Slashdot Mirror
Google In Bidding To Buy DoubleClick
A number of readers clued us to the latest development in the saga of te sale of DoubleClick: Google has thrown its hat into the ring against Microsoft and (reportedly) Yahoo and AOL. Most of the stories quote a Wall Street Journal piece that is only available to subscribers. Google's entry into the bidding may boost the price for the remaining pieces of DoubleClick (parts of the company having already been sold off) to $2 billion, twice what its current owners paid for the whole thing. Some reports speculate that this figure could give Microsoft pause.
...people fight to buy DoubleClick.
How about they just change the actions of double click and stop them from being evil with the current definition. Thats the great thing about buying a company. You can change the way it operates.
I guess Google are looking at it like this.
1. They manage to win the bidding war = one less adspace competitor and quite possibly more customers.
2. They manage to up the price by millions maybe even billions of dollars and one of their major competitors (Microsoft or Yahoo) ends up spending an inflated amount on something they would have bought even if Google didn't enter the race.
Google can't lose.
I seriously doubt they'd continue the marketing style of DoubleClick.
(I too didn't even realise doubleclick was still around *hugs adblock*)
I often hear this "flooded with ads" argument, but generally anything I look for I find on the first page. I'm willing to bet that no less than 99% of my searches require me to look beyond the second page at the worst. What exactly are you looking for all of the time? Any examples so I can see what you're talking about? (I've tried Yahoo! as well and don't have any issues with them either).
:-P (I'm assuming you meant Adwords).
As for Adsense, if you're paying to use adsense, you need your head examined. Google pays you to use Adsense
Google is buying more and more companies that harvest user preference information. With their own service they know what kind of things people are looking for, what people they are in contact with and (if they're so inclined) what topics people discuss, with YouTube they know what kind of entertainment people enjoy to watch and what kind of content interests them, with doubleclick they'd know what "pathes" people take on their way through the WWW.
And to be honest, I don't even have an idea what other companies they scooped up on the road that we didn't even hear about. I'm quite sure a decent profiler has no trouble putting the puzzle together.
So my question is why. At least I know, I wouldn't collect that amount of data just for kicks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Boosting the price that 'Evil' will have to pay to compete isn't evil. It's fighting evil.
(Cue comic book style superhero in cape posing)
Does that mean I get a reduction in the number of cookies I tell FireFox to reject?
Darn... I was getting used to saying no.