|Google and Yahoo Defend Ad Alliance at a Hearing|
| 4:54 am on Jul 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Google and Yahoo lawyers defended their recent decision to partner on advertising Tuesday at a Congressional hearing, arguing that the arrangement did not violate antitrust laws and would help to keep Yahoo competitive.
Their arguments were countered by Microsoft officials who argued that the partnership would allow Google and Yahoo to dominate more than 90 percent of the search advertising market and could significantly raise prices.
“I never felt so sorry for poor little old Microsoft,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to laughter.
In a statement, Bradford L. Smith, senior vice president and general counsel of Microsoft, said: “If search is the gateway to the Internet, and most believe that it is, this deal will put Google in a position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it. When Yahoo talks about this deal generating up to $800 million in additional revenue, that’s money out of the pockets of American businesses, big and small, who will pay higher prices for the very same ads they buy from Yahoo today.”
| 3:49 pm on Jul 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>When Yahoo talks about this deal generating up to $800 million in additional revenue, that’s money out of the pockets of American businesses, big and small, who will pay higher prices for the very same ads they buy from Yahoo today.
Funny how that logic doesn't apply to the MS promotions to their own remoras -- remember, "every $1.00 spent on MS-Vista is another $5.17 in consulting fees"?
The difference being, of course, that advertising is not a self-sustaining monopoly, while "software development platforms" is. Someone can come up with a new ad model, and everyone with a brain could switch this afternoon. But someone could come up with a better computer platform (Mac/Linux/Solaris/whatever), and the customers would still be stuck on the old platform where the programs they've purchased are -- and the developers would still be stuck on the old platform where their users are. It's a catch-22 squared.
The heart bleeds for poor l'l Microsoft and its threatened business model. May their misery end -- soon.
| 6:22 pm on Jul 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I never felt so sorry for poor little old Microsoft
This was exactly my feeling. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Some interesting things in the article though, such as
the business plan “raises the specter that one company will accumulate vast amounts of personal viewing data.”
Does he not realize that this is pretty much already the case?
Mr. Smith states:
This brings up a totally new issue in my mind. Our rights as citizens to things such as free speech, privacy etc. relate only to government, not private interests as far as I understand the law. Has the time come where to have effective free speech these rights need to extend into the corporate realm? A bit OT I admit but... it was in the article :)
| 7:07 pm on Jul 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft does make a good point about where will this addition 800 million in revenue come from. I and I don't think many others will pay the same as adwords to run ads on Yahoo and their pack of "search partners".
| 4:05 pm on Jul 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
LOOK....the mere statement by the congressman tells me they just DON"T GET IT....it's true....as a yahoo advertiser that drives huge revenue from them it's not a microsoft thing....it's a small business thing. In this #*$!ty economy this is merely another price increase that millions of small businesses simply cannot afford. This would be a HORRIBLE deal if it goes through>>>>>SIMPLY HORRIBLE....how does anyone on the planet think it's a good idea to let to entites join to control the entire market....this is essentially what this would do and anyone who says different is either misinformed or on another planet....this just pisses me off to no end.