Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Buys Ad Firm for $6 Billion

bain writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has agreed to buy the digital marketing firm Aquantive, in what will be its biggest ever acquisition. The software giant spent almost $6 billion acquiring the agency, in its first bid to tackle the online advertising market. 'The deal is expected to be completed in the first half of 2008, subject to regulation. Microsoft said the expensive price tag was worth it to access the complementary technology of Aquantive. The firm will continue to operate from Seattle as part of Microsoft's online operations, and will help the software giant broaden the scope of services its MSN consumer internet unit can offer. Microsoft is the latest technology firm to pounce on the shrinking independent online advertising sector.'"

167 comments

  1. Other potential buyouts? by fishybell · · Score: 1

    How 'bout microsoft buyout some of that thevinylgroove.com or fishybell.com. I hear that even though they're offline they're worth millions. Millions I say!

    --
    ><));>
  2. Microsofts newest aquisition by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by vimh42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

      You know what's funny about that? If you're using a MS OS, they can ignore your hosts file.

    2. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by clark0r · · Score: 1

      Then it's a pretty much self-solving problem then ;)

    3. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by FutureDomain · · Score: 1

      Except that since it's Microsoft, they can add exceptions in Internet Explorer and Windows to ignore the hosts file for Aquantive's ads.

      --
      Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
    4. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      OMG, ze conspiracy!

      Yeesh.

      "Microsoft's gonna do evil, you just know it, cause it's ... Microsoft!"

      Here's a hint, add the following to your hosts file:

      127.0.0.1 ads1.msn.com

      Hey, look, the ads served on MSN.com by that server are blocked!

      But let's not let little details like that get in the way.

    5. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by FutureDomain · · Score: 1

      Considering that WGA bypasses the hosts file, it's not impossible. I don't think that they'll do it, they could get into more monopoly issues, but it's certainly possible since they control the OS and browser.

      --
      Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
    6. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      Either way, people seem to forget that you got that internet connection through some other point in your house, it shouldn't be THAT hard to block that ip range at the firewall.

      That could mean the firewall on your system, the Vista firewall can do it with an IPSEC rule (yes that is below the layer where IE has any influence) and any number of ip range blocking apps can do it, protowall comes to mind.

      It could also be easily done at the gateway if you aren't using an incompetent firewall/router.

      Microsoft has shown repeatedly that it has no problem implementing software locks, so if they really cared i have no doubt they would try to force ad views.

    7. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      I use Mike's Ad blocking hosts file, although I haven't checked to see if Aquantive is on the list of blocked URLs. I use it on both my Windows computer and my Linux computer. It can also be used with Mac OSX. Whenever Mike's website comes out with an updated version of his Ad Blocking Hosts file I update my computer's hosts file. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft eventually tries to create some kind of problems for users who dare to try to block any of Aquantive's URLs either through a hosts file or through the firewall in their router. Either that or perhaps Microsoft will just start ignoring parts of the hosts file.

      Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts file

    8. Re:Microsofts newest aquisition by boredguru · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo faulty moderation.

  3. Breaking news: by zyl0x · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an attempt to foil Microsoft's plans for internet advertising domination, Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

    --
    Blerg.
    1. Re:Breaking news: by Wicko · · Score: 1

      Simply amazing. On to Hilary Swank...

    2. Re:Breaking news: by networkBoy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually the article mentioned the capability of MS buying Yahoo...
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Breaking news: by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      eleventy billion dollars

      Is that larger or smaller than a googolyplexy?

    4. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

      Your Google Overloards saysotherwise:

      Results 1 - 10 of about 186,000 for eleventy. (0.16 seconds)

    5. Re:Breaking news: by Braxton_Bragg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, it has finally come to this. All, that hard work and brilliant engineering over many years... All for a few bucks' cheap advertising, streaming video, audio , and pr0n

    6. Re:Breaking news: by Gatekeyper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

    7. Re:Breaking news: by owlnation · · Score: 1

      eleventy billion dollars

      Is that larger or smaller than a googolyplexy?
      Larger, of course. Eleventy = one louder.
    8. Re:Breaking news: by MLopat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or you could just consider that market conditions change. Oh my god, you over paid for gas two years ago and now its way more expensive. Guess you were right at the time.

    9. Re:Breaking news: by Braxton_Bragg · · Score: 0, Troll

      FUCK OFF - SLASHDOT

    10. Re:Breaking news: by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Is eleventy billion larger than a googol? Is it larger than a googolplex?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    11. Re:Breaking news: by Idbar · · Score: 1

      In fact, I think the only sad about this deal should be Double-Click, since they could certainly ask more from Google. Too bad for them.

      Microsoft and Google have lots of money, if they don't want to take it from them, that is their problem. Congratulations to Aquantive.

    12. Re:Breaking news: by Clockworkalien · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just up the ante and make it an appropriate googolian dollars?

      --
      I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
    13. Re:Breaking news: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Anti-climactically, MS kicks it up to eleventy billion+(neener,neener,neener), apparently saving the day for Redmond.
      In a shock-and-awe move, Engadget publishes a bogus email that underlying technology, a phalanx of cavemen and geckos, is in visa trouble and will have to lay low in Zambiniland for at least six months.
      The resulting price crash effectively wipes out the value of the acquisition, and Redmond is out close to nineteeny billion+(omfg).
      And that about wraps up our sports coverage for this evening. Thanks!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:Breaking news: by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

      That, and this is what I find interesting. Kmart bought Sears for $11 billion. Sears has been around for a number of years. They are known for their kenmore (albeit rebranded) and craftsman product lines. They have real inventory, real stores, and real employees. Chrysler was recently sold for 7.4 billion. Well, 80% of it, but I'm talking ballpark figures here.

      Today, MS buys Aquantive. I've never heard of them before now. I would imagine this amounts to a database and some office space and maybe a website or something.

      I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

      To me, this seems overinflated. I guess that your ROI on "real" things like sears and chrysler dwarfs databases and websites.

      I guess this makes sense when you think that we are in the information/service age and we have left the industrial age, but this still seems a bit strange.

    15. Re:Breaking news: by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is flawed. How about this:
      Oh my god, you overpaid for a ten year supply of gas two years ago and now it's way more expensive. Guess you were right at the time.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    16. Re:Breaking news: by gutnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Google schools MS again"

      Yeah, Google is much more efficient than MS in detecting and buying evil companies.
      After seeing what MS has done in the past, I wonder why people are so happy to see another giant outwitting MS in its own game.

      Oh, I almost forgot, Google, unlike Microsoft will not use the evil tactics of DoubleClick and they fight underground for human rights in China.

    17. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sears has shown a "real" inability to grow earnings. Those real stores are only worth so much, given that the feeling is that anyone who wants to can open a store selling similar items and take customers away from Sears, since they've done nothing to maintain their brand.

      Chrysler has a "real" huge amount of pension debt (way more than the purchase price) which was assumed by the buyer. Not to mention some "real"ly low sales.

      Nobody cares what you have today -- the future is what's important. If certain trends continue, a deal like this could pay off. If they don't, well, then Microsoft will lose money. That's life.

    18. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH SLASHDOT, FUCK OFF.

    19. Re:Breaking news: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion. - Oh, CRAP! I need to buy his website. Quickly, what is the number for VISA, I need to check my credit, wonder if they'll be just as exciting about investing 3billion dollars?

    20. Re:Breaking news: by d0rp · · Score: 1

      In an attempt to foil Microsoft's plans for internet advertising domination, Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet. I know Kung Fu.
    21. Re:Breaking news: by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

      Actually he refused to sell for $750 million to Viacom in January of 2006 and again in September, this time to Yahoo, for $900 million (although negotiations are presumably ongoing with the offer still on the table since neither side has announced publicly that they are pulling out of the deal). I don't know what the book value of the Facebook is, but if I were in his shoes then I probably would have sold to Viacom for $750 million provided that the offer was all or mostly cash AND that I could walk away at any time with my money if I didn't like the way that Viacom was running the business or if they were interfering...same for Yahoo. You can always take the money, shore up your financial position, and then found another company or simply retire to private life. These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn and the market or technology changes and you are left with the burnt out shell of a dot.bomb company? Most people would probably have difficulty recovering from that type of a psychological blow...some probably never would. If you are ever in that enviable position then take the money and run if you don't like the way that things are going.

      Of course, I am not in that position and it could be argued that given the amount of risk he took on to build the company to the point where he *could* sell it that he is either one of those people that thrives on insane risks and has a pair to match, he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't, or he is just plain stupid (unlikely). I tend to favor the risk taker hypothesis myself, that is probably why he controls an almost billion dollar corporation and I do not. On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose.

    22. Re:Breaking news: by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The facebook owner doesn't read Slashdot Semel, quit trying your luck and fork up the extra hundred million.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    23. Re:Breaking news: by maxume · · Score: 1

      You got it exactly backwards. The ROI on 'real' things is a lot smaller than on databases and websites. Once you make a database or website, you can sell it to anyone who will buy it while incurring almost no costs; for every refrigerator that you sell, you have to build one refrigerator. Having a store means that you are paying taxes and utilities; having a website means you are paying some bandwidth and hosting charges.

      The price for this deal is still probably really high, but there is $3 or $5 billion a year in online advertising that they are chasing, so they could actually be making money on it in 5 or 6 years.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Breaking news: by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      aQuantive has an ad technology provider (Atlas) which is at least as large, and perhaps larger, than DoubleClick. It's hard to be sure, because there are no good metrics in this industry to measure by. In addition, aQuantive also owns one of the largest agencies on the Internet, Avenue A.

      Hate to break this to you, but aQuantive is much bigger than DoubleClick. Microsoft may have overpaid, but not nearly as much as everybody's claiming.

    25. Re:Breaking news: by lilfields · · Score: 1

      Actually as a percentage of price to growth, the deal was nearly in-line with Google's acquisition, no where near twice.

    26. Re:Breaking news: by lilfields · · Score: 1

      That, and this is what I find interesting. Kmart bought Sears for $11 billion. Sears has been around for a number of years. They are known for their kenmore (albeit rebranded) and craftsman product lines. They have real inventory, real stores, and real employees. Chrysler was recently sold for 7.4 billion.
      The Sears deal turned out to be a gold mine, because it formed Sears Holding company, and need I speak of Eddie Lampert's role in that? Chrysler was sold for a loss by the at one time Daimler-Benz because they have no idea how to control costs and debt. I think the general consensus is that information about what the consumer wants is more important than the actual item, because you can learn to sell anything to the consumer once you realize who to market to and how to market to them. If you take that stand point, over time the information will have a higher return on investment than the retailer, automotive company or what have you.
    27. Re:Breaking news: by lilfields · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "had" shown, because last I checked Sears Holdings profits rose 27% in the fourth quarter of 2007. I hardly call that a "real" inability.

    28. Re:Breaking news: by GTMoogle · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, the owner is happy where he is and has enough money to be comfortable, so he's just got no reason to sell other than to see what ridiculous numbers he can get them to say.

    29. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sears earns more money from the interest and late fees the company chargs its credit cardholders than it earns from selling merchandise.
      That is why Kmart bought them.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cred it/more/cement.html

    30. Re:Breaking news: by slashqwerty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't

      It may be that he knows the true value of his company. Perhaps he has already stashed away enough money for the rest of his life so he isn't worried about the company going broke. Perhaps he is expecting his company to continue to grow in value. Maybe he just doesn't like Viacom. Perhaps he loves his job and the respect it garners; and perhaps that's worth more to him than $750 million.

    31. Re:Breaking news: by GTMoogle · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm fails at the point where both of those outcomes are reasonably possible. They could very well clean up DoubleClick's act and mostly use them for their customer base, and as far as google's concerned, facilitating learning in China's their best bet at improving human rights. At least they do what they CAN, rather than make some stupid idyllic stand that ends up hurting everyone other than MS and Yahoo.

      Oh, damn, that's right, Google's a company, and US law requires them to be as greedy as possible with no foresight. *rolleyes* You do realize that the creators of Google still have full say of how Google does business? And that they have more money than they could ever use, so they can't really be bought off? Believe it or not, some people might value a better world higher than their Nth+1 billion. Really.

    32. Re:Breaking news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, MS buys Aquantive. I've never heard of them before now. I would imagine this amounts to a database and some office space and maybe a website or something.

      Ahhh, Yes Aquantive is a parent holding company whose properties include RazorFish and Atlas, both fairly recognized names within in the Advertising Industry.

      Aquantive also recently purchased a small Raleigh firm by the name of Accipiter who handles the ads for several well known sites on the internet with some more on the way.

      Never just assume because you haven't heard of something there's not more to the story.

      I'd say package-wise we bring more to the table than Double-Click does in the way of innovation and had made some serious inroads into the other companies market share. Was it worth 6 Billion? Who knows, but that's what they felt like paying. For me Google buying Double-Click also included the reputation for poor support and other nonsense so perhaps that devalued the price. I know that one piece of Double-Clicks technology is of potential concern so opinions may vary.

      Mind you, I am not looking forward to being a cog in the Microsoft Machine, but such is life.

      All I can say really without giving away more than needs to be. I also do not believe I have said anything you couldn't easily find out if you spent the time looking online.

      Oh and no the purchase includes a lot more than what you stated, but why bother understanding when you can just make some wild ass comment.

      A Future Microsoft Cog

    33. Re:Breaking news: by bkmiictian · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse all this assumes that the "kid" who is stubborn does intend to sell his "toy" eventually. Can't we for a moment think that maybe, he is in it for good, for the love of technology, that still he is naive enough to believe that the world can achieve world peace and freedom and democracy through sharing of ideas (ideals) among teenagers.

      Well, the moment has passed. I agree with you all, the kid is a fucking moron.

      --
      The pen is mightier than the sword. The keyboard is mightier than the pen.
    34. Re:Breaking news: by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      More than likely he is already comfortably rich. I mean does it really matter if you have 10 million or 750 million? To most people, no.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    35. Re:Breaking news: by ccp · · Score: 1

      These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn

      Shut up, you insensitive clod! (Jean-Louis Gassée)
  4. Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Rosyna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....

    In fact, all replies to this story should be immediately compared to the comments of Google's purchase. It'll be interesting to see the people that backed Microsoft's position that Google did something evil now commenting on this news.

    And people say there's no Microsoft-cult.. Pftt.

    1. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people say there's no Microsoft-cult

      Because in Microsoft's case it is a full-blown religion.

    2. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to start with "I'll probably get modded down for this..." before heroically defending Google against Microsoft...

    3. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree. This action by Microsoft is just proof that Microsoft screaming 'anti-trust' over the Google-DoubleClick deal was going nowhere.

      Good move for Google, they paid half the price for a better known entity.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Microsoft's already evil. Them doing more evil is not news.

      Nothing to see here, move along...

    5. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....
      Well to be fair in this case MS did have a point. DoubleClick gives a lot of insider track knowledge to Google and they do have the existing infrastructure to leverage it to squeeze out competitors should they choose. For this reason I did think that Google wanted DoubleClick more than MS and were prepared to pay over the odds to acquire it despite the talk of MS just trying to drive the price up. It's interesting now that having baulked at the DoubleClick price MS are now paying almost double for this acquisition. I don't know if Aquantive is a better fit for them or if they have just decided to get in the ad game at all costs.
      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    6. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by click2005 · · Score: 1

      It wouldnt surprise me if Aquantive has some patents that MS needs to stop Google.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    7. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get mad; get even!

    8. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've never heard of Aquantive until now.
      I've heard of Doubleclick and they're blocked in my router.

      I just wonder what patents that Aquantive has that aren't in use that could be used to compete with Doubleclick.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    9. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Microsoft wanted to use Aquantive's patents against Google the last thing that it would do is buy the company. Microsoft almost certainly infringes on some patents that Google owns, especially if you throw in Windows and the rest of Microsoft's software. The Holy Grail of patent litigation is to produce a patent that is being infringed by Windows as the potential payoff can be enormous. If Aquantive sues Google then the possible damages from a counter suit are much lower than the possible damages from a counter suit against Microsoft. If this was about patent litigation then Microsoft would announce a "partnership" (or maybe it wouldn't even do that) and Aquantive would sue Google.

      Microsoft is not going to sue any organization that has software patents over patent infringement as Microsoft almost certainly has more to lose than any other player.

    10. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Aquantive is a better fit for them or if they have just decided to get in the ad game at all costs.


      Maybe these guys use Windows for all their servers. Google probably use some variant of open source, as do Doubleclick. MS can't acknowledge that a decent business can operate using FOSS so they can't buy a company that does well using open source as their SoE - that would discredit the whole FUD about FOSS.
      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    11. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll say something here I didn't say about the Google deal: Why is Microsoft trying to turn the world to shit? What is wrong with them? Why do they suck? Why don't they just suddenly vanish into a black hole of crap?

      There, satisfied?

      No, well, how about if I say, "Hey, plucky little Microsoft is just trying to do right by its shareholders, here! Why is everybody always complaining about what a bunch of energy vampires they are? Usually, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone with a brain, but this one time they did real good!"

      Is that better?

    12. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My reply to the google deal was the purchase of the unsavory doubleclick made google a much less trustworthy operation. Google was always not absolutely trustworthy as one is never sure if the data they store is going to come back to haunt a user. BHut at least they are providing a service at only indirect costs, and users often have a choice of thier service or others service as their is no lockin. My actualy response was to go through my cookie permission file and deny permission for most of the google cookies to match the denial for all doubleclick cookies.

      Now MS, the company that will sue it's customers, charge for products and then claim the products are not genuine, and write software so that every possible browser request is routed through MS first, is buying this company that I have never heard of before. My trust and state of MS cookies remains unchanged.

      The wisdom of the purchase is indicated by MS falling stock price.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    13. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by bberens · · Score: 1

      MS can't acknowledge that a decent business can operate using FOSS so they can't buy a company that does well using open source as their SoE - that would discredit the whole FUD about FOSS.
      So what you're saying is that it costs twice as much because they have to pay for all those MS licenses? Figures...
      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    14. Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal by eMbry00s · · Score: 1

      When you're serving ads, I don't know if being well-known is a good thing.

  5. how innovative by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ahh, I see they've decided to innovate some more to compete with Google...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:how innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a countermove to Google's purchaes of Doubleclick.
      Or do you really believe Google's innovations are all internal?

    2. Re:how innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I believe he/she was just pointing out Microsoft's continued lack of real innovation. The best, it seems, that they can do is copy the competition. Oh...and threaten to sue over patents.

    3. Re:how innovative by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Yes, to compete with Google's Double Click innovation.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  6. And google got DoubleClick for "just" 3.1B by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just so you see that was a bargain for Google to acquire Doubleclick for that amount, and how much Microsoft was yearning for acquiring an advertising company, in order to better compete with Google on other fronts (instead of letting the real battle go to the "software as a service" front).

    1. Re:And google got DoubleClick for "just" 3.1B by mr_death · · Score: 1

      And Eric Schmidt dope slaps Ballmer. Again.

      You have to wonder how much longer The Chair Thrower is going to have a job ...

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
  7. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More MS crap on the internet.

  8. crazy by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    $1/per pair of eyeballs on the planet.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:crazy by eneville · · Score: 1

      that is a very interesting perspective to look at this with. i was just sitting and reading the thread trying to think of someway to suggest that ms will use this to try and find ways to sell vista.. but your reply is much better than anything i could have thought of as it's probably true.

    2. Re:crazy by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to this site, it's actually $0.89 and decreasing per eyeball. So I guess as the population of the Earth increases, the deal looks better and better?

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    3. Re:crazy by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heck. For $1 you could probably buy a pair of eye balls in certain parts of the world.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    4. Re:crazy by ntsucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually that $5.45 for every Internet user on the planet (1.1 billion).

      --
      Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
    5. Re:crazy by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, you could say it casts an interesting light on the real value of 1$...

    6. Re:crazy by maxume · · Score: 1

      I've seen online advertising estimated at $3 or $4 billion a year. $6 billion is crazy, but it isn't that crazy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:crazy by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Hell, I can get you a pair of eye balls by 3 o'clock this afternoon. With nail polish.

  9. Lemmings.... by TechNit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well I wonder if Google sold it all and jumped off a cliff if M$ would blindly do the same?? What is up with this rampant battle to out do each other?? If Google started making washing machines would M$ follow suit??

    --
    Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
    1. Re:Lemmings.... by rmallico · · Score: 1

      probably not.. but they would definately clear a wide path for Google to GET to the cliff... :)

      --
      sig goes here!
    2. Re:Lemmings.... by Timtheenchanted · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this is likely to produce a blue shirt of death I think

  10. amazing by radiomullet · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i wonder what they will do with the avenue a | razorfish media/tech company also included in aquantive's portfolio.

    1. Re:amazing by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      You could buy Avenue A for a song and get change.

  11. Now I understand what they were doing with your $ by zukinux · · Score: 1

    Now I understand what they were doing with your $... that's why they take 150$ for office and windows.

  12. What are Aquantive's domains? by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What domains do Acquantive ads come from? I need to update certain tables. Thanks.

    1. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorta suprised you would need to block an advertising firm just because MS bought them. Would think most ad firms would already be blocked as a matter of course

    2. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by moore.dustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now if Acquantive is bad now that MS owns it and DoubleClick is good because Google owns it, you need to seriously reexamine your thinking here.

    3. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Good said anything about DoubleClick being good? Or are you one of the shills trolling here?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:What are Aquantive's domains? by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Adblock Plus and Adblock Filterset G. The only blockers you'll ever need*.

      * Products will not run in Microsoft browsers. Use FireFox - you know, the browser that doesn't suck and rape your system every time you visit a web page.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  13. a bid to unseat flash? by pohl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This strikes me as an expensive (but possibly effective) way to ensure that silverlight-based adverts get shoved in our faces.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    1. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, this might even be a good thing. If it looks like silverlight is just being used for annoying ads maybe people will avoid it at first and it'll never take hold!

      In related news, has Miguel de Icaza tried to buy a bankrupt ad agency for $6 yet?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    2. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by Ariastis · · Score: 1

      Or up our a**es...

    3. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      How many idiots out there are going to install SilverLight when they see... "please install this Microsoft SilverLight plugin to your browser to view all 16 ads on this page?"

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    4. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by owlnation · · Score: 1

      This strikes me as an expensive (but possibly effective) way to ensure that silverlight-based adverts get shoved in our faces.
      I pray every day to the highest Gods of the Internet that the most holy and blessed developers of Flashblock will also bestow unto us a Silverlight block, as soon as its impure code oozes onto the interwebs. (much as I actually do appreciate Flash getting much sorely needed competition).

      Flashblock developers - friends of the Internet.
    5. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      No. The way they'll do that is to create some "nifty" site (bait) which requires Silverlight, to convince the herd to download it...

      No, wait. They own it, they own Windows Update; it'll get pushed out when it's ready.

      *Then* some pinhead will start making "IE optimized" sites again.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by sootman · · Score: 1

      You probably won't have to worry about that. (Unless maybe you use IE and MS builds it in.) The reason we have Flash ads is because there is tons and tons of good (yes, really) Flash content out there, so everyone has the plugin. If no developers use Silverlight to make neat content, no one will bother to get the plugin, and with no installed base, no advertiser will release ads in that format. Advertisers are lots of things but they aren't totally dumb--they'd rather go back to text or GIFs than use a format which no one can see.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interesting, but off base.

      Speaking as someone who knows - and hence why I'm anonymous now - MSN has no intention of showing Silverlight content for at least one year. The Ads team is similar, for fairly obvious reasons - whatever MS's desire to push Silverlight, advertisers pay based on how many users will see their ads/click their ads. If Silverlight adoption is low, MS takes a revenue hit.

    8. Re: a bid to unