for not losing focus. They kept after things they started until they got it basically usable, and mostly solid. And did a better job of that than many other companies. Microsoft should be concerned with finding the ( lawful ) strategies and tactics that get them where they want to be, and stop letting other companies define so much of thier roadmap.
I don't know about that. GMail, and Google Earth/Google Maps are very useful content. Sure, they are just another way to push more advertising, but it is content.
While I agree with the $3.1 billion probably being far too much for DoubleClicks assets... I disagree with the block list thing, as the vast majority of Internet users do not use AdBlock or any other similar ad blocking software. Yes, a lot of us geeks use that stuff (I don't, as I just ignore them), but then a lot of us geeks are the ones least likely to click on ads and buy the stuff they're selling.
Now as to the reason why they would be willing to pay the $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, it's clearly to prevent Microsoft (and/or Yahoo!) from buying a sizable chunk of the online advertising business, plus it now increases the size of Google's very profitable ad business.
You post on Slashdot so you probably don't know too many people in the first place:-P
In reality though, I know a lot of people who didn't even have a pop-up blocker until it was finally added to Internet Explorer. Blocking ads on web pages? I don't know a single non-geek who has an adblocker installed. If they're not interested, they just ignore them.
The cynic in me is wondering: What if this was a Microsoft ploy. Everyone said Google was bidding to drive the price up for MS... what if MS was only feigning interest so that google would drop 3 Gigabills on something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
Based on your careful due diligence, no doubt. Or is that just some number you pulled out of your ass that "seems more reasonable" to you.
So what you think happened? Google called them up, got a quote of 3.1 Billion, and said "OK, if that's what you think it's worth."?
I, for one, welcome our new online advertising overlords, and I'd like to remind them that as a trusted member of Slashdot, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground click farms.
Does DC have something technologically interesting under the hood somewhere?
Think a minute about all the advertising capital that Doubleclick has! It has banner ads everywhere, and advertising partners to buy all those ads. Now every Doubleclick advertising partner is also a Google advertising partner. Google is positioning itself as the Internet advertising company.
Although I also wandered what Google was getting itself into buying a company that notoriously places tracking cookies on computers everywhere, I can see what they're trying to do. I only hope that Google will clean them up instead of Doubleclick dirtying Google. They should stop putting tracking cookies on people's computers, remove any tracking cookies already on the computer, and deny any overly flashy banner ads. That would strongly increase Google's credibility and help eliminate some of the garbage on the Internet.
Are you shitting me? Google's tracking is far more nefarious. I quote another post from this thread by an Anonymous Coward:
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves).
Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
Then you jsut block google's own ad servers, which Ive been doing for years with a simple hosts file. [everythingisnt.com] Works for all browsers/applications on my system. Also set your google never-expire tracking cookie to get deleted once per session [everythingisnt.com] and you're set.
I had the same opinion until retarded eBay ads started showing up everywhere. No, just because I'm browsing an article about "postfix bugs" doesn't mean I want to buy a "BUG COLLECTION GUIDE at eBay" or "POSTFIX FOR DUMMIES EBOOK at eBay", etc.
Likewise, browsing website A will often give negative opinions of it, sponsored by website B. "Toolset A buggy? Try Toolset B!" etc.
I had the same opinion until retarded eBay ads started showing up everywhere. No, just because I'm browsing an article about "postfix bugs" doesn't mean I want to buy a "BUG COLLECTION GUIDE at eBay" or "POSTFIX FOR DUMMIES EBOOK at eBay", etc.
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not [hyperborea.org], among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
Nigerian Scam
Looking for Nigerian Scam?
Find exactly what you want today
www.ebay.com
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
I block ads at my firewall with moblock/bluetack. Then, I block them again with privoxy. Then, I use the pgl blocklists with konqueror. I also change my MAC address every 3 hours, do all my browsing through Tor, and clear my cookies when I'm done.
3.1 billion to pretty much lock up the on-line advertising market. I wonder what percentage of the on-line advertising market will push Google into Monopoly territory. I would guess they are getting pretty close.
I wonder how long until it becomes obligatory to hate Google...
Hate them now. Use their products if you want, but hate them anyway.
Seriously though, Google doesn't have a monopoly on on-line text advertising (even pay per-click), Yahoo has got into that business (formally Overture)[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com] and I'm sure other companies have as well. This [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executiv e_tech/article.php/3395571] article has some interesting comments on the matter of fraud.
And there are still heaps of other advertisers out their, and you know what, I block almost all of them (Adblock and NoScript, 'tis great). (For most sites, it is seriously, if they can't cope without my viewing their ads (even if I'm never going to ever buy anything), then I guess I can do without them. For sites like this, I like to think that I am helping to contribute to more people coming here by having insightful and interesting comments. After all, that is what gets the people looking at the site, and thus the ads.)
"Do no evil", if it was ever anything other than clever PR, went away the moment they caved to China. It actually probably went away, again if it ever was even a real credo, long before that.
Stop crying about it. This is yesterday's news, as we know all corporations are evil by definition.
The new rage is corporations which are open to how evil they are, such as Microsoft's new slogan for 2008 "We're evil", and Yahoo's campaign "Tell us how we can be evil for you today", trying to tighten Yahoo's communication with their users.
Google is also planning a new PR image, but since it would be quite shocking to their existing fans, the search engine plants a gradual transition, where they will change their slogan every month such as "Evil 5%", "Evil 10%", "Evil 15%" until they reach 100%.
I sincerely hope Google will simply replace all DoubleClick-crippled sites with AdSense. DoubleClick's tracking cookies are the reason I block web ads.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday April 13 2007, @07:23PM (#18727013)
Um, might want to know more about how ad sense works then before making that statement.
Doubleclick operated under the '3rd party' cookie system. Sites hosted thier cookies, and users of modern browsers had the ability to decide, or 'opt in' to being tracked by third party cookies. Of course, most browsers by default blocked them, and life was good.
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves).
Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
Ok - so maybe that's harsh. But $3.1billion for the company? That provides a technology Google have already? I'm sure the decision makers over there know a lot more than me (hell, I've been drinking for the last eight hours) - but key Doubleclick partners (such as News Corp) aren't going to be too hot on Google suddenly knowing their ad business inside out. This smacks of splashing the cash to kill competition - had Microsoft picked up Doubleclick, that would have presented a serious challenge to Google's display ad syndication business.
3.1 Billion or let Microsoft automatically become the #2(Maybe #1?) On-line advertising service on the Internet? Which do you think Google is going to choose?
Microsoft bidding on DoubleClick brings to mind the following joke:
A duck hunter is out early one morning hunting ducks. He's not having a lot of luck and he's about ready to pack it in and go home. Then he catches a break and shoots a duck. The duck falls to the ground on the other side of a fence. He hops the fence to grab the duck and a farmer appears from nowhere and asks "What are you doing with my duck?" The hunter says "That's my duck! I shot it." The farmer replies "Doesn't matter -- it's on my land. But I'll tell you what. We'll take turns kicking each other in the nuts as hard as we can until one of us gives up. The winner keeps the duck. Oh, and I kick first." So the farmer winds up and kicks the hunter square in the nuts. The pain is so awful the hunter throws up and then collapses. 10 minutes later, he tentatively gets to his feet and says "Okay, my turn." To which the farmer replies "That's okay, you can keep the duck."
I have a sneaking suspicion Microsoft wasn't that interested in DoubleClick. But they wanted to make damn sure that Google overpaid for it.
Here you go [blogspot.com]. The PDF FAQ they put there confirms the terms: $3.1 billion.
Apart from that, I second/third/fourth the previous comments: zero impact here, DoubleClick has been on my blacklist for years now, by any means available.
As I said above, no Google don't have a monopoly on online advertising. Not even text based pay-per view.
Yahoo have got into the business as well (when they bought Overture I think). There are also heaps of others, from my Adblock list, adsdk fastclick bluestreak adsfac mediaplex serving-sys tribalfusion And heaps more. Not to mention all the individual site advertising (http://ads.guardian.co.uk for example).
whoa (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whoa (Score:5, Interesting)
When I saw this headline, all I could think was "Google buys up another chunk of the internet." Seriously -- DoubleClick is everywhere. It's almost like google's trying to become the web.
Parent
Re:whoa (Score:5, Interesting)
I always thought the name of the game was to keep your focus
and not dilute your efforts. And as far as I can tell,
the only reason Google is everywhere that Microsoft wants to
go is because they see what Google does, and want to emulate
that. That is reactive, and seems like a sure way to lose
your way. I dont like Microsoft much as a company, but
in the past you had to give them credit for not losing
focus. They kept after things they started until they got
it basically usable, and mostly solid. And did a better
job of that than many other companies. Microsoft should
be concerned with finding the ( lawful ) strategies and
tactics that get them where they want to be, and stop letting
other companies define so much of thier roadmap.
Parent
Re:whoa (Score:5, Funny)
+12, -4, +10, +7, -7, +15
Parent
Re:whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about that. GMail, and Google Earth/Google Maps are very useful content. Sure, they are just another way to push more advertising, but it is content.
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know anyone who doesn't block doubleclick.
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:4, Interesting)
In reality though, I know a lot of people who didn't even have a pop-up blocker until it was finally added to Internet Explorer. Blocking ads on web pages? I don't know a single non-geek who has an adblocker installed. If they're not interested, they just ignore them.
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:4, Interesting)
The cynic in me is wondering: What if this was a Microsoft ploy. Everyone said Google was bidding to drive the price up for MS... what if MS was only feigning interest so that google would drop 3 Gigabills on something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
Parent
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on your careful due diligence, no doubt. Or is that just some number you pulled out of your ass that "seems more reasonable" to you.
So what you think happened? Google called them up, got a quote of 3.1 Billion, and said "OK, if that's what you think it's worth."?
