You are viewing this post: Who Is Dina Srinivasan’S Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher? Quick Answer
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
Dina Srinivasan is married to her husband and has four children together. To learn more about them, stay with us.
Dina is currently researching technology competition and policy.
She is an antitrust expert and a fellow of the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University. Dina consults with the Texas Attorney’s Office on her case against Google.
Previously, she founded an advertising technology company. The technology was acquired by a division of WPP, Kantar Media SRDS (NASDAQ). Dina spent four years as a manager at WPP.
In the late 1990s, Srinivasan founded iMSGu, an SMS platform.
She has a J.D. from Yale Law School. She studied law and economics.
Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband? Wedding Explored
Dina has not spoken publicly about being married or having a husband.
However, the sources claim that she is married and lives in the Bay Area with her husband.
Since there is no information about her husband, there is also no information about Wedding.
The couple have four children.
advertisement
Two of her children suffered from the flu in 2020 and fortunately d not test positive for COVID.
Details On Dina Srinivasan’s Family And Ethnicity
Dina has not revealed her family to the public.
We can find some pictures of her cousin on her Instagram.
Other than that, there is no information about her family.
There is also no information on their ethnicity.
How Old IS Dina Srinivasan? Age Explored
Dina’s actual age is still unknown.
She’s rarely active on her Instagram, so there’s no information there to snag.
Her birthday is also unknown.
Dina Srinivasan’s Salary Revealed
Dina’s exact salary is unknown.
However, she receives significant grants from the university for her research.
The exact amount of grant she received is unknown to the public for a reason.
Is Dina Srinivasan Indian?
It has been rumored that Dina is Indian but there is insufficient information to prove that Dina is Indian.
Dina Srinivasan: Tech Monopolies Need to Be Broken Up
Images related to the topicDina Srinivasan: Tech Monopolies Need to Be Broken Up
See some more details on the topic Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher here:
Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband? Details On The Partner Of …
Dina Srinivasan is married to her husband and has four children together. To know about her in detail, stick with us.
Source: musicliberia.com
Date Published: 8/27/2022
View: 1011
Dina Srinivasan Husband Name Revealed – Halla News
The renowned entrepreneur and technological personality Dina Srinivasan currently lives with her husband and 4 children in the United States …
Source: ab.com.tc
Date Published: 12/3/2022
View: 5675
Who is Dina Srinivasan Married To? Everything To Know – XYZ
Dina Srinivasan Husband: Who is She Married To? Dina Srinivasan is married to her husband and is living together with their children.
Source: www.xyz.ng
Date Published: 11/2/2021
View: 1487
Dina Srinivasan: Reining in Big Tech – SafeGraph
Dina is a writer and researcher who has published extensively on antitrust matters in big tech. She is also a Fellow with the Thurman Arnold …
Source: www.safegraph.com
Date Published: 3/21/2021
View: 9095
Dina Srinivasan Husband Name Revealed Here’s Everything About The Entrepreneur
Renowned entrepreneur and technology personality, Dina Srinivasan currently resides in the United States with her husband and 4 children. Here are a few more facts about her.
Dina Srinivasan is an American entrepreneur and antitrust expert who is currently a fellow at Yale University’s Thurman Arnold Project.
She’s considered one of the most popular figures in tech, but not everything she does relates to what all the big tech companies think about.
In fact, Dina is best known for her ongoing lawsuit against big tech companies like Google, who are responsible for using ad exchanges to promote their businesses.
Therefore, with the lawsuit against Alphabet Inc., she has become an even more sensational personality on the current web.
There is growing concern about her professional and personal life, including her husband, family and other matters.
Dina Srinivasan Husband: Is She Married?
Dina Srinivasan has been married to her husband for quite some time, but there are no concrete details.
In fact, no information is expected about him since he exists.
The above mentioned fact that they have been together for a long time is based on the fact that they have 4 children together.
Yes, Dina and her husband have 4 children together and they currently reside as a family in the Bay Area, Northern California, USA.
Also, there are no details about their children anywhere on the internet. However, looking at some of her old pictures, it seems like she has 2 sons and 2 daughters.
Dina Srinivasan Alter and Wikipedia
Dina Srinivasan’s age is estimated to be around 45 to 50 years old.
However, her exact age or date of birth is not yet known.
We estimated his age based on her looks and experience in related fields.
Regarding Wikipedia, she is not yet mentioned on the platform despite being such a famous personality.
As previously mentioned, she is a Fellow of the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University.
She is also against the actions of the tech giants and their control over advertising and their spending.
In addition, she is an entrepreneur who has built various businesses since the mid-1990s.
What is Dina Srinivasan Net Worth?
Dina Srinivasan may have a net worth in excess of $5 million.
Being a famous entrepreneur and personality who has been working on different platforms for many years, she surely has a net worth over $5 million.
Is Dina Srinivasan related to Bhu Srinivasan?
