| 12:30 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
This is funny, hmm shareholders could have basically doubled their money in some cases but instead shareholders let yahoo join google adsense. It will be funny when their next few quarters of financials come out. Especially when Google decides to smart price them to squeeze out the competition.
| 12:56 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Especially when Google decides to smart price them to squeeze out the competition. |
Won't happen. If Yahoo isn't stupid (agreed, that's a big IF), then they have negotiated for a fixed payout deal, aka sweetheart deal. One of the most likely outcomes is that this sweetheart deal is being paid by the little Adsense publisher who does not even get to know which ad was clicked (not to think of what this click paid).
| 1:16 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can also see Google not applying SmartPricing, rather the opposite - OutPricing (of Microsoft to keep them away from Yahoo and hence any substantial boost in traffic).
It's sensible for Google and Yahoo but does not bode too well for competition. Would one TV network get away with controlling 90% of the TV advertising market? That's what's going to happn soon to UK PPC advertising!
Having said that, for the most part - or should I say for most people, Google does a great job of making advertising available to advertisers of all sizes. The problem with the lack of competition is those who fall foul of Google are effectively out of the game.
| 5:14 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Having Google run 90% of the market is a VERY bad idea. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being shortsighted. Google will be the next MS. They will control the internet for the next 20+ years like MS has controlled the desktop. Do you want to get on their bad side? If that happened you'd be screwed.
| 6:00 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Having *anyone* run 90% of *any* market is generally a VERY bad idea.
Arguably, Microsoft, for all the negative press and posts it receives by some, has a long history behind it in which it has demonstrated remarkable even handedness in its business dealings.
In the case of the newer giant on the block, my mind keeps going back to that famous "Outer Limits" episode - "No... wait... it's a cookbook!".
| 11:00 pm on Jun 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
MS might dominate the desktop OS world but they do not dominate the online advertising world. Google on the other hand does dominate the online advertising world.
Yahoo linking up with Google ought to set huge alarm bells ringing with the regulators, the linkup should not be allowed.
| 5:14 am on Jun 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The only differences between Google and Microsoft (in terms of "market power") are:
1. Google is relying more or less on one product for their profit (advertising), and they use two solutions to sell that product (Search and Adsense). Everything else are desparate moves to find the next golden goose.
2. Google is relying on an Internet product, and the same power that made them big (webmasters) will finally kill them as well. I am pretty certain about that. It's easy to kill them, but it has to happen in an orchestrated way. Here someone with the declared will and the financial power needs to step in and offer support. With Yahoo teaming up with Google, I see only very few who might actually provide this kind of support. Most notably Microsoft.
3. Microsoft may have been "bad" in the past. Looking at the behaviour of Google, I'd say we should be happy if Microsoft became more powerful. At least they do not treat their business partners like brainless drones.
| 12:54 pm on Jun 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Arguably, Microsoft, for all the negative press and posts it receives by some, has a long history behind it in which it has demonstrated remarkable even handedness in its business dealings. |
Is that why they have been found guilty of abusing their monopoly more times than I can remember and fined more than some small countries GDP? If they had been even-handed then they would not have to go to the DoJ each time they add a new feature to Windows. It is nothing to do with bad press or bloggers, it is Judges and the legal system who criticise them.
How was OOXML 'even handed'? Even MS supporters would agree there was some slightly dirty tricks involved there. How was the whole Netscape saga 'even handed'?
The internet has opened up the market tremendously and now there is real competition, I wonder why Microsoft cannot compete these days?
How would the world would not be a better place if Microsoft has seized control of the entire internet? Most of the current internet would not exist if they had succeeded with MSN and we would all need a license to operate a website.
| 3:46 pm on Jun 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
mikedee, please return to this thread in a couple of years, then replace Microsoft in your post with Google.
The lack of serious competition is strangling the Internet IMO. Shortly, Google will be able to profile each and every web user. Today the information that can be drawn from the data is tiny, as Google is still in its infancy. But think a few years ahead. You know hat something needs to be done when you start thinking think "Geez, this site runs Google Adsense. Can I do this (negative) post about Google here? Or will I lose my ranking with Google? Then I can forget about paying my mortgage!"
THAT is the kind of danger many are seeing, including myself.
I use Live search more often these days, and I recommend this to others as well.
| 4:29 pm on Jun 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If you are really worried about Google tracking your information then it is trivial to stop it. Thats nothing to do with competition on the internet.
Imagine that you wrote a search engine which was much better than Google and had no spam, you go to an investor and borrow 1 billion to crush Google. How could they stop you succeeding?
There are many examples of sites on the web that do not owe any of their success to ranking number 1 in Google. Twitter and Facebook jump to mind, but there are probably millions.