Slashdot Mirror
Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion
marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
Now Microsoft's anti-spyware will absolutely flag it!
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Google is the new Microsoft. :^)
DoubleClick got owned!
no, really!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Doubleclick is still blocked in every way, shape, and form available on my browser.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
...as if millions of chairs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
3.1 billion to pretty much lock up the on-line advertising market. I wonder what percentage of the on-line advertising market will push Google into Monopoly territory. I would guess they are getting pretty close.
I wonder how long until it becomes obligatory to hate Google...
... "Do no evil?"
Every doubleclick host that I can identify is permanently blocked here for web bugs and Dartmail. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
One could hope that Google will change Doubleclick's behavior before putting their own name on the services.
I sincerely hope Google will simply replace all DoubleClick-crippled sites with AdSense. DoubleClick's tracking cookies are the reason I block web ads.
Gootube was easy.....
Doogleclick?
Doobleclick?
Goobleclick?
Youtoogleclick?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
...it's still called shit.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
3.1 Billion or let Microsoft automatically become the #2(Maybe #1?) On-line advertising service on the Internet? Which do you think Google is going to choose?
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not, among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
Microsoft bidding on DoubleClick brings to mind the following joke:
A duck hunter is out early one morning hunting ducks. He's not having a lot of luck and he's about ready to pack it in and go home.
Then he catches a break and shoots a duck. The duck falls to the ground on the other side of a fence. He hops the fence to grab the duck
and a farmer appears from nowhere and asks "What are you doing with my duck?" The hunter says "That's my duck! I shot it." The farmer replies "Doesn't matter -- it's on my land. But I'll tell you what. We'll take turns kicking each other in the nuts as hard as we can until one of us gives up. The winner keeps the duck. Oh, and I kick first." So the farmer winds up and kicks the hunter square in the nuts. The pain is so awful the hunter throws up and then collapses. 10 minutes later, he tentatively gets to his feet and says "Okay, my turn." To which the farmer replies "That's okay, you can keep the duck."
I have a sneaking suspicion Microsoft wasn't that interested in DoubleClick. But they wanted to make damn sure that Google overpaid for it.
:)
You think you are in pain for having to swallow that our great Google bought doubleclick?
Ha, you could imagine it like this: The people at doubleclick just got paid 3.1 BILLION dollars.
By Google.
Have a great weekend.
While I agree with the $3.1 billion probably being far too much for DoubleClicks assets... I disagree with the block list thing, as the vast majority of Internet users do not use AdBlock or any other similar ad blocking software. Yes, a lot of us geeks use that stuff (I don't, as I just ignore them), but then a lot of us geeks are the ones least likely to click on ads and buy the stuff they're selling. Now as to the reason why they would be willing to pay the $3.1 billion for DoubleClick, it's clearly to prevent Microsoft (and/or Yahoo!) from buying a sizable chunk of the online advertising business, plus it now increases the size of Google's very profitable ad business.
Read my blog posts on usability.
Although I also wandered what Google was getting itself into buying a company that notoriously places tracking cookies on computers everywhere, I can see what they're trying to do. I only hope that Google will clean them up instead of Doubleclick dirtying Google. They should stop putting tracking cookies on people's computers, remove any tracking cookies already on the computer, and deny any overly flashy banner ads. That would strongly increase Google's credibility and help eliminate some of the garbage on the Internet.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
The best one I saw was something like
Babies
Looking for Babies?
Find exactly what you want today
www.ebay.com
I don't know anyone who doesn't block doubleclick.
I dont know anyone who doesn't block either BUT to be fair I generally only know smart educated people.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
something that is pretty much blocked to hell and back by anyone with clue.
You mean 1% of the population? Outside of my household, I haven't seen a single ad-blocker installed on anyone's computer. Most people just ignore the ads.
Doubleclick is still making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year, so they clearly still have a viable business model, however evil you think it is.
3.1 Billion dollars won't change my hosts file:
...
127.0.0.1 atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
...
But if they can get the money from doubleclick customers... good for them.
Based on your careful due diligence, no doubt. Or is that just some number you pulled out of your ass that "seems more reasonable" to you.
So what you think happened? Google called them up, got a quote of 3.1 Billion, and said "OK, if that's what you think it's worth."?
They traded stock for YouTube, they paid cash for DoubleClick.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Are you shitting me? Google's tracking is far more nefarious. I quote another post from this thread by an Anonymous Coward:
Google ad sense operates on a different level...using cookies is just part of the game. Via IP pingbacks, toolbar tracking, and account identification, users may unkowningly be giving out alot more data than they realize.
Say for instance that you use Gmail. or any Google service that requires login. Google can track you via that login to each site you visit that has a google ad (70% of the net from what I understand). See, doubleclick never had this part of the equation...they never had account info. Google can tie your IPs, usernames, email content, and web browsing activity...and you can't do jack about it (short of blocking the google scripts themselves). Even without login account info, Google has the ability to track your individual machine via IP pingbacks. If you nav to page one, the google ad gets your exposed ip, then the next page you visit that has a google ad...yep..that ip is used to track that navigation. No cookie needed. Of course, if your behind a firewall, only the firewall ip would get exposed. But still...do you really want to give anyone that much information about you?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."