No, Dina Srinivasan is not related to Bhu Srinivasan.
They share the same surname and are associated with affairs with big tech companies, entrepreneurship and finance, but they are unrelated to each other.
When talking about her relationship to other things, people are dying to find out if she is related to any Indian heritage or ethnicity.
Well, her last name makes it sound like she’s ethnically Indian, but there’s no concrete evidence on the matter because she hardly ever talks about it.
Latest Breaking News and Top Headlines Today
Business leaders from the United States and Japan have pledged to work together to…
Dina Srinivasan Reining in Big Tech
Auren Hoffmann (00:00):
Welcome to the world of DaaS. A show for data enthusiasts. I’m your host, Auren Hoffman, CEO of SafeGraph. Visit safegraph.com/podcast for more interviews, videos and transcripts. Hello dear data nerds. My guest today is Dina Srinivasan. Dina publishes research on antitrust issues in Big Tech. She is also a fellow of the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University. Dina, welcome to the World of DaaS.
Dina Srinivasan (00:29):
Hey Auras, thanks. Thank you for the invitation.
Auren Hoffman (00:31):
Good. You wrote this really interesting paper in 2019, arguing that Facebook uses its monopoly to extract more consumer data than it would otherwise. And if a company like Facebook can charge higher rents in the form of consumer data, is it because they can put the data to good use? Why is this perceived as fundamentally bad?
Dina Srinivasan (00:55):
Secure. So I don’t think I get into any of these economic equations by perceiving anything as inherently bad.
Auren Hoffman (01:03):
OK. It’s about the compromises, isn’t it?
Dina Srinivasan (01:05):
It’s just an empirical question, how do consumers like it or dislike it? For example, where is the balance in a competitive market? As you would ask, what is the equilibrium price in a competitive market? And so I was curious to go back and see what the relationship was between consumers and Facebook in terms of the amount of data they are giving up in this trade for social networking services.
Auren Hoffman (01:33):
OK. I have it. I mean where did you think of that?
Dina Srinivasan (01:34):
The outlier for me was whether consumers were happy, for example, with Facebook tracking them off Facebook and across thousands and thousands of independent websites and apps based on their true identity. And so I was curious to see if that’s something consumers are really happy with or not. So when I went back and researched, I discovered this really interesting narrative where Facebook has actually entered the market and is competing for privacy. There are some social theories as to why a communication network would do this to expand its business and why consumers need so much privacy that they feel safe in communicating and thereby generate more communication between people. And then I followed how that changed over time, how Facebook tried to get users to allow Facebook to track them on third-party sites and on third-party sites, and what happened in 2006, what happened between 2006 and 2012?
Dina Srinivasan (02:32):
And there was this constant battle between Facebook trying to get it and consumer resistance. Like, “No, we don’t want to give that up.” And then Facebook faced a lot of competition in the market. In doing this research, I came to the conclusion that this is a kind of part of the trade that consumers only gave up after they had no other choice in the market. And so it looks like a reflection of monopoly power and it looks like monopoly rent versus something good that everyone is just happy with.
Auren Hoffmann (03:01):
Interesting. And would you say the narrative, part of the rise of WhatsApp before Facebook, was that they were very pro-privacy?
Dina Srinivasan (03:10):
Yes. I think that fits right into this narrative.
Auren Hoffmann (03:14):
OK. Interesting. Now Facebook still paid 10% of its market cap for WhatsApp in 2014 because there was a lot of competitive pressure. WhatsApp was on the rise during this period. Do you think there is still an opportunity to compete with social media companies by basically charging a lower price for privacy to attract users like maybe a Telegram or some of these other various messaging platforms do be able?
Dina Srinivasan (03:40):
Certainly. I think we rightly saw that in the market when it comes to competition between WhatsApp and Signal, for example.
Auren Hoffmann (03:47):
Yes. And now more people are switching to Signal because they feel like it’s more private or something?
Dina Srinivasan (03:53):
Exactly. So we’re welcome to go back and look at very specific instances where Facebook has announced certain privacy changes related to WhatsApp that have reduced user privacy, and users are responding by switching to Signal.
Auren Hoffmann (04:09):
OK. Interesting. Doing your research now, where do you think Facebook should have been allowed to acquire Instagram after the fact?
Dina Srinivasan (04:17):
To be perfectly honest, I haven’t looked much into the merger issues, the [garbled 00:04:24] issues from a legal point of view. My instinctive reaction is, “Okay, what would happen if we separated Facebook from WhatsApp and Instagram tomorrow?” Most people I know would still have a Facebook account and an Instagram account and a WhatsApp account. So you’re not really creating more competition because people are using those products for different purposes, and you’re not going to create competition between those three products just by dissolving them.
Auren Hoffmann (04:51):
So breaking up would be a simplified answer to dealing with any kind of monopoly power?
