| 10:56 am on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Only to proof MSFT is out to create yet another monopoly, we need to say no.
| 11:24 am on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they have been refused a loan for the extra $20 billion and need a bit of help...
| 12:45 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
This is getting to be like a bad soap opera.
"The Web of Our Lives."
"As The Search Engine Turns."
"The Old and The Reckless."
"One Search To Give."
| 1:14 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Only to proof MSFT is out to create yet another monopoly, we need to say no |
Oh get real. This is about being more competitive against a current monopoly.
Hey if you want a 95% G search scenario and increasing monopolist tendancies through all forms of online tracking, advertising, communication and internet access then you keep wishing for Y! to jump into bed with G.
| 1:30 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Double blow to G as Myspace is one of their largest junk ads deals.
| 1:39 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|This is about being more competitive against a current monopoly. |
Which monopoly are we talking about again?
|1. In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.  Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods... |
2. In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what's perceived as "fair" competition.
I assume you are using the second definition and are using 'political discourse', which I assume is different to fact.
At the moment there is competition and no company can put up barriers to trade. To me 3 large companies competing are better than 2. The problem is Microsoft cannot compete so they have to buy marketshare even if that means launching the longest hostile takeover in the history of the world.
| 3:24 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Makes a lot of sense...
News Corp provides the content and Microsoft provides the technology needed to streamline the operation of Yahoo to reduce technical costs of operations. This will get rid of Wizards et al* at Yahoo and instead this money would be used to enhance Yahoo's content.
Wizards et al at Yahoo should start looking for jobs at Google...
[edited by: jatar_k at 3:03 am (utc) on April 11, 2008]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]
| 3:49 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I sure don't want Google to have an even larger monopoly than they do on the search market, but I fail to see how combining Yahoo and MSN would achieve that. There are a ton of overlapping properties and MSN is nearly a complete failure in the search space. Why not spend that 40 billion on some mathematicians to create a decent search engine instead?
| 3:52 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The Wizards and even al have just got a very good severance package so I doubt they would have to look for work immediatly.
Up to two years free pay? I am sure they will be lining up to be fired.
| 4:22 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Maybe not a monopoly, but definitely looking like a potential duopoly with only 2 major providers and huge barriers to entry that will restrict new players from emerging.
| 5:58 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
This is more a private powerstruggle among a few billionaires who own most of the Internet traffic and future media stakes.
Time for newcomers who can deliver better search results and pages.
| 6:59 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Y! Share holders should be thinking: If Yahoo is such a dog, how come everyone wants to buy it up?
I say Y! rejects all bids, starts buying up some more properties of their own and compete's with GOOG, MSFT and NewsCorp.
| 7:23 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
lexipixel I'm with you
| 8:32 pm on Apr 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
For those following along, here's today's dance card.
And the winners (and losers) are:
COMPANY ............. Percent of change -0.42%
Yahoo! Inc................... +2.95%
Time Warner Inc........... +1.25%
Google Inc................... +1.05%
Microsoft Corporation..... +0.76%
... ok, that's just for today, but news sure drives stock prices don't it.
| 12:40 am on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
lexipixel, Yahoo wasn't a dog in 2007.
Instead, it was a pony with no new tricks. See [cbs5.com...]
That's why Jerry Yang replaced Terry Semel as CEO in June 2007. According to CNN, Semel let Yahoo fall further behind Google in the online advertising market. Read more at [money.cnn.com...]
Has Yang made a difference 10 months later? The US economy surely hasn't helped Yang to turn around things at Yahoo. And Yang's experience? Well...
Today probably it's better for Yahoo investors to choose the experience and stability of Microsoft and News Corp.
So sadly for some and an opportunity for others, Yahoo is today a nice catch.
Microsoft will then catch search patents and the opportunity to expand its technologies. News Corp will get a nice vehicle to deliver its contents. And Yahoo investors will then be happy!
Everyone will be happy except Google...
| 5:55 am on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In any case,Microsoft is the winner
| 7:28 am on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Today probably it's better for Yahoo investors to choose the experience and stability of Microsoft and News Corp. |
If they want slow growth and no fun.
|So sadly for some and an opportunity for others, Yahoo is today a nice catch. |
I don't think it will "sell"... more likely Y! will get new steam from all the buzz.
|Microsoft will then catch search patents and the opportunity to expand its technologies. News Corp will get a nice vehicle to deliver its contents. And Yahoo investors will then be happy! |
But, if MSFT and NWS.A aquire YHOO, (at an overvalued per share rate), the only thing for a YHOO shareholder to do is sell all shares the next day, and buy GOOG stock.
