Slashdot Mirror
Google Considering Merger With Microsoft
buford_tannen writes "According to this New York Times Article (registration, etc.), Google may be considering a merger with Microsoft in the near future. As many people know, Google's search services are powered by Linux. "
Um, isn't it still about 5 months until April 1st?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
The Ledger (NY Times business section) - Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google within the last two months to discuss options, including the possibility of a takeover.'
Financial Times (business section) - Google approached by Microsoft for takeover
'The approach "gained little traction" , according to the report, with Google indicating that it preferred to pursue an initial public offering.'
CNN Money - Microsoft courting Google
'Microsoft may still be interested in pursuing the Web search company at a later date' (The page title is 'Mr. Softee Courting Google' despite the article heading.)
It appears that Microsoft is trying to threaten Google with "If you don't merge with us, we'll make MSN search built into Longhorn, and everybody will use it instead of you because they won't know any better." To Google's credit, they think they can do a better job, find new and interesting areas to innovate, and generally tell Microsoft to suck it. The real question remains: Will Google be as good once they are a public company?
Right now, despite the Scientology dust up, I, for the most part, trust Google's results. And I admire the way there ad system works.
I doubt I could trust the results if Microsoft ran the show.
SEARCH: Linux
Sorry, no results found! Did you mean "WINDOWS"?
SEARCH: Anti-trust
Sorry, no results found! Did you mean "CAPITALISM"?
SEARCH: Bill Gates
Sorry, no results found! Did you mean "YOUR NEW CORPORATE OVERLORD"?
Nice sensationalist headline there. MS said they were interested, Google politely said no. I see no "consideration" there.
Of course, the whole point of the subject was to draw comments like this, so nice troll submitter, and nice troll to the admin who approved it.
Also seen in the headlines:
US Government considers merger with MS, Apple considers merger with MS, and GWB considers quitting presidency and working at Mickey D's.
Fun, isn't it?
Well it reminds me of the simpsons episode when homer starts and ISP and microsoft just buys them out.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005' Could not find file 'C:\inetpub\wwwroot\google\search.mdb'.
More bandwidth, processing power, and resources. I hope this goes through ASAP.
I hate to disagree, but ff Microsoft were to buy Google and start running it, wouldn't it go through ASP?
Thankfully, according to the article Google has decided to NOT sell out to Microsoft.
"While the overture appears to have gained little traction - Google indicated that it preferred the initial offering route, the executives said"
However they indicated it could happen in the future -
"Though seemingly spurned, Microsoft may still be interested in pursuing Google at a later date, according to an executive briefed on the discussions"
This would be very troubling if MS did buy Google at some point. Google may have turned them away now, but one they have gone public a hostile takeover could be in the works. Heaven help us if they do - the last thing I would want to see is MS controlling the best search engine out there.
...goes public instead can't Microsoft simply begin buying shares of Google to gain "ownership" of the company? Or, worse yet, Microsoft can simply make an offer that's really a damned good offer and the shareholders of Google - who will not be as staunch on the ethical grounds of "Don't sell obnoxious ads" and "Don't do something just to do it" and "Money is nice, but not everything." - will approve the merger with Microsoft?
At least when you're a private firm these things are controlled by the vision of a few people who agree on things and a not a fractured group who are, for the most part, out to make a buck.
My reality check bounced.
In that case, will Microsoft be embedding a Python interpreter into all their apps from now on? Death to .NET!
They've been trying desparately to get into this market for quite some time. It's not actually too surprising that Microsoft would be interested in teaming up with Google. Microsofts attempts at search engines just can't compare with google. If they did team up, I doubt seriously that they would make any sort of effort to convert it to a windows platform or anything.
If they do team up, I sure hope they fix that crap in IE that re-routes me to this:
"We can't find "doesnotexist.c0m"
You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.
Or, search the Web:
Go to MSN Search to see complete results for "doesnotexist.c0m".
A re-route to google would be far less annoying.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Isn't microsoft's motto "if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em"?
I doubt google's seriously going to sell their souls to microsoft, but it wouldn't suprise me too much if they were thinking about it. Who could resist that much money, honestly.
First: I wonder how long it will take MS to figure out how to move Google to Windows. Remember the fiasco surrounding Hotmail's move from BSD (I think) to Windows?
Second: I can see the top 5 results from a search for "Linux" now:
1. Independent study shows Windows more secure than Linux
2. How to lower TCO by switching from Linux to Windows
3. Linux for terrorists, says expert.
4. Nazis retake Germany, install Linux
5. Linux bad for innovatoin, says expert panel.
Of course, all of these links will be to "archived" versions of "authentic" articles on a MS server somewhere.
Seriously. If we can't trust the MS marketing engine to be honest about their products, how can we trust them to keep their grubby fingers out of search results?
At least we'll still have alltheweb.com.
...but they may be more interested in the coders. If they were to merge, I'm sure the people who develop google will also be handed work on Microsoft.com, maybe even new versions of Windows, IE, and Office. Bill sees the creativity and skill of Google's employees and would surely want some of that in Microsoft products.
Or perhaps Slashdot is celebrating some other holiday that involves scaring people.
Search Results for linux :
....
I really hope this doesnt happen ....
1) Guide to Migrating to Windows from UNIX and Linux
2) Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 Product Overview
3) 247804 - How to Remove Linux and Install Windows on Your Computer
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
"...Release your anger. Feel the power of the dark side..."
The article says M$ approached google for purchase and were told to get lost. And slashdot says Google considering to merg with M$. Agreed you editors are busy people but please do atleast a little research before posting anything. Or you just dont care maybe?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
It's clear that Microsoft recognizes the value of Google's technology.
I don't know about you, but my web browsing relies heavily on Google to find sites that I will look at. I mean, that level of reliance is almost like how I rely on libc . And any businesses that I might find on the other end probably consider high Google rank worth a lot of money.
Microsoft, of course, loves to be in a position where people and businesses have to rely upon them heavily. It's potentially quite profitable.
Until now, people have relied on Google's goodwill not to use their powerful position unfairly. Since there are monetary incentives for Googles business to "manage" those searches differently, I'm alway apprehensive and would be appalled if a company with Microsoft's track record were to gain that additional power (as if they aren't sufficiently powerful now).
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Not if Google keeps enough shares with the original owners to control the company. When a company goes public, it does not have to sell every share of the company they are issuing. A good example is Ford. The Ford family still owns almost 100% of the voting shares of Ford Motor Company. At no point in the future will there be a hostile takover of Ford without a lot of family members participating in the takover.
Google could easily either hold a bunch of shares with the original owners (preferably more than 50%) or make the shares they sell non-voting shares. I seriously doubt they will be selling enough voting shares for a hostile takeover.
www.teoma.com gives me good results.. Have fun..
Laugh all you want, but once they go public a hostile takeover is a real possibility.
All the need to do is buy 51% of the shares. And yes, they do have that kind of money.
Two observations:
1. Even the N.Y. times wasn't able to offer much real evidence for merger talks. Also, remember that they are just talks, and a preference for IPO was stated by the company.
2. If Microsoft acquires Google, give them enough time and they will commercialize it to the point that it isn't as useful. At that point, the private world will once again rise up to meet the demand.
The real underlying conflict here is between privately and publicly owned business. The mass markets and finely tuned product quality have always been at odds.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Microsoft already points their browsers to MSN.com by default, but amazingly many people know better and switch their search page to Google. So if Google didn't need any help from Microsoft before, why would they need it now? Thankfully this tactic hasn't worked as well for micro$oft as they had originally hoped.
Blender And Linux Fan
What would happen if SCO claimed (perhaps they have) that they owned libc? A new free one would emerge quickly.
Same story here. If M$ bought google, because of M$'s crediblity, users would "nominate" a different "king of searches". New king would get lots of traffic, hence funding. M$'s "investment" while still valuable, would no longer be as valuable as it would be with without M$.
My guess is if anything, M$ may become minority investor, with access at the API level and maybe some mirroring rights.
You can't just buy shares that aren't there to be sold. Google wants to sell about 10% - 15% of the company in the IPO, which hardly gives anyone a strong influence.
Jason Lotito
"Netscape once threatened Microsoft with a software browser that promised to be an alternative to its overwhelmingly dominant computer operating system."
Need I say more?
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
Of course, the fact is. Slashdot or the submitter didn't make this story up. I'm sure you read the summary where it mentioned that this is a New York Times story. Although the NYT is not neccessarily a favorite of mine, it is what most would consider a "News Source," which technically makes this "News," which cannot make this trolling.
I actually came here last night wondering where this story was... I was thinking "a story on our favorite search engine and our arch enemy not being covered on SlashDot? What's wrong here?"
So... if they hadn't done the story, they'd be complained about, and apparently, for doing the story, they're complained about.
Since there's no way that they can win... and since slashdotters always seem to mod up complainers, I say that they er on the side of calling a story that is not an editorial in the New York Times a news-worthy story... wouldn't you agree?
I don't want slashdot to censor my news for me...
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
According to this site, Google powers 76% of all search results, and MSN 15% (numbers seem to be for August 2003). I cannot see the FTC or European Commission approve this merger. This merger would eliminate the only serious competitor to Google on the search engine market.
If google is public and MS wants it, the only hope it would have of remaining "free" is that the FTC would decide MS doesn't need to expand its "monopoly" into search engines.
"Don't be evil."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What to do? Switch to Teoma.
I use Teoma interchangably with Google. Teoma results are as relevant as Google's yet slightly different, however they almost always have the best most relevant results in common.
Teoma's search site is as sparse and ad free as Google's and the search results are of as high a quality. The only Google feature I would miss if it were to dissapear tomorrow is the Google cache.
Eat at Joe's.
Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, recently spoke at my school (University of Maryland; he got his CS degree here). In no uncertain words he said how much he hated Microsoft - he is on our side every step of the way - against monopolies, against DRM, against the DMCA (which forced Google to censor certain webpages), etc. The only way this merger will ever happen is over Sergey Brin's cold, dead body.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Earlier, considering that Google didn't have any obvious reason to continue to be non-evil, I was considering a way around this. A distributed peer-to-peer search engine might be workable; each machine would spend a certain amount of time spidering, but not too much.
Results for each word would be distributed, so any search would get responses quickly, from machines nearby in the network. Responses from more distant machines would take longer, but at least some response would arrive quickly.
I'm afraid I don't know anything about how to implement this in detail, but other presumably do.
They are not running Linux. They are using a cache server from Akami. They are the ones running linux not Microsoft.
The are still running Windows and IIS in the background. Notice the IIS for Webserver, they have not ported IIS to linux.
You can read about it in historical news on Netcraft.
Have fun...
Scott Carr
-h-
My tinfoil hat may be on too tight, however:
1. Microsoft Loses Antitrust case.
2. Bush gets into the Whitehouse and expected results of antitrust case become very wattered down.
3. Microsoft employee becomes chief of cyber security for the government - authors 'National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'.
4. Google is known to have former NSA people on the payroll.
5. Microsoft's 'trusted computing' strategy includes building an all in one DRM gateway.
6. Microsoft goes after Google...
It seems to me that Microsoft is tightening their ties with government in an attempt to influence the upcoming DRM war. What better way to do that than to have an inside man to set internet security policy, to control all access of electronic resources into the home, and to control the most important search portal. There are probably other evidence to support this view - but I don't have the time to 'google' it all for you (kind of ironic, if it wasn't so scary in a 'big brother is watching you' sort of way...)
To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the access, controls the universe"
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Perhaps you would like to read the article instead of posting first. Google has no intention of doing business with Microsoft. They don't even want to use the same bank. I know it seemed that way because of Slashdot posting this with a rather irresponsible headline but it's just not true. Read the article!
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
Sorry, but the headline and description are totally misleading. I don't care which submission was posted on this story, but at least get it right. A merger would have meant that Microsoft effectively controlled the Internet, at least until someone came along with a better technology. Here's the post that I originally submitted:
Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
What to do? Switch to Teoma.
I use Teoma interchangably with Google. Teoma results are as relevant as Google's yet slightly different, however they almost always have the best most relevant results in common.
The problems I see with Teoma are
1) they seem to crawl sites pretty infrequently (I see two old pages of mine listed...one 404's, another has had all its content moved to my new site (and redirects you there after a couple seconds). Google appears to visit my site at least once a month, sometimes more.
2) you have to pay to play if you're a webmaster. If your site's already in, then great (unless the page is now gone, like mine are). If you want to get your new site included, you gotta pony up the dough. Google crawls my site for free...
I bet this story was found by someone at MS pressing the "I'm Feeling Lucky" search
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
The Economist also have an article today on the subject of Goggle.
The article speculates a possible $15bn Goggle IPO, and argues that this would be risky, because unlike Yahoo, Lycos, MSN etc, Goggle have only a single product, and can easily be displaced by a couple of clever computer geeks, just like the founders of Goggle did with Alta vista.
Worryingly, they argue that Goggle should head into the paid for search search market in order to increase their current $150 m profit. ($150m is clearly not enough to justify a $15bn market cap).
They also cite Google's perceived 'goodness' compared with Microsoft, as an advantage in any battle against MS, and a barrier against any takeover.
Check it out here.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Nothing to see here, move along.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
As root, do this:
/etc/hosts
echo "207.68.176.250 www.google.com" >>
You'll love it.
I heard before that Microsoft's future is bleak, due to the competition by Free Software. But I never thought that they would be bought up by a Linux based company this fast. I expect that their part will be the daily artwork on the Google-logo, since their software has never been entirely convincing. As long as it doesn't mess up my search results, I'm all for it - after all it helps to maintain jobs for quite a large bunch of talented clipart-designers, marketing people and lawyers, who would have a hard time without this charitable gesture.
So delete the cookie, or turn off cookies if cookies bother you. Or use a browser that lets you easily block cookies on a per-domain basis. And what difference does it make how long the cookie lasts? Is one year better than 35 years? How about two years? Four? Ten? Where's the line? Why should there be a line?
This sounds like an actual service to me. If I'm searching for stores that sell product X, why exactly would I want hits for stores that are in other states? Yes, there's always the privacy issue, but is there any evidence that Google is selling targeted information to spammers or doing anything nefarious with this information?
User information? Google's never collected any *personal* information from me. Maybe they correlate all the searches that come from my home IPs, which won't do them much good if I ever move or get a new IP. (My work IP is a router that represents several hundred computers, so good luck on them tracking me through there). What data are they retaining that could be bad, exactly?
Google probably should answer this one, assuming that this statement is accurate. Given the oddly-shaped axe that Googlewatch seems to be grinding, I wouldn't be surprised if this one was taken out of context.
And the problem with this is... what?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased