Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Dumping Google for Microsoft?
theodp writes "How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share? If you're Amazon, you dump Google for Windows Live Search to power subsidiary Alexa, who has not yet commented on the switch. Other Windows Live Search sightings are being observed at Amazon subsidiary a9.com." From the Search Engine Lowdown article: "The Alexa toolbar's gotten Alexa a bad rap from privacy advocates, though in function it's effect on search results is similar to click stream data that Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask may or may not be using in their determinations of relevance. Wall points out that 'A9 is still powered by Google...' A9 is Amazon's primary search project. Wall wonders, however, if the change in Alexa indicates a larger coming change in Amazon's relationship to Google. I agree. In fact, I see the move as the first Google Dump in the post eBay's-seeking-partners-against-Google era."
Froogle is quickly becoming a popular selling portal, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon believes that Google might overtake it eventually. I for one love the increased competition.
"How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share? If you're Amazon, you dump Google for Windows Live Search to power subsidiary Alexa, who has not yet commented on the switch.
Jeff Bezos is not the sole proprietor of Amazon. It would be unethical for Bezos to award business to Google in exchange for a personal favor that made him more wealthy. As head of Amazon, Bezos has a responsibility to the other shareholders of Amazon. If dumping Google for Windows Live Search to power Alexa is going to maximize shareholder value, then so be it.
Just because Halliburton gets no bid sweetheart contracts from friends in the government doesn't mean that this is how business should be run.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
> How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share?
Either this is an intentional troll, or you have no clue about financial matters.
Bezos was an early investor in Google, when they were just getting off the ground. He gave them money ('angel funding') to allow them to expand. The agreement in that situation is that Mr. Bezos then owns a percentage of the company, giving him stock at a low price after an IPO.
Google didn't "let him buy" stock. Bezos invested in Google very early on, and he got big $$ when Google's stock went through the roof.
How to detect loonies:
... this guy chooses to point the finger at people who attempt to sway your opinion about what to buy as the "most EVIL business ever".
"the most EVIL business ever... ADVERTISING"
Ok, now step back, and think about that statement. In a world full of people who build nuclear weapons (e.g. G.E.); research fragrances by injecting bunnies with toxic chemicals; patent genetic sequences; squeeze the third world for cash in exchange for patented, life-saving drugs; grind up tons of sea life per day; build systems to gather all Internet traffic for domestic spying; etc.
Think about that.
And why does he say this? Because it pains the average paranoid to have a large business that spends its time worrying about the impact of its actions.
Keep in mind, Google has:
* Moved the banner ad from Internet dominance to second-class status.
* Contributed substantially to open source development efforts.
* Countered the growing dominance of Microsoft on many fronts.
* Revealed government efforts at privacy invasion (did MSN or Yahoo!?)
Complaints about Google amount to: well, they could do MORE for me!
If Google bothers you, you need to serious look at your priorities. Sure, they're large and public which makes them more of a source of concern than your average convinience store, but there are companies that spend their time and effort trying to KILL PEOPLE. Google doesn't show up on the evil company radar because there's already too many companies fighting for the right to be there.