Dina Srinivasan (04:58):
Yes. However, I think there is an argument that, okay, but even if you have three separate parts and three separate products that are used for different purposes, each would have a large user base and they would be able to shove in or out slip into each other’s markets more easily with their existing user bases and with some of these trapped network effects and I think that’s a good argument. I’m not saying it’s a primary way to create competition, but I think it’s a good argument.
Auren Hoffmann (05:27):
I know you’ve been focusing a lot more on Google lately, and one of the things you’ve argued is that ad exchanges like Google are structurally very similar to financial markets, but they’re not regulated at all like financial markets are regulated. What do you think specifically about ad exchanges that justifies more regulation in your opinion?
Dina Srinivasan (05:47):
So that research and that investigation was, and I’m going to deviate a bit from that to give a little background here. After the Facebook newspaper I had to decide what to write about next and went back in my notes and there was a moment in 2014 after the Flash Boys book by Michael Lewis came out and I remember that Executives in the industry shared this book and have shared funny stories of how similar things happen in advertising markets.
Auren Hoffmann (06:16):
Where you push trades and do all these other things, yes.
Dina Srinivasan (06:20):
Exactly. And they laughed and I thought it was incredibly interesting that you could like that national outrage about that kind of behavior and those markets over here. And yet over here nobody really talks about it and people laugh. As if I just thought that was just an interesting phenomenon to look at. And so that memory stuck with me and when I decided to research advertising markets and Google it was always in the back of my mind.
Dina Srinivasan (06:46):
So I started researching… Okay, Google is dominant on the buy side, on the sell side, on the FX markets, why? What’s happening? And the reasons get really complex and weird and mysterious and they hurt your brain and… I’m always looking for a narrative, like a story. For example: “How can I make sense of this chaos of facts?” And so I started studying financial markets, and at a certain point it became very obvious, “Oh, we had tips in this market or Google could consolidate this market because X did it and X is exactly like Y that’s in happens this other market.” And: “Oh, we don’t let it happen in the other market because we know it creates competition problems.”
Auren Hoffmann (07:29):
In the financial market you have these market makers, maybe like Citadel Securities or something, and their aim is to make things run smoothly and buyers [garbled 00:07:39] or sellers [garbled 00:07:40] etc. to be and so on. How is the Google so different?
Dina Srinivasan (07:44):
I think we would be opening too complex a can of worms to go that route. I think that the analogy and big picture of the financial markets is really between the brokers and the exchanges. So the parties representing sellers, the parties representing buyers, and literally what are the responsibilities of these parties and how do they route to exchanges?
Auren Hoffmann (08:11):
I have it. But there’s been a lot of talk in the financial world about humans being front-running trades. And so often you see a scenario where maybe a single consumer buys something and then someone else pushes it and then spreads pennies on that transaction in front of the consumer. So, in essence, the consumer is getting a slightly worse price whether they are selling something or buying a certain type of thing. And I’m not sure if it doesn’t seem good for the consumer, I’m not sure if it’s illegal, you would know better than me. It seems like it happens all the time, I assume it’s not illegal, but it does seem a bit bad for consumers. Is that how you feel about the Google thing? It’s not necessarily illegal, but is it basically just harmful to buyers and sellers in the market?
Dina Srinivasan (08:54):
So… a few things. I think there is some debate about the kind of small front running that takes place in the financial markets when you route the flow of orders to a market maker like a citadel, and it happens very quickly in small increments. So there are bigger issues in the advertising markets that have largely been resolved, or we are actively trying to resolve them in the financial markets where there is less ambiguity. And it’s these kinds of bigger problems that happen in the advertising markets. I give an example. When we use other words in advertising markets, we don’t call them brokers, but they are essentially an agent for the seller and an agent for the buyer, and both agents are responsible for routing to a central exchange. And the question comes up like, “Okay, well, this guy wants to buy an ad, and the same ad is listed on eight different exchanges. Should I buy it on exchange X, where it’s selling at $5 CPM, or should I buy it on my own exchange, where it’s selling, say, a higher CPM, higher cost?”
Dina Srinivasan (10:08):
And so the similar question in the financial markets is governed by the duty to serve the interests of your clients. So if you have something that trades on 50 different exchanges and you get a better price on that exchange, you need to buy it on that exchange. In the advertising markets you have very basic problems, very basic conflicts of interest at the first level of operation between the buyer and the seller and his agent, before you even get to the middle market makers who provide liquidity. And the company representing the buyer in this case is under no obligation to get a better priced ad from a cheaper exchange as opposed to a higher priced ad on its own exchange.
Auren Hoffman (10:48):
And the buyer’s agent usually gets a percentage of the media, so in some ways they’re probably even more motivated to get them to pay more.
Dina Srinivasan (10:55):
That’s correct. So it’s a… From the perspective of the bigger picture, it’s a situation that can lead to concentration problems very quickly, because if you control the order flow and you have bottlenecks on the buy-side and the sell-side, if you control the order routing, you can lead to concentration- and competition problems, but it is also about protecting buyers and sellers. As you wish … Why does someone pay a hundred dollars for ads in advertising markets and you have about $ 50 that is taken out and goes to the intermediary of this transaction? I mean, these are transactions that happen in milliseconds, so it’s kind of crazy.
Auren Hoffman (11:33):
Yes. ‘Cause all those nickels and dimes getting in the way are getting in the way. You might get 50% now unless it’s Google all the way through, but yeah it’s a very good point. It doesn’t make sense as these things are very inefficient.
Dina Srinivasan (11:45):
Yes. So with economists, if you just start with that fact and put a bunch of economists together and say, “Oh my gosh, you know, there’s this electronically traded market. And if a hundred dollars is spent on that side, $50 to $60 makes it to the other end in milliseconds.” I mean, that’s an incredibly inefficient market.
Auren Hoffmann (12:02):
Even the iTunes store has a lower ingest rate than that or something.
Dina Srinivasan (12:06):
Even the iTunes store has a lower capture rate, that’s right. And so, yeah, it’s just a puzzle, it’s like a little economic puzzle. Isn’t it interesting that we have these electronically traded markets that are so inefficient? who does it hurt Small businesses that buy ads and the news business are trying to hold our democracy to account. As for your question of whether it’s illegal. It’s not illegal because we don’t have any laws or regulations about it. You can look at the problem from two perspectives. One is antitrust, and you say, “Okay, well, does a company engaging in this behavior violate antitrust laws in any way?” And you can also look at it from the perspective of regulation, which is, ” Well, damn, we know a lot about these kinds of markets. We do that over here to at least partially curb competition or concentration problems.” Why don’t we apply the same principles to this market, the advertising market, where the structure is very similar and the problems are very similar.
Auren Hoffmann (13:03):
In the case of Google, it’s weird because they’re such a large ad exchange that they often represent both the buyer and seller in the exact same transaction, which seems like there’s… Again, you might be able to do it and one have wall etc between everything but it seems like there is a lot of opportunity for conflict of interest there. Given the power a company like Google holds, what would be a remedy? Would you just say that you need to act in the best interest more and prove that you are acting in the best interest, or… What is the tool to solve this problem?
Dina Srinivasan (13:36):
So we know from our experience in these markets, and we have applied these rules outside of electronically traded financial markets, that the remedy is to structurally separate the buy-side from the sell-side, from the centralized trading venues. So you need a structural separation that manages… You basically need to manage the conflicts of interest. And in financial markets we do this in two ways.
Dina Srinivasan (14:00):
The companies that own the largest stock exchanges are not allowed to act significantly on the buy or sell side. So we have structural separation rules. So if you have… [garbled 00:14:13] you can’t own Charles Schwabs or anything like that. However, we allow smaller brokers to own OTC trading venues, which are like smaller exchanges where there is less systemic risk. But in such situations they still have to manage conflicts of interest through ethical walls in their organizations and they have to structurally separate the organization internally.
Auren Hoffmann (14:36):
And there’s some sort of SEC audit or something that just happens to prove it or something.
Dina Srinivasan (14:41):
Right. They basically need to have similar written policies and procedures to ensure their employees adhere to them. That’s a bit tangential, but when Bezos testified, “We have a rule and Amazon employees don’t use third-party data, they’re not allowed to do that.” When I saw that, I thought, okay, but obviously they’re breaking the rules, unless there are written policies and procedures in place to ensure employees cannot access or use the data because we know this to be true. It doesn’t matter if you have the rule, you actually have to make sure that employees don’t violate the rule because data is very amorphous, it’s really easy to use. The returns will be very high either for you, for your own salary purposes or for bonus purposes and hence you need to ensure that data abuse does not take place.
Dina Srinivasan (15:24):
The second thing we need to do, and we know that’s true in these markets, is we need to push through… We need sunlight. We just need plenty of sunlight for the free market to function better.
Auren Hoffmann (15:34):
Because it’s very open, these transactions are incredibly opaque in general. How does the money flow or something. Even for someone who has always had roots in the advertising industry, which is where I come from, it’s very, very hard to keep track of the dollars flowing.
Dina Srinivasan (15:48):
Exactly. Yes. And I’m just giving an example and I found that really funny. I remember during my research… I saw people complaining that Google had redacted some information from their records that they provided to the sellers, which sellers used to verify how the money flows and how transactions take place. And one of the things they edited was timestamps of trades. And I kept scratching my head and I was like, ‘Well, okay. But if they edited it, it must have relevance. But what is the relevance of timestamps?” And I guess I didn’t initially find an answer to that question researching the ad markets, so I turned to researching the value of timestamps in the financial markets. And it’s used by industry players and market participants to see exactly if their brokers are pushing their trades. (laughs).
Auren Hoffman (16:34):
Yes. Interesting. I have it.