If history holds any clues, MSFT lawyers will stumble through the acquired YHOO property for 12 months trying to lock down all the patents, then Gates or Balmer will "announce" the rebranded property (as what? MS-Yahoo or YahooLIVE!) --- then we can all watch as it loses ground to a non-dinosaur held start-up doing something we haven't even thought of yet.
The MSFT offer is a competition killer strategy if anything. It makes MSFT the #2 "search provider" overnight -- but Google can just chug along and not even shift gears and stay at #1.
Like any good capitalist, I'd want to see who knocks Google off the top of their "mountain view", but I don't think it's gonna be team Redmond.
| 9:12 am on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think it's about rediculous profit margins being hard to keep increasing while site visitors wise up to current ad technology.
The waters are too small for three big fish trying to get even fatter, they want each others lunch money now. Investors want the stocks to keep rising but the number of surfers willing to click on ads and buy stuff isn't keeping pace. Somethings giving right now imo.
| 3:19 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Murdoch has a track record of being very good at this sort of dealmaking. No idea if anything will come of it, but if I were a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be worried about Balmer making a bad situation worse. They are chasing after Yahoo! because they have been unable to succeed on their own.
But buying Yahoo isn't going to solve Microsoft's problems. Balmer and Gates have not been successful on the web -- aside from destroying Netscape (and we all know how they pulled that off).
Compare MSFT's track record with MSN and MSNBC with Murdoch's track record with Fox News and MySpace.
MSFT should spend less time trying to defeat Google and more time trying to invent something new that creates an entirely new concept or market.
| 5:21 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|aside from destroying Netscape (and we all know how they pulled that off). |
Add to that how Excel killed Lotus 1,2,3 -- and how MS-Word (almost) killed WordPerfect.
MSFT's "category killer" strategy of bundling (shoddy) software with the OS or Office and putting it on the desktop (e.g.- Outlook, MS-IE, Media Player), won't work anymore.
Where the average user "had to" buy MS-Office to complete a project for work or school, they can now use Google Docs, Open Office, etc.. Giving away shoddy software to make it unprofitable for competitors to sell anything in that category only works in the unconnected world.
Search and ad serving take more than a few strategic acquisitions... A company needs to have aggressive ad sales staffing, and their crawling and indexing needs to be a better mousetrap.
|MSFT should spend less time trying to defeat Google and more time trying to invent something new that creates an entirely new concept or market. |
MSFT is a top-down corporation. Employees are drones that only know how to follow the leader. Microsoft hasn't "innovated" anything since MS-DOS, (they didn't even create "windows" -- that was just another idea they "borrowed").
If I were Bill Gates I'd be tired of being two steps behind. I'd take my money and invest in alternative energy start-ups, recreational space travel, or something more fun. It must be frustrating trying to be the gatekeeper on an industry that no longer needs him.
MSFT trying to be #1 in search and ad serving is almost as futile as if they had invented the telegraph and wanted to keep others from using the telephone.
| 6:26 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft hasn't "innovated" anything since MS-DOS |
Actually they bought MS-DOS. It was previously called QDOS, until Seattle Computer Products sold it to MS.
| 7:18 pm on Apr 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Actually they bought MS-DOS. It was previously called QDOS, until Seattle Computer Products sold it to MS. |
If that's true, then the only thing I remember Bill Gates being credited with was writing Altair's BASIC interpreter and developing software called "Traf-O-Data [en.wikipedia.org]" -- which makes (ironic) sense now... how appropriate that he envisioned a way to automate counting "traffic" --- the next logical step was to figure out how to collect money every time someone passes by....
| 1:30 am on Apr 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sour grapes. Being the "inventor" of a given technology is a lot different from being the one who successfully exploits it. ;)
| 6:09 pm on Apr 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Very true... However I do enjoy seeing it pointed out that MS has basically NEVER created anything new. Every move and product they have ever made has been bought or copied from somone else.
It's remarkable when you think about it. I for one can't think of any comparable case.
| 2:43 am on Apr 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|MS has basically NEVER created anything new. |
I for one can't think of any comparable case.
Thomas Edison comes quite close in a lot of respects. Quite a few inventions accredited to him were not actually the result of his own actual efforts, but patents purchased from others and the work of people he hired or paid off. He took existing technologies or ideas, refined them, and marketed them. Sound familiar? ;)