Parent
Let me be the first one to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first one to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let me be the first one to say... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sad to say, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I also wandered what Google was getting itself into buying a company that notoriously places tracking cookies on computers everywhere, I can see what they're trying to do. I only hope that Google will clean them up instead of Doubleclick dirtying Google. They should stop putting tracking cookies on people's computers, remove any tracking cookies already on the computer, and deny any overly flashy banner ads. That would strongly increase Google's credibility and help eliminate some of the garbage on the Internet.
Parent
Re:Sad to say, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves). Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
Parent
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
no, really!
Won't change much for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Won't change much for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, browsing website A will often give negative opinions of it, sponsored by website B. "Toolset A buggy? Try Toolset B!" etc.
That's when they got blocked.
Bad ad-approval monkeys. No banana for you.
Those generic eBay ads (Score:5, Funny)
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not [hyperborea.org], among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
Parent
Re:Those generic eBay ads (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/05/ebay_stev
Parent
The Tragedy of the Template (Score:5, Funny)
Babies
Looking for Babies?
Find exactly what you want today
www.ebay.com
Parent
Re:Won't change much for me (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I'm a little obsessive.
Parent
I felt a great disturbance in the Force... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actually (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how long until it becomes obligatory to hate Google...
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, Google doesn't have a monopoly on on-line text advertising (even pay per-click), Yahoo has got into that business (formally Overture)[http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com] and I'm sure other companies have as well. This [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executi
And there are still heaps of other advertisers out their, and you know what, I block almost all of them (Adblock and NoScript, 'tis great). (For most sites, it is seriously, if they can't cope without my viewing their ads (even if I'm never going to ever buy anything), then I guess I can do without them. For sites like this, I like to think that I am helping to contribute to more people coming here by having insightful and interesting comments. After all, that is what gets the people looking at the site, and thus the ads.)
Parent
What ever happened to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every doubleclick host that I can identify is permanently blocked here for web bugs and Dartmail. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
One could hope that Google will change Doubleclick's behavior before putting their own name on the services.
Re:What ever happened to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What ever happened to ... (Score:4, Funny)
Stop crying about it. This is yesterday's news, as we know all corporations are evil by definition.
The new rage is corporations which are open to how evil they are, such as Microsoft's new slogan for 2008 "We're evil", and Yahoo's campaign "Tell us how we can be evil for you today", trying to tighten Yahoo's communication with their users.
Google is also planning a new PR image, but since it would be quite shocking to their existing fans, the search engine plants a gradual transition, where they will change their slogan every month such as "Evil 5%", "Evil 10%", "Evil 15%" until they reach 100%.
Parent
I hope it was for the client list (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hope it was for the client list (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I hope it was for the client list (Score:5, Informative)
Doubleclick operated under the '3rd party' cookie system. Sites hosted thier cookies, and users of modern browsers had the ability to decide, or 'opt in' to being tracked by third party cookies. Of course, most browsers by default blocked them, and life was good.
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves).
Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
Parent
Now slashdot needs a new meme (Score:5, Funny)
Doogleclick?
Doobleclick?
Goobleclick?
Youtoogleclick?
No matter who buys it... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Now slashdot needs a new meme (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
"Don't Be Evil?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Schwab
It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:5, Funny)
A duck hunter is out early one morning hunting ducks. He's not having a lot of luck and he's about ready to pack it in and go home.
Then he catches a break and shoots a duck. The duck falls to the ground on the other side of a fence. He hops the fence to grab the duck
and a farmer appears from nowhere and asks "What are you doing with my duck?" The hunter says "That's my duck! I shot it." The farmer replies "Doesn't matter -- it's on my land. But I'll tell you what. We'll take turns kicking each other in the nuts as hard as we can until one of us gives up. The winner keeps the duck. Oh, and I kick first." So the farmer winds up and kicks the hunter square in the nuts. The pain is so awful the hunter throws up and then collapses. 10 minutes later, he tentatively gets to his feet and says "Okay, my turn." To which the farmer replies "That's okay, you can keep the duck."
I have a sneaking suspicion Microsoft wasn't that interested in DoubleClick. But they wanted to make damn sure that Google overpaid for it.
Parent
Re:It's f*****d company all over again. (Score:4, Insightful)
127.0.0.1 atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
...
But if they can get the money from doubleclick customers... good for them.
Parent
Confrimation on the Google Blog (Score:4, Informative)
they never said BUY no evil... (Score:5, Funny)
haha (Score:5, Funny)
Ha, you could imagine it like this: The people at doubleclick just got paid 3.1 BILLION dollars.
By Google.
Have a great weekend.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo have got into the business as well (when they bought Overture I think). There are also heaps of others, from my Adblock list,
adsdk
fastclick
bluestreak
adsfac
mediaplex
serving-sys
tribalfusion
And heaps more. Not to mention all the individual site advertising (http://ads.guardian.co.uk for example).
Re:Holy crap (Score:4, Funny)
127.0.0.1 localhost mymachine
127.0.1.1 mymachine
127.0.0.1 *.google.com
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.*
Parent