| 8:24 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
heh heh heh, what can I say?
Yahoo is still the daddy!
| 11:22 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now we have the price if we knew the turnover and net profit of Overture then we could see what multiples are at work. Does anyone have up todate Overture turnover and net profit figures?
| 3:15 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This IS getting interesting!
| 3:19 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So now I'm hearing rumors of Microsoft possibly making a coutner offer to buy overture as well. Or possibly even Google. If you think about it it makes perfect sense. Yes MSN is working on their own MSNBOT but it might be to little to late to really be able to compete on the level they want to.
With over 60 billion in cash sitting around it makes it a very viable option. Any thouhts from anyone? Should be interesting to see what happens!
| 3:52 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
MSN is not going to buy Google. I think that the Google owners expect to get a lot more out of an IPO than what MSN would be ready to pay now.
| 4:04 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think eventually Google will be eaten by one of the two giants. Folks may not like it, but isn't that always the way?
| 4:34 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 6:00 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft just isn't the type of company to sit around and let it's competition get a leg up on them. There MSNBot won't be done and really working for another two years. By that time Yahoo and google will be smoking MSN and even though they plan on puting there Search into their browser I think people will still want to use one of the giants out there for search and not some dinky little msn search that will just do enough to get by.
| 6:03 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry one more thing!
If MSN really wants to compete in the search industry they need to do something aggressive and make a strong move. Sitting back and waiting 2 years for their MSNBOT will be to little to late!
| 6:07 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here is a link to a story in the Washington Post Today. "Yahoo's Search for Dominance"
Scroll down and you will see stories from a variety of major newspapers with their differing and interesting views on this aquisition.
| 6:11 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The deal -- one of the biggest Internet takeovers of the year -- was made possible by Yahoo's recently rising stock price
They seem to forget that Yahoo teed up $750 million in convertible bonds earlier this year - the article is missing some details, I'm afraid. The deal was made possible by those bonds, as well.
$2 billion by the end of this year? Well, sure - trackable revenue might surpass that, but afaik, there is no counter on "SEO revenue" :) who knows how big that is?
( the 2 billion was from Piper Jaffry NOT the article - they just used it to make the market sound lucrative ).
| 7:50 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Will Bill outbid? This IS the question!
| 12:28 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
:P (sorry, had to try)
btw...what up with all this worry about MSN being "too late" catch-up or get in the market on their own? There is no such thing with MS. If they can't "buy it" then they just "outlast it".
It is well published that MS doesn't worry about such things. MS just enters a market, makes an initial "stab"....and then just keeps going and going and going until the competition bleeds themselves dry. End quote.
...And then they don't ever look back. Its the energizer bunny on steriods with $40 in cash.
Think: Palm, Netscape, Playstation, WordPerfect......
| 1:46 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Playstation is killing MS in that market. XBox is a sinking ship, losing money on a daily basis, while Playstation is Sony's best selling product.
Also, Palm is far from troubles too. PocketPCs suffer from the same problem as XBox in that market: All the good software is available for the competition, not MS.
Even the desktop OS battle is losing ground, though they still have a huge share. Articles everyday abound with tales of Linux and other Unix variants gaining ground and supporters. Apple is never going away either, now that they too are a Unix variant.
Netscape themselves were just cut loose from AOL, but they aren't dead. In fact, they are just back to their open source roots now, a movement that has even Ballmer stammering at every conference about it's "dangers" (dangers to MS market share that is.)
| 2:37 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to disagree. The point really is that MS can be late in the search game or whatever game and still do well, not necessarily that other companies have to go under if it does so.
I worked in Palm industry and love Palm...but its just a simple truth that MS now has a solid foundation in the market. Yet MS started light years behind.
Playstation thing has barely started...its doing better in other markets and MS will keep at it until forever. They want a platform to own your living room...XBOX is the stepping stone.
No one would say MS was first in the browser game, and no would say that IE is not the most used browswer now. End story.
Who said MAC was going anywhere? It can stay at its 5% market share and in schools forever for all MS cares. No international corporatation I know is going mac anytime soon.
Linux may take some MS OS market share away...but um...so? Were they first?
The point is MS can enter the SE market late or super super late late squared and still do well....or be a thorn in the side of Yahoo and Google forever (which has its own ends as well).
Bleed, die or buy. Whichever way...I don't think anyone at Yahoo or Google is naive enough belive that MS can be ignored just cause they were first.
| 2:49 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
the point of ps2 was not in the console, but in the games, and the same point in reference to the xbox, they are losing money on the console, but the games is where the money is.
In anycase google is the best search engine, it will remain the best till something more relevant comes along. Yahoo i believe shot itself in the foot when it decide to make their page take ten years to load, with Google capitalising with its fast loading page exactly what searchers wanted.
As i said before im very disappointed in the SE market now, i liked the thought any se had the potential to domainate.
Its sad to see the se's go from google,yahoo,msn,altavista, inktomi, alltheweb and overture. to just the first 3,
I believe reduced competition means usually a price increase in adverts :(
| 5:58 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, as of yet all of the former services are still seperate entities, and I imagine it would stay that way. Why reinvent the wheel after all. It would make more sense to just own Overture and let it run as it is, with all it's partner sites funnelling moneys back into Yahoo.
Inktomi I see benefiting everyone if it is folded into Yahoo's service and the directory goes bye bye. I like Inktomi's paid inclusion system better with it's auto updating, easy optimization and the availability of XML feeds for larger sites. The Yahoo directory is just a big expensive backlink at this point.
In reality, the two moves serve Yahoo very well in forcing MSN to either a) produce revenue directly for Yahoo via Overture and Inktomi listings in their current results, or b) spend money and effort to start anew. Either way it was a very nice strategy by Yahoo.
| 6:06 pm on Jul 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not to stray too far off topic, but the reference the PSX / XBox comparison: The problem with XBox IS the games. The console has faltered because it has neither the library of PSX games or the quality of exclusive games (aside from a few exceptions.) They have had a hard time convincing game makers of the profitability of developing for XBox alone and that is the problem they are having.
There's a lesson to be learned there, that business strategies that work in one of your stronger markets (OSes, browsers) does not exactly translate over to other weaker markets (Search, Console Games.) After all, you have to have the stranglehold first to put the squeeze on.
| 7:48 pm on Jul 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maintaining three different indexes will be quiet useless.
Comparing relevancy of search results, I think that Yahoo finally will use FAST technology for its own search result and both Altavista and Inktomi will be dropped.
As consequences, all important search services will maintain their own PPC module: Yahoo/Overture, Google/Adwords, MSN/"Pay for MSN".
I don't think that pay per inclusion is actually a working business model. Additionally, all of them (Inktomi, AllTheWeb and Altavista) are offering a similar feature.
Interesting will be the movements of MSN. Considering the usual strategy of Microsoft, there will be soon a Server Operating System with an index service that connects with search index of MSN, allowing the "fruitful" connection of server operating system with commercial success by online presence.
E-commerce operator will have to use Windows server in order to get best out of advertising in the Windows user world. MSN may be indexed documents on Windows servers and "Pay for MSN" the option to push the position.
| 7:58 pm on Jul 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I imagine that it will be useful for Yahoo to keep at least two of the engines; that way they will be in competition with each other for survival. That should keep them working hard to improve the quality of the results.
I think that Altavista will be the first to go (if any). I am not sure that the brand carries any weight any more.
| 8:01 am on Jul 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft has no plans to put a dent in its $49 billion in cash and short-term investments -- up $10 billion from a year earlier -- with any big acquisitions or an increase in its dividend, Connors said. |
| 1:52 pm on Jul 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Pay For Inclusion is a very relevant system for some websites. Consider a pay for inclusion XML feed for a shopping site with a massive ever changing directory of products. With a system like Inktomi they could have thousands of pages indexed and updatable either manually or by specified intervals. Waiting around for a spider or index update is not efficient for a site such as this. From the user standpoint, it's keeps their search results up to date and prevents dead links to product pages that no longer exist on a rapidly changing site.
I think it's important that a few options are available so a search marketing strategy can be customized for each site and its audience.
| This 172 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 172 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) |