A lot of Yahoo! engineers might consider getting a new job as they don't want to use Windows servers 2007 or ASP.SUCK...
|Somewhere around 0.5%. Although their spider activity is 75% more than the others. |
Same here, all they can do is spider :-))
Two wrongs don't make a right.
|Commentary: Pros and cons of a Microsoft-Yahoo mashup |
By Forrester Research
...Given the messiness of a full-out merger--and also the limited benefit it would bring to Yahoo--I believe that a merger won't be in the works anytime soon. More logical would be partnership agreements where the strengths of each company are shared. These tentative first steps to a merger would make a lot more sense, giving both companies the ability to test the waters before jumping into the deep end.
The full analysis is at CNET [news.com.com]
Several years ago, Terry Semel publicly outlined their strategy for bringing properties inhouse rather than using third-party sources. That was right around the time of the jobs site acquisition, prior to the search acquisitions. It isn't impossible that that's why they bought up properties and brought search inhouse.
Yahoo's huge strength lies in being the top portal destination. IMHO search is just part of keeping their whole "family" under one tent.
>More logical would be partnership agreements
and that is exactly what Bloomberg just reported they are doing now.
The news story - partnership instead of acquisition - on NY Times this morning seems to be a more credible version ...
|A business that is focused on search , ie Google will be the winner IMO. A potential acquistion of Yahoo by Microsoft does not appear focused and neither company has demonstrated the high ground in search for some time. |
Maybe that is/should be the goal of a possible merger. Create a search division that has critical mass.
|The Yahoo brand has a chance. MS are perceived too much as the corporate bad boys whose operating system keeps crashing/getting viruses/won't do what I want it to do etc... |
That hasn't stopped people from using MSN Messenger.
|Yahoo's huge strength lies in being the top portal destination. IMHO search is just part of keeping their whole "family" under one tent. |
Good point. Contextual advertising is so big, no major ICT player can ignore it anymore. (Which is also a major threat to Google. 99% (correct?) of their (huge) revenues are from advertising and their efforts to diversify have been fruitless so far. There MS has had the edge. They have been able to get into new markets).
An amateur ICT-commentator like myself can't judge the benefits of a merger/partnership. I'll ask Goldman/Sacks if making a bid on Matt Cutts' blog would be good for me.
|they dont need more investments nor better engineers, they need the worlds top psychologists to de-program everyone. |
Correct. Why so many people feel compelled to use Google remains a headcase for psychologists. I reckon it's a go-with-the-flow thing. True to form the peoples in the streets blame Google, not themselves. In my pitiful little country Google now has 94%. HELP!
When will everybody learn that quality of search has very little to do with search market share. As long as you can type in a company name or domain name and get what you are looking for most people are happy. I can come up with searches in all 3 search engines that do not give you what you are looking for. I can also give you lots of searches in each one where you do. Google won the war already. People have it in their mind that Google is the place to find things. Yahoo is the place to go when want portal stuff.
Google sends people off their site yahoo sends a lot of people into their site. Google relies on a one box search. Yahoo has lots of internal links on their front page so people don't have to search for them. Yahoo may actually have a bigger market share than Google because that is not taken into consideration. If I want to find a flight on Yahoo I go to yahoo travel and buy it their. If I want to play a game and I go to Yahoo I play it on their site. If I want to play a game and I go to Google they send me to another site. If I want to find a flight on Google they send me to another website to buy my ticket. I could go on.
|quality of search has very little to do with search market share |
Google blew competition out of the water with unprecedented (read: yet not perfect) relevance, less spam and above all a response speed faster that searching within a document on your own machine, what's strange is that Yahoo and M$ are still chasing their tails so many years later!
"MS are perceived too much as the corporate bad boys whose operating system keeps crashing/getting viruses/won't do what I want it to do etc..."
Since this comment has been mentioned twice and hasn't gotten a rebuttal, here it goes.
"MS are perceived too much as the corporate bad boys..."
Thanks only to the over-hyped U.S. prosecution of Microsoft. Basically, the prosecutors lost since they were not able to split MS in two companies, one for operating systems and one for applications. Nevertheless, the prosecution left a cloud of negativism towards Microsoft.
"... whose operating system keeps crashing..."
Not more -perhaps less- than the Mac OS before System X. Don't forget Apple didn't release to ALL of its users a preemptive multitasking system until 2001.
"... getting viruses..."
Thanks to the viruses from the past, Windows XP and Windows Vista have become pretty secure systems. Don't forget the core operating system (with "letters like N and T") was designed by David Cutler, father of DEC's VMS operating system.
"... won't do what I want it to do..."
Microsoft was the first company to release a bundle package of the most popular applications in the late 80s, early 90s: a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentations package, and an easy-to-use database. In the late 80's and early 90's, what else did you wanted to do in a PC?
Hobbs I was referring to how things are now. It was important in the beginning but on the whole does not mean so much now. My point is they are all fast now and they all produce decent results for most people.
w2k is a good product, no doubt and Gates deserves all the billions for certain.
But on the Intenet they lost poorly at every possible level. Not a single product has emerged as the best and
a lot of the MS policy sucks.
Live search is a pure joke as much as the attempt to spend $50 billion for Yahoo.
Why not spend much less on creating the very best directory on the Internet instead.
That would secure a huge market share instantly as more and more MFA junk is taking over Google results in these days.
"But on the Intenet they lost poorly at every possible level. Not a single product has emerged as the best..."
It's pretty easy to make such comments by avoiding details and facts.
It reminds me of the "Amiga syndrome" [liw.iki.fi...]
>Microsoft was the first company to release a bundle package of the most popular applications in the late 80s, early 90s: a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentations package, and an easy-to-use database. In the late 80's and early 90's, what else did you wanted to do in a PC?
(1) I wanted a text editor (and I'd seen emacs--notepad was and is useless except as an emetic.)
(2) I wanted an easy-to-use, highly-portable programming language for writing simple-to-moderately-complex filters (i.e. Perl, but no Microsoft product ever sold)
(3) I wanted a desktop publisher--which is neither a presentation manager nor a word processor, but a program that will freely take material created by some OTHER process (manual or automatic at MY choice) and format it neatly on medium-to-high-quality display devices. (Runoff would do this. Neither Wurd Nor P___point ever did.)
(4) I wanted a music notation editor.
(5) I wanted a highly-portable screen display device with some programmable capability (Netscape, from version 3.0, has been this in spades. The IE isn't and never will be. And life isn't long enough to figure out wherein and whereall and wherefore it doesn't do what the specification defines.)
(6) I wanted my hard disk NOT cluttered up with useless bloatware (presentation manager, spreadsheet, Word-processor-with-delusions-of-adequacy, or toy database.
(7) I wanted a lightweight, portable data-exchange format -- otherwise, databases (toys and otherwise) would be useless. And I had very complex database designs.
(8) I had data on my machine that was valuable to me, so I wanted an operating system that didn't have to be patched multiple times monthly while STILL spending 99% of that time vulnerable to known attacks.
(9) I wanted internet access technologies that wouldn't crash and burn every hour or so, under serious use -- and when it crashed didn't have even odds of bringing down the operating system.
(10) I wanted my valuable data to be preservable without extraordinary effort, across computer and software updates. I wanted to be able to view the source (perhaps not the formatting) essentially anywhere ASCII was known, for the times when data recovery worst comes to worst.
Microsoft was zero for ten--and still is.
emacs, netscape, perl, ghostscript: Without them I could not have done what I have done.
Microsoft: without it almost everything I've ever tried to do would have been easier.
Bill Gates, for all I care, can have every single nickel that DOESN'T represent a data-losing crash of the world's most insecure inoperating system. Which means, so far as I can tell, he'd be the biggest debtor of the millenium.
Microsoft, Yahoo May Partner to Challenge Google in Web Search --Bloomberg.com
I was talking about public perception of MS - right or wrong - not putting forward my personal opinions. They did not require a rebuttal.
It is those, correct or otherwise, public perceptions that are damaging MSs chances of capturing any more of the SE market IMO.
Look at it this way, the MS search engine has been the default search engine on Windows for years, yet nobody uses it. They use Google. Google has created itself the colourful cuddly friend of the non-technical web user. These are the users who don't know the difference between sandboxes and soapboxes. For them Microsoft is simply some millionaire who puts annoying paperclips in their word processig packages and requires them to call IT support a few times a day. They may call IT support constantly because they aren't using the products properly, lack of training or whatever... but the image problem for MS remains.
Google, on the other hand, never caused anybody any problems. Those same reliable old favourites keep popping up in the SERPS whenever they search for holidays, restuarants and bars and there is no reason to change.
While I agree with you that public perceptions (also known as branding) play a critical role, I differ on the particulars.
|Google has created itself the colourful cuddly friend of the non-technical web user |
In fact, this was one of the factors in Microsoft's success: easy-to-use, intuitive, visual applications that the general public could quickly understand and master. In fact, the negativity toward Microsoft is much stronger in geek culture than in the general community, and it pre-dates the lawsuit by a long stretch.
Many microsoft products are successful in competitive markets (e.g., computer games). I think the reasons are more to do with positive perceptions of Google than negative perceptions of other companies such as Microsoft.
|Thus, Microsoft has been hampered from day one in its efforts to build a dominant Internet business because nothing will be done to jeopardize the desktop software money spinners within the company. While companies like Google, Salesforce and Yahoo develop web-based applications to compete with Microsoft desktop applications and, in the process, free users from the confines of any particular operating system, Microsoft can do nothing because it is contrary to everything its business stands for. (from it wire) |
Which is why MS committed itself 'totally' to the Internet in 1995, and Google was first (of the two) with online documents and spreadsheets in 2006.
And smaller companies had started doing it three years earlier, so MS could have competed before Google bought a startup and built on their ideas.
They used to say "Microsoft - Too Big, Too Slow" ... and it's still true. They simply do not have the flexibility to ever 'win' on the web. And they never will.
Now, if Yahoo! were buying MS ... different story. But MS will get indigestion swallowing Y!
They may (or may not) do well on portals etc that both love - but on all the areas that Google moves in, they will not gain one inch.
|Now, if Yahoo! were buying MS ... different story. But MS will get indigestion swallowing Y! |
Very well said.
I believe the talks have already mutated to some sort "partnership" arrangement instead of MS outright purchasing Y...
With the cultures of both these companies being highly arrogant (and for good reason)...could take years to integrate ...Google will simply move forward with its well developed strategy and continue to grow its market share...and dominate the search arena.. (and probably make some more key purchases of its own along the way..)
|Google has created itself the colourful cuddly friend of the non-technical web user |
This is exactly right. While I am reasonably happy with the percentage of visitors I get from MS/Live (especially given their distant number 3 status), I just don't think they grasp the whole picture of what they need to do to be a viable alternative to Google out in the general populace.
Yes, people of course want the best and most relevant results, but in addition, they want something else and Google's got it -- a sense of "vitality".
Maybe it's G's goofy name and the way they change their colorful heading based on holidays, or maybe it's some other mysterious force -- whatever it is, they got it and Live doesn't. The Live landing page just seems lifeless, whereas Google's has a sense of exurberance.
Hiring a hip graphic design firm could be an inexpensive & quick starting point for the brainiacs at Microsoft (Apple learned that lesson a LONG time ago). And while it may take several tweaks until they get the right look & feel, they'll still come out ahead (they've got nowhere to go but up!), and it won't cost them $50 billion either.
In other words, Live's got no buzz, while Google's got it in abundance, and I'm not sure that MS can change that simply by absorbing a competitor's corporate culture. At the end of the day, they'll still be rich -- but dull -- Microsoft.
|I think the reasons are more to do with positive perceptions of Google than negative perceptions of other companies such as Microsoft. |
callivert you may be right. Some sections of the geek market have a very negative view of MS. Although, that's generally a political thing that probably has less impact for MS marketeers concerned with brand penetration.
But if you are right, then how has MS failed to capitalise? They managed to wipe the floor with Netscape in a couple of years, despite having a 'slow start'. But they seem to be choking in the search market.
"Look at it this way, the MS search engine has been the default search engine on Windows for years..."
Details and facts:
1996-08-13 Microsoft and Yahoo Make Web Searches Easier for Internet Explorer 3.0 Users
1997-10-20 Microsoft Joins With Inktomi to Provide Comprehensive Search Capabilities
1998-10-07 MSN Web Search Launches With Inktomi Technology
1999-12-13 Inktomi and MSN Strike Broad Search Agreement
2001-06-19 Inktomi Announces Agreement with MSN to Extend Search Services Worldwide
2003-04-17 Microsoft Research seeks better search [news.com.com...]
2004-07-16 MSN Announces Investment in Search Technology
2004-11-11 Microsoft Launches Beta Version of New MSN Search Service
Why has Microsoft relied on third parties for its search service until late 2004? I have a pretty close idea thanks to my research on the development of computers and the Internet. Nevertheless, it's just a hypothesis.
[edited by: zafile at 9:18 pm (utc) on May 6, 2007]
M$ is a software company; they destroyed Netscape in much the same way that they had already dealt with WordPerfect (also a brand leader in its time), by superior software marketing, and engineering software to be interdependent.
They have never understood the Internet as anything other than a collection of software.
Even now, whenever they innovate (not often on the Internet), their immediate aim is to integrate it with their proprietary software and exclude competitors.
Indeed, M$'s two greatest web achievements are
1. Pooling resources on instant messaging services (largely forced on them), and
2. Working with BOTH Y! and G on nofollow and sitemap protocols; genuine sharing, with no last minute switch so that IE users are the only ones to get the full benefit.
Gaining almost 100% of the browser market for IE was not an Internet achievement, but a software one.
Fact is, M$ simply do not understand the web. G does, in spades. And Y! does too, for what that's worth.
[edited by: Quadrille at 9:19 pm (utc) on May 6, 2007]
In my opinion, It is a great news!
If neither of MS & Yahoo! could compete against Google alone (this fact has been proven during the couple years badly beaten up) then the only new solution is to combine them. (This may not be a good thing but at least IT IS A HOPE FOR CHANGE!)
There is no reason to keep trying to do what you know not going to work and I think that is exactly what Yahoo & MS just figured out.
It is reminded me of the couple years back there when Yahoo aquired Overture/Ink to compete with Google. And it is sad that 6 years later, it has gone no where and now become just another victom.
... Yahoo's chance has passed but at least MS is still strong so hope still there!
John Dvorak has a new PC Magazine column titled "The Return of a Really Bad Idea" that's worth reading:
In his column, Dvorak asks what benefit there is to merging two companies that are losing out to Google in search, applications, messenger, e-mail, etc. "What exactly would change if Google merged with Yahoo?" He goes on to make the point that Google just "does the best product it can do without being preoccupied about the competition," and that MSN and Yahoo might be better off if they spent less time being preoccupied with Google and devoted more effort to improving their own products.
I don't believe for one minute that it's about search at all. IMHO it's about eyeballs and advertising revenue.
>> I don't believe for one minute that it's about search at all. IMHO it's about eyeballs and advertising revenue.
and how do you get the eyeballs /advertising?
Not necessarily through search, that's for sure.
Google is looking to do on the web what the big New York agencies are doing for the real world. Oh, and they want to move into the real world too ...
The real money in advertising is to be the middle man; Google buying doubleclick was a big step down that road. it makes their income less dependent on their own sites, much less dependent on search.
M$ are sh*t scared. But they'd still do better with a more 'natural' partner, like viacom, rather than trying to outGoogle Google. But they never had much imagination, Bless 'em.
|... (Google) does the best product it can do without being preoccupied about the competition... |
This is an excellent point...Google really only competes with itself...always disrupting itself, adding new tools and opportunities to continue to grow its own revenue through acquistions and new technology development...TRUE INNOVATION
Think of it as how Tiger Woods plays golf...Woods does not actually compete with other players...he only competes with himself (the true golf model)...and no one can do it better then he can right now...(same with Google)
| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |