Questions! Questions! Questions!

Google wants to improve ads by forcing advertisers on their platform to adhere to CBA (Coalition for Better Ads) standards for non invasive, non annoying online ads.

They are also introducing ad-blocking technology to Chrome and implementing a program called Funding Choices to let people who use ad-block to pay for content at a fixed rate, initially set to 1p per page view.

There are a few problems with this model which, if implemented as announced, calls into question Google's very existence as a nearly 700 Billion dollar enterprise.

1. Setting a fixed price for an eyeball (1 penny/pair of eyeballs): Until now, all eyeballs were the same. The value of an eyeball was whatever an advertiser was willing to pay for it. So, for particularly relevant ads, eyeballs could go for non-trivial amounts of money. With the proposed model, some eyeballs - namely the ones avoiding ads by using ad-block - have been priced at 1 penny. This flies right in the face of how Google's business is currently set up. They are willingly leaving money on the table which Wall Street will never accept.

2. Fewer buyers left in the pool: Once ad-block goes mainstream and people start paying for content, the only people left in the pool of ad-viewers will be people who (a) aren't willing to pay for content OR (b) are not technically adept enough to setup ad-block. In either case, the number of buyers in the pool has gone down. Additionally, those that are left in the pool would, prima facie, seem less desirable to advertisers than the current mix of content consumers. E.g., why would an Apple advertise to a bunch of people who either don't want to pay for content or couldn't be bothered to set up ad-block? The only ads left to watch would be dollar menu ads from McDonalds.

3. Hurt the bottomline of content creators: Most ad supported websites have plenty of screen real estate set aside for ads. In the proposed model, anyone using an ad-blocker pays a fixed rate to underwrite all that real estate. This is bound to affect the already shaky foundation on which sites like Huffington Post operate. I don't think they can afford to let their wealthy, tech savvy clientele pay a pittance to avoid ads altogether.

Given these possible outcomes, I would be very surprised if Google actually rolls out and strongly backs Funding Choices. It is in their self-interest to never ever put a fixed price on what a user is worth to them. It is far more likely that they will brush the number of customers using ad-block under the carpet and continue to tout monthly engagement numbers.

And here's more trouble coming Google's way.

For all the fire and heat that Steve Jobs directed at Google for ripping off iOS with Android, it is Tim Cook who has in his grasp the tools to completely choke off and kill Google.

1. Safari: Chrome has a sizable marketshare in Android browsers but on iOS devices, Chrome is just a skin on top of Safari. With one release, Cook can turn off or severely limit the quality and quantity of user data flowing to Google from iOS users. In addition, Safari's performance on Macs has been improved to a degree where it is competitive with Chrome.

2. DNS: Google provides a great DNS service. A trusted, widely used DNS service like theirs can be tapped to form a more complete picture of the mood of the internet. For example, by just looking at their DNS logs for a few minutes, a Google executive can tell you whether a new story is brewing in some corner of the internet. Cook can turn this off as well. If Apple were to launch a DNS and default all their devices to those servers, Google would have no way to capture in real time, the zeitgeist of the internet.