Dina Srinivasan (16:37):
And so you have a very specific rule about how you have to provide timestamps (laughs) on all trading records, and they have to be incredibly, incredibly accurate. And in Google’s case, I don’t think they redacted it. They just rounded them up to the nearest hour.
Auren Hoffmann (16:52):
Oh nice. OK. Yes Yes Yes.
Dina Srinivasan (16:55):
So that’s a weird obscure fact, but when you tell these stories to people in the financial markets, they immediately light up because they know exactly what’s going on, which is funny.
Auren Hoffmann (17:05):
Interesting. Now I’ve heard rumors for years that these prices are not good for either the buyers or the sellers. And I think almost everyone, at least every experienced player in the advertising ecosystem, felt that these things… But they still transacted in the ecosystem. They somehow knew they were being taken advantage of, but they acted anyway. Maybe they’ve shifted a small portion of their spending to another platform like Facebook.
Auren Hoffmann (17:33):
So somehow they decided to do it anyway, even though they knew they were being taken advantage of. Is that in order? For example, “Okay, I understand I’m getting a worse rate, but I know what it is.” Maybe they didn’t know how bad it was, but they had a pretty good understanding that they were being taken advantage of very badly , and yet of their own free will decided to enter into a transaction.
Dina Srinivasan (17:54):
Yes. I mean, we voluntarily choose to go to an ER anyway if we have to, and we have no idea what the prices are. But that’s a really bad analogy. I guess I… I only have two thoughts on this subject. First is a lot of these advertisers, a lot of that money comes from small advertisers that aren’t sophisticated.
Auren Hoffman (18:17):
Yes. And go to small publishers.
Dina Srinivasan (18:19):
And when we go to small publishers that aren’t demanding either, we’re talking about a market that’s as complex as the financial markets. I have empathy for these parties because they just don’t really understand what’s going on and how to protect their interests in the face of this kind of complexity.
Auren Hoffmann (18:37):
Just like the SEC protects the local investor, we need to protect the local plumber or something, or someone who runs a small website and makes a few thousand dollars a month from their website or something.
Dina Srinivasan (18:49):
Exactly. Or at least provide enough transparency so that they can help themselves or their other parties and the free market could give them guidance. The second thing that I think is really interesting is that a lot of these big companies, a lot of the big brands, outsource ad buying to agencies, and agency teams are getting compensated for cutting back on their spending, and that’s a weird kind of interest relay a message.
Auren Hoffman (19:16):
And also everyone knew that for a while, I would say at least the last 25 years, most advertisers didn’t see the agencies as real agents when they were doing things in their best interest, but for various reasons still, In in some cases they have taken it internally, but for various reasons they have still chosen to work with most of these agencies. Why do you think… Is it just laziness or, in this case, like they somehow know they’re being taken advantage of? They know it’s worse for them, they know things are often much slower and they pay a much, much higher price, often 10-20% more, for things, but they choose to do it anyway. Why do you think this is happening? That’s not… Like that’s not [Grandma 00:19:58], that’s a Unilever or a very, very sophisticated advertiser that’s out there.
Dina Srinivasan (20:03):
I do not know. I don’t know much about this question. One of the things I’m observing is that I would suspect it’s mostly an inertia issue. When you work at a big company, it’s very difficult to move things, and you have built-in ad teams, you have built-in budgets that get approved year after year. And structurally, people are very used to outsourcing and working with agencies, and things get very complex very quickly. And then I think the best story to relate to is the Uber agency’s lawsuit over tons and tons of money spent on fraudulent ads or ads that the client didn’t approve. And you read these lawsuits and it’s just amazing how complex they are and I think that says a lot.
Auren Hoffman (20:49):
The agencies are also the first groups to complain about Google and Google’s power. So it doesn’t seem necessarily in league with Google. They complain and feel attacked by Google and so on. How do you see this tension over time?
Dina Srinivasan (21:06):
Yes, I think it’s a very strained relationship. So we can imagine that Google wants to disintermediate the agencies and the agencies need Google because they channel most of their spending through Google. So I haven’t been on the agency model for long. I haven’t been dealing with the agency model for a long time.
Auren Hoffman (21:23):
A lot of the companies are other players in the ad tech ecosystem being pushed around by some of these big giants like Google and even Facebook for example Apple. And so even a very, very powerful company like Facebook doesn’t have the same power as maybe a Google or an Apple because they control the platforms. But maybe it always seems like these big companies in every industry take advantage of the little guy. How do you imagine a world in which the innovative startup will have a little more power?
Dina Srinivasan (21:54):
Innovative startup will have a little more power? What startup?
Auren Hoffmann (21:58):
Let’s say an innovative ad tech startup doing something pretty cool or something similar. Maybe some of the people who took part in your research got pushed around quite a bit by Google, or in many other cases there are… companies get pushed around by Amazon and companies get pushed around by Apple. Even some of these big companies like Epic can get pushed around by some of the bigger giants. How do you see that balance shifting over time, or do you think… Certainly it seems, say, over the last 10 years, power has increasingly shifted to a very small number of very, very, very large players .
Dina Srinivasan (22:29):
Yes. I think I would say that I definitely don’t want to get into the ad tech markets.
Auren Hoffmann (22:34):
(laughs).
Dina Srinivasan (22:35):
(laughs). Someone came to me… Sometimes people come to me with new ideas and I just say ‘no’. (laughs). There are simply many structural barriers to success, at least in terms of entering the market as a publisher agent and as an ad server, or entering the market at the exchange level, or entering the market at the buy-side. I think it’s extremely rational for venture capitalists not to pump money into this market right now. And what would we need to see to change this dynamic? I think we would have to see Google break up on the sell side at exchange level and on the buy side in terms of disposing of its shares. Alternatively, I think we would need strong regulation that handles these conflicts of interest in such a way that a company can actually participate in one of these three layers of this transaction.
Dina Srinivasan (23:39):
For example, in the advertising markets, Google has almost absolute and complete bottleneck power on the sell-side, which represents the publishers. And so if you have a really great exchange idea and you’re thinking, “I’m going to make this great exchange and we’re going to do great and everyone is going to want to use our exchange because we’re going to be less expensive and we’re going to deliver a better product and have a better game quality .” I would be like irrelevant. They rely on the ad server on the left side of the equation for liquidity, which is entirely in Google’s domain. They have conflicts of interest because they run their own exchange. Don’t sink money into a business entirely dependent on the whims of this unique entity that provides you with liquidity. So…
Auren Hoffmann (24:24):
Now if you just look at a marketplace in general let’s say it’s just a random marketplace out there what are the things that you think people could see is it the adoption rate that we look at to see , if? The market is unfair? Bill Gurley has a saying that one rake is too far. Are we looking at that or how do we know if the marketplace is working? What heuristics are there to determine if the marketplace is operating relatively efficiently and fairly?
Dina Srinivasan (24:50):
I don’t know the answer to this question. I know whenever I’ve discussed these markets in general with savvy economists, they’ve always been amazed at the adoption rates in the advertising industry, so I can’t tell you where I think that would end up in a competitive market, but I’m very happy with it to say 30 to 50% as a take rate is completely insane.
Auren Hoffman (25:17):
I mean, how can you do that- Like the App Store, both the Google App Store and the Apple App Store, they’ve faced a lot of legal action lately, mainly because they’re uploading and also taking their very, very high ingest rates Pricing not only for in-app purchases, but also for in-app purchases. Do you feel that… Surely it’s a very simple argument to say that this hurts consumers because it’s likely to result in either higher prices or at least a bad user interface where I don’t sign up for Netflix on my iPhone anmelden kann , muss ich zuerst zu meinem PC gehen, um mich anzumelden, und dann zurück zum iPhone, um es zu tun. Sind das einige der Argumente, die Sie verwenden würden, wenn Sie darüber nachdenken würden, oder wie sehen Sie das eher als ein nuanciertes Problem?
Dina Srinivasan (25:57):
Aus kartellrechtlicher Sicht?
Auren Hoffmann (25:59):
Ob aus kartellrechtlicher Sicht oder einfach nur so: „Das ist schlecht für die Verbraucherperspektive.“
Dina Srinivasan (26:05):
Yes. Ich meine, ich denke, dass die Perspektive schlecht für die Verbraucher, zumindest für mich, ein ziemlich klarer Schnitt ist. Ich kaufe die Datenschutzargumente dort nicht wirklich ab. Ich meine, wir haben in den frühen Tagen des Browser-Marktes ähnliche Argumente mit Browsern vorgebracht. Browser erwogen, eine Art In-Payment-Lösungen für den Browser selbst zu entwickeln. Würden wir uns heute unterhalten, als ob einer der Browser sagen würde: „Entschuldigung, Sie können keine andere Zahlungslösung verwenden, Sie müssen unsere verwenden, und wir werden eine Kürzung von 30 % vornehmen.“ Und: „Keine Sorge. Wir haben viele gute Datenschutzgründe und wir wollen Sie schützen und wir werden die Verbraucher schützen.“
Auren Hoffmann (26:37):
„Wir sorgen dafür, dass die Lieferung am [unverständlich 00:26:39] bei Ihnen ankommt und alles.“ Okay. Yes. Interesting. Yes.
Dina Srinivasan (26:42):
Yes. Also ich habe einfach das Gefühl, dass es einen Geruchstest nicht besteht. Sie wissen, was ich meine? Wie würden wir dieses Argument unterhalten? Nein, die Leute würden denken, dass es verrückt ist. Und doch werden ähnliche Argumente für den App-Store-Kontext verwendet. Und deshalb finde ich es einfach seltsam.
Auren Hoffmann (26:56):
Sicherlich gibt es eine Menge Leute, die sich darüber aufregen usw., aber es scheint, dass einige dieser Dinge nicht das Niveau erreicht haben, auf dem Sie es erwarten würden, wo … ich meine, die Menschen leben ihr Leben diese Apps und es gibt eine Menge Verbraucherschäden, die passieren, und es ist nicht so, dass diese Unternehmen nicht profitabel sind oder etwas, das sie dort hinnehmen. Sie haben die Möglichkeit, den Preis zu senken, und warum gibt es Ihrer Meinung nach nicht mehr Aufschrei?
Dina Srinivasan (27:20):
Wenn Sie also sagen, dass Unternehmen den Preis senken, meinen Sie damit die Apps?
Auren Hoffmann (27:23):
Ich spreche von wie dem iOS- und Android-Marktplatz. Sie könnten sagen: “Morgen sind es 15 % statt 30.” Und sie werden immer noch sehr profitable Unternehmen sein. Es ist nicht so, dass sie plötzlich unrentabel sind.
Dina Srinivasan (27:35):
Ich meine, ich glaube nicht, dass es darum geht, profitabel oder nicht profitabel zu sein. Good? Sie müssen sich vor den Aktionären verantworten, und jeder ist dabei, morgen mehr Geld zu verdienen, und das ist die Architektur des Spiels. Ich denke also, dass wir aus Verbrauchersicht nicht viel hören, weil es für Sie oder mich keine große Sache ist. Als würden wir monatlich nicht so viele Apps kaufen, und von wie viel Geld sprechen wir wirklich aus unserer Brieftasche? Wir hören also die Stimmen der Unternehmen, die es mehr spüren, weil sie es zu 30 % in ihrem gesamten Kundenstamm spüren. Und das sind die Stimmen, die wir wie die epische Stimme gehört haben.
Auren Hoffmann (28:08):
Also vielleicht etwas Tech nehmen. Also ich liebe Costco. Ich bin ein großer Costco-Fan. Ich liebe Costco. Ich liebe die Marke Kirkland.
Dina Srinivasan (28:16):
Nun, sie haben die Preise erhöht und die Größe der Pakete verringert, oder ich, ich bin sehr-
Auren Hoffmann (28:21):
Ach, das wusste ich nicht. OK. Nun, sehen Sie, ich bin kein kluger Konsument. Das wusste ich sicher nicht, aber ich liebe die Produkte von Kirkland. Ich finde sie einfach toll. People make fun of me, but I just love the Kirkland products and really what they’re doing, these Kirkland products, is they’re rebranding another product and they’re essentially private labeling some product that they know that’s selling. And then of course companies like Amazon have come into a lot of scrutiny recently for doing maybe the similar practice with way more skews than at Costco. Why is what Amazon is doing different than something like a Costco has been doing for years?
Dina Srinivasan (28:54):
I’ve thought a lot about this question trying to make sense of that because even if you ask me like you go to your grocery store and the guy that’s selling garbage pails and… Can’t the grocery store use the sales data to launch their own garbage pail? And I’m like, “Yeah, that seems fine. That passes the smell test for me.” But then you ask me, “”Oh, but should Google be able to use customers data to inform its own trading decisions?” I’m like, “No, that doesn’t make sense to me.” So like where is the dividing line?
Dina Srinivasan (29:20):
So this is kind of a mushy answer, but this is where I come out on this. I think that… With the garbage pail example, it’s like if I’m the manufacturer of garbage pails and I’m selling it at CVS and CVS is gonna use my data to compete with me, am I gonna be outta business? no
Auren Hoffman (29:35):
‘Cause they’re a small percentage of your sales type of thing?
Dina Srinivasan (29:38):
‘Cause they’re a small percentage. You’re not gonna kill me. You know what I mean? Maybe you’ll win, maybe you won’t win. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll win, maybe I don’t win. I think where the dividing line is is when you know that you’re gonna die and the other party is always gonna win. And I think that’s why you have rules against, for example, the house, playing and gambling environment, because you know in that situation you are always going to lose and the other party is always going to win. And so the dividing line… That explains why we can have similar situations, whether it’s Costco Kirkland brand using sales data or like the garbage pail manufacturer at your local CVS. And you’ll can be like, “I’m okay with that.” But the Amazon situation you’re like, “No, that doesn’t make sense.” Because if you’re…
Dina Srinivasan (30:22):
The amount of eCommerce that they control is so great and if you’re a small brand or a manufacturer and you start selling on Amazon, if Amazon uses your data to basically be like, “Oh, that’s a great toy invention. I’m gonna take that idea, copy it and launch it in two weeks.” Like it’s going to kil- it can, it can basically kill you and allow Amazon to win and I think that’s why we can have similar situations, but feel very differently about them.
Auren Hoffman (30:57):
OK. One thing has been very interesting is seeing how different countries are tackling some of these problems. And we’ve seen China take very, very aggressive action against their large tech companies in recent months. How do you think about what they’re doing or maybe how other jurisdictions are looking at this problem and relaying it back to the United States?
Dina Srinivasan (31:21):
I think it puts the U.S. in a very tough spot. I think we have to look at the speed with which China is acting against some of its big tech interests and sort of look at the sort of inefficient process in the U.S., and really scratch our heads about how we’re going to compete from a public policy perspective of with some of these issues that are plugging our society if we can’t act faster.
Auren Hoffman (31:50):
OK. Cool. A couple of personal questions. So one is… I know you’re also an artist. I’ve seen your charcoal paintings on Twitter which are super cool, super awesome. How did this happen? Have you like sold paintings? Like can get like a World of DaaS charcoal painting? Like how does that work?
Dina Srinivasan (32:07):
That’s very flattering. I don’t consider myself an artist.
Auren Hoffman (32:11):
They look really good.
Dina Srinivasan (32:11):
Many Thanks. Many Thanks. So it started sort of one day we were bored. I think we lost electricity in Connecticut-
Auren Hoffman (32:19):
(laughs). OK.
Dina Srinivasan (32:19):
… in one of the storms and the kids were like, “Oh, what do we do?” And I’m like, “I don’t know. How about we draw? Let’s just draw.” And so we were drawing each other and I drew and people were like, “Wait, well, can you draw?”
Auren Hoffman (32:29):
(laughs).
Dina Srinivasan (32:30):
And I was like, “What do you mean? I thought the task was to draw the other person.” And they’re like, “Yeah, but most people can’t just like draw.” (laughs).
Auren Hoffman (32:36):
(laughs).
Dina Srinivasan (32:38):
So I have no art training.
Auren Hoffman (32:40):
Oh, you don’t have no training at all? I’ve seen this thing like I thought you at least went to Knight Art School or something or any-
Dina Srinivasan (32:47):
No, I have no art training and I didn’t even know that I could draw and I thought that was just like normal, but your eye is seeing it so you’re just replicating like what your eye is seeing. So… (laughs).
Auren Hoffman (32:57):
Because, I mean, you have a very sophisticated shading and I mean, I’m a hundred percent confident that give me like a thousand hours of training I could not do anything similar to that.
Dina Srinivasan (33:06):
So after that point, I actually… When I stopped working in the ad industry, I was considering… I either wanted to write on economic topics or I thought I would comment on social issues through painting (laughs). And so I had contemplating either studying art or pivoting to writing about antitrust and economic topics. I mean, it was just a flirtation with the idea, but I am fascinated by art as a speech tool.
Auren Hoffman (33:38):
Do you think you can marry the two somehow? We can marry the economics writing and the antitrust with art?
Dina Srinivasan (33:44):
I’m not sure. Right now I’m quite busy, so it’d be quite difficult, but maybe someday.
Auren Hoffman (33:48):
OK. Awesome. Recently you tweeted that JDS Uniphase failed 99.9 or so percent after the dotcom crash. What was that tweet about? Like, why did you tweet about that?
Dina Srinivasan (34:00):
I think that, you know, we’re sort of waiting to see what fed policy is gonna do with respect to interest rates. And my husband and I talk a lot about what could happen. Like we live in a state where we think that things can’t happen but if we remember actually what did happen like during the first dotcom crash, like you had some really crazy things happen, crazy drops that you would never imagine would’ve happened. And at the time I think I was 19 years old and I had purchased JDS Uniphase without understanding what the-
Auren Hoffman (34:36):
(laughs).
Dina Srinivasan (34:36):
… hell it was or what they did. And so (laughs) this is always a source of like comedy or whatnot in our household, the fact that I own JDS Uniphase is that like my mom owning crypto today.
Auren Hoffman (34:50):
(laughs).
Dina Srinivasan (34:50):
Someone asked me, “How much did they drop?” And so I looked it up and it’s like n- it’s not 99%. It’s like 99.8%. (laughs).
Auren Hoffman (34:58):
Oh, my gosh. Interesting. All right, well, I follow you on Twitter @Dina Srinivasan on Twitter. Is that the best way for people to engage with you or where else should people find you on the internet?
Dina Srinivasan (35:09):
Yeah, that’s great.
Auren Hoffman (35:10):
Good. Awesome. Well, I encourage everyone to do that and thank you very much, Dina for joining us on World of DaaS.
Dina Srinivasan (35:16):
Thanks for having me Auren.
Auren Hoffman (35:18):
Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this show, consider rating this podcast and leaving a review. For more World of DaaS, and DaaS is D-A-A-S, you can subscribe on Spotify or Apple Podcast or anywhere you get your podcast and also check out YouTube for videos. You can find me at Twitter at @auren, that’s A-U-R-E-N, Auren, and we’d love to hear from you.
Related searches to Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher
Information related to the topic Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher
Here are the search results of the thread Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Who Is Dina Srinivasan’s Husband Details On The Partner Of The Researcher. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING