Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft in Talks To Acquire Ebay

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the jigga-whaaaa dept.

thatedeguy writes "The NY Post is reporting that Microsoft and Ebay are in talks for the online auction house to join the Microsoft family." That said, the talks aren't going that well at the moment. From the article: " Sources indicate that the talks, while still active, have cooled somewhat in the last two weeks as executives considered antitrust issues. It is unclear what the full impact of yesterday's advertising and search alliance between Yahoo! and eBay will be for talks between MSN and eBay. One source close to the matter suggested the Yahoo-eBay tie-up would not stop Microsoft from pursuing the online auctioneer."

27 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. mmmm monopolies... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With MS already in trouble over abuse of market share, I can't see any anti-monopoly commission approving a buyout of this size.

    1. Re:mmmm monopolies... by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make it sound like any anti-monopoly commission has any power in America.

    2. Re:mmmm monopolies... by Cadallin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      eh? what exactly? What competitors is Google putting out of business by delivering ultimatums to their customers of "if you use our competitors products it'll be curtains for you, see, Curtains!"

      Lots of people are getting all "aww poor Microsoft, getting bullied just for a few dozen Sherman AntiTrust Violations! Is big bad Google/Apple trying to eat your pie?" What you're missing is that Microsoft is just as evil as ever (They NEVER stopped Antitrust violations!) And none of their competitors has ever even been close to weilding Microsoft's level of Influence.

    3. Re:mmmm monopolies... by ocbwilg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With MS already in trouble over abuse of market share, I can't see any anti-monopoly commission approving a buyout of this size.

      I just woke up, so I may be missing something bleedingly obvious, but I don't see what sort of anti-trust issues exist here. Microsoft is the worlds biggest software company, and one of the webs top 5 or so search companies. Ebay is the worlds biggest auction house (online or otherwise), and owns one of the world's biggest VOIP services (Skype) and online payment systems (Paypal). I just don't see the overlap.

      I do, however, see lots of interesting business opportunities there for Microsoft.

    4. Re:mmmm monopolies... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      First of all, Google did not sue Microsoft over the matter you suggest. They publicly criticised them for it, but that was it. Second, Google are not (ab)using a monopoly in one area to try to gain a monopoly in another.

      Microsoft have a de facto monopoly in the operating systems market. If Microsoft bindles a 'free'[1] web browser with their operating system, then they make it much harder for other browsers to compete. This is anti-competitive behaviour. It would have been acceptable for them to produce a web browser as a free download (since Netscape already offered a browser free for non-commercial use) and even for OEMs to bundle Microsoft's browser with their computers. It was not acceptable for Microsoft to penalise OEMs who bundled Netscape's browser.

      Likewise, Microsoft now have a de facto monopoly in the web browser market. If they make their search engine the default in their browser, bundled with their OS, then they are using their monopoly position in two markets to attempt to gain a monopoly in a third. This is anti-competitive behaviour and should be criticised. Sure, the user can change it, in the same way that they can change the default browser. The point is that it is much easier for them not to, and the ability to do this is only available for the monopolist, not other members of the market.

      Google's page defaults to Google's services, and that's fine. Why? Because Google (as of November 2005 - I can't find any more recent statistics) has 46.3% of the search engine market. While this is more than any of their competitors, it is nothing like a monopoly. If they had 80% or so, then it might be seen as anticompetitive behaviour to encourage Google users to use gmail and Google Talk. Well, except for the fact that these both use open standards and so anyone can interoperate with them.

      [1] Free is quoted here since the cost is included in the OS, rather than it being truly zero-cost.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:mmmm monopolies... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft have a de facto monopoly in the operating systems market. If Microsoft bindles a 'free'[1] web browser with their operating system, then they make it much harder for other browsers to compete.

      This is entirely true; however...

      This is anti-competitive behaviour.

      While it hurt the competition, I honestly think that bundling a web browser with their OS was an improvement to their product. Think about it: people want to browse the web. People expect the default install of an operating system to include most of the functionality that they'll need for everyday tasks, and a web browser definitely part of that. Every major desktop OS today ships with at least one in the base install for this reason. Several Linux distributions have more than one (konqueror, firefox, galeon?). And while we bitch about Media Player, I haven't heard complaints about their built-in calculator, email client, scheduling software, solitaire game, screen saver...

      It would have been acceptable for them to produce a web browser as a free download...

      Yeah, I'll just surf on over to microsoft.com and grab it... oh wait...

      Seriously, this brings up a bunch of issues. How do you download it if you don't have a web browser? Some FTP client? But then they have to separate the FTP client from IE, and bundle it... And how long does it take to download over 14.4? Where do you give the user directions to get the web browser, and do you have to give directions to get Netscape too?

      If you're going to offer it for free, and anticipate that even a significant minority of your users will want it... why not bundle?

      Now, pressuring OEMs is clearly illegal, as are the API shenanigans, but I don't understand the bundling thing.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    6. Re:mmmm monopolies... by jxyama · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Google's page defaults to Google's services, and that's fine. Why? Because Google (as of November 2005 - I can't find any more recent statistics) has 46.3% of the search engine market.

      Your post was great until here. Google's page defaulting to Google's services is fine even if Google has 99% of the search engine share. This is because Google won't have control over where users go to search on the internet no matter how much share Google has. Users are choosing to go to Google and competitors are free to enter the market. No one complains that a BMW only uses BMW technologies, parts and logos, right?

      Google would be in trouble if they started leveraging their considerable share in search to gain "unfair" advantage in, say, online marketing. If Google said to an advertiser "If you want to advertise on Google, you cannot advertise on Yahoo or MSN.", then they'd get into a trouble comparable to the one MSFT did for OS.

    7. Re:mmmm monopolies... by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You said a lot of things, but I'm I didn't get any actual critcism out of it. By criticism, I mean anything Google should do differently than what it is doing.

      That said, I agree with the underlying sentiment of your post - which basically boils down to "Google is in a position of great power." We all know that, and there are no laws against corporations being in positions of great power. This should not (in and of itself) be a cause for concern, because it is the nature of the market.

      In the same vein,the reason Microsoft is such an issue for so many people is assuredly not because they have power. No, if that were the only problem, I would have no concern at all. The problem with Microsoft is that they abuse their power in one sphere to gain an unfair advantage in many other spheres, often stifling innovation (crushing smaller companies) in the process. The examples are numerous - the most obvious is IE's dominance purely due to it's inclusion with Windows.

      I do not see this with Google. First off, Google doesn't even have a 50% share of the global searches. So your arguments about it being like Microsoft are premature to say the least. There is no indication that they will ever be a monopoly...it is simply too easy to switch search engines. If Google does something I don't like, switching is as simple as typing "yahoo.com" in the address bar of Firefox I would be very interested to hear any argument from anyone on this site regarding how Google would ever become a monopoly in the search market.

      How long before google has to start opening up the algo for us to see or has to stat giving us the option to use some other search engines results?

      Well, how about never? Why should Google open up their algorithm? It doesn't matter, the results are the results. If for some reason people believe that they unfairly favor some sites over others and the results are therefore less valid than Yahoo's, MSN's, Ask's or anyone else's, they'll just switch to some other engine. As for Google offering the option to see other engine's results? They already do: it's called DogPile.

      Now, Google is in more markets than just search - as you pointed out, they provide free downloadable software. You characterized it as "unfair" for Google to bundle software and release it free. Umm, why? I assume you're referring to RealPlayer, and my reaction is "So what?" RealPlayer was already available free. They're not forcing anyone to download their software...it's not bundled with some other product their selling, and most of all, each piece is available individually. Besides, when installing their bundle, it gives you the option to only install certain parts of the bundle! I'm really not sure where you were going with that argument.

      Google is quickly becoming a search monopoly...

      Really? I don't see that. I'd like to see evidence anywhere that this is the case. As I said, almost by definition, there will be no search monopoly because the cost of switching is almost zero to the end user. One search engine may one day dominate in the manner of Microsoft with Windows, but the opportunity to abuse that dominance will be very small. The moment people even have the slightest distaste for either the results of their searches or the business practices of the company, they will simply use a competitor. This is clearly not the case with Windows - many people dislike Windows, but they have so much invested in it that it makes it almost impossible to switch for non-geeks, and annoying even for the technically saavy.

    8. Re:mmmm monopolies... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gmail - Data mining and spyware/ stop doint it

      Obviously Gmail uses the content of your e-mail to select context-sensitive advertisements; I don't see anything evil about that. What kind of data mining are you talking about? Mining data by itself isn't inherently evil; it's what you do with the data you've collected that's important (e.g. sell it to other companies).

      Google Toolbar - Spyware/ stop doing it

      The Google Toolbar includes an optional feature which can only operate by "phoning home" with every URL you visit; upon installation this is explained and you're given a very clear option of whether you want to enable it or not. Is this what you're calling spyware, or something else I haven't heard about?

      AdWords - No support for clickfraud/ support the people who make you money

      I agree, they need to be more active here. Although, supporting the people who make them money is precisely the problem; they need to stop supporting some of the people who make them money.

      Google China - Following local laws at the expense of human decency/ Decide that money isn't everything

      You don't think offering a filtered Google search in China is a positive thing? Sure, it's not as good as unfiltered access, but nobody can legally offer that, so that's completely irrelevant. It's not like the Chinese government is going to back down if Google threatens not to do business there, or something. You think it would be better for the Chinese people to be stuck with just MSN and Yahoo, filtered the same way?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:mmmm monopolies... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It phones home. Its spyware. Notifying me or not notifying me is not a defining trait, it just makes it worse if you don't.

      You missed the part where it doesn't do this by default, and there's no way for this particular feature (displaying Google's PakeRank score for each web page you visit) to work without phoning home. Other features like the spell checker send a query when you use them; of course you could make a similar feature using a local dictionary, but Google's spellcheck is based on popular words actually used on the Web, not an actual English dictionary, so it can easily handle proper nouns and slang, which traditional dictionaries have never been good at.

      If you don't want this kind of functionality, that's fine, don't use it. If you want this functionality, but want to send your data to somebody other than Google, that's fine too, use somebody else's toolbar. But don't say Google is evil just for offering these kinds of services.

      By the way, you do realize that web sites collect data about you too, right? Every time you do a search on ANY search engine, they log your search terms; any time you use a translation service to translate something to/from another language, they log your query; every time you look something up in an online dictionary or encyclopedia, they log what you were looking for. I hope you don't use Babelfish, Wikipedia, or Dictionary.com! They're all spying on you!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  2. doesn't make sense by free+space · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why would Microsoft want to aquire a whole company when there's nothing eBay can offer that MS can't get by investing a few hundred million in them like they did with apple?

    1. Re:doesn't make sense by GroeFaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because eBay has something that can't be bought with money: "eBay" is the synonym for "online auction", just like "Google" is synonymous to "web search". That's the Holy Grail of brand recognition.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  3. Oh, wonderful. by SEE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft, running eBay, PayPal, and Skype.

  4. Investors would freak by crummyname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that eBay has a market cap that's 20% of Microsoft's, such an acquisition would probably cause a panic among investors and kill the stock. What they're more likely talking about is a partnership/alliance in certain areas.

    --
    Help kill corporate productivity!
  5. Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce COMPETITION by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMHO this is great news.

    1) It gives Google _more_ of an incentive to develop GPay and Googles Ebay (G-Bay?).
    2) Now all 3 companies that we love to hate are all in one convient package (Pay-Pal, Ebay, MS)

    This is Scary because:
    Given the excellent security record that Microsoft OSs' have do we really want pay-pal tied into the OS? OR even worse if Microsoft thinks* you are not using a "Geniune" copy of it's OS, will it put a lock you your paypal account and/or deduct the amount straight from your account.
    AND EVEN WORSE: This will make it _very_ easy for MS to start charging $xx/(day/week/month) for using Windows.

    OMG the sky is falling! =)
    Should make for interesting times.
    (The Chinese proverb: "May you live in Interesting Times" is apt I think)

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  6. PayPal? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt Microsoft is after Ebay itself. I think - for Microsoft - PayPal (owned by Ebay) is the interesting asset here, especially considering their plans for subscription models.

  7. Re:Obligatory Joke by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, but it's. . .

    . . .lovingly aged, with a beautiful patina.

    KFG

  8. Re:ummm by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Google has only search, and MS can buy all else, then it will be only a matter of time before they own search as well. Keep in mind, that MS is always stronger when it is them vs. 1-2 competitors. When their is real competition, then MS has a very difficult time competiting (such as what Linux and BSD does to them).

    With a different admin, I would give MS zero chance of being able to even partner with e-bay, let alone buy them. But this admin does not care about legal or moral issues. I suspect that MS will be able to own e-bay if they do it quickly enough.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. no kidding by free+space · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft has the habit of 'Microsoftizing' all software and web sites it acquires, where 'Microsoftize' means "make ugly, slow and unusable".

    Hotmail, Frontpage and Visio were all excellent, lightweight products until MS added tons of links and toolbars and menus and images and made everything crawl.

    Prepare for slower uglier eBay & Paypal.

  10. Re:ummm by Woldry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But this admin does not care about legal or moral issues.

    Has there really ever been an administration that did?

    --
    How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
  11. Ebay is a Sun Solaris site by geoff+lane · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ebay runs on Solaris and has just bought new hardware from Sun.

    We all remember (don't we) how long it took MS to convert Hotmail?

    So either MS runs a Solaris based service for the forseeable future or breaks Ebay for months while they try to get it right.

  12. Re:ummm by free+space · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, Microsoft always had a "Buy for product, not market share" mentality.

    Almost all companies they bought have been startups with a really cool product ( Hilgreave, WebTV, Bungie...). As far as I know, Microsoft has never bought a Novell or a Lotus or a Compaq, they kill competition with hard work and/or unfair practices, but not with company acquisitions.

    So when you see Microsoft thinking of buying eBay instead of developing an alternative and slowly increasing their market share( like they did with IE) you know they are very desparate and afraid of Google.

  13. Re:I will stop by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Actually, PP is subject to that same intense regulation and insurance. So no argument there. Essentially, PP is a bank, just one that's on the Internet.

    Show me where in PayPal's user agreement it shows that your money is FDIC insured? Their ridiculous "FDIC passthrough protection" doesn't count because it doesn't protect you in the case of PayPal becoming insolvent, only the bank they invested your money in. Believe me, if PayPal declares bankruptcy you'll be the LAST person with a claim on getting your money out of those bank accounts. Don't be a fool.. if you have more than $50 (or some small amount you're willing to lose) in a PayPal account you're asking for trouble. I even unlinked my checking account from them a few days ago because I am simply not comfortable with such a fucked up company being able to drain any of my "real" money. The only thing I allow as a source of funds now is a credit card so I can fight fraud charges through the CC company. Sure, this mean's I'm "unverified", which is ridiculous since they verified my account via my bank account once, it should stay verified no matter what payment method I choose to use.

  14. Re:Reminds me of HotMail by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, they run Sun Solaris.

    Yeah, which is a *nix. Just like the parent said.

  15. Will they replace the IBM infrastructure? by FatSean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, how they did with HotMail...and then spent years getting it back up to speed?

    --
    Blar.
  16. No they aren't by scronline · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft makes large "enterprise" software packages. Google makes small tools that will probably never come out of beta. They are 2 different business models. Microsoft is a company lead by someone who really doesn't have a grip on reality. He's egotistic and doesn't like the success that Google is getting however right or wrong that success is and that's another discussion. MSN's search is such a small amount of Microsoft's income that it just doesn't makes sense that he would want to crush a search engine.

    Google doesn't make an Operating System. Google doesn't make an office productivity suite. Google doesn't make a game console.

    Under Ballmer's lead Microsoft is starting to fall apart. It's losing direction because of obsessions with beating Google for whatever reason. So what if Google has taken some of Microsoft's talent. That's the way it is in business. Particularly when employees smell the rot that is starting to consume Microsoft.

    Either rate, Google isn't the needle to Microsoft's balloon, Ballmer's obsession with Google is.

  17. The sale will go something like by seanyboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A+++++++++++ Would buy out large web company to protect our monopoly again.

    --
    Training monkeys for world domination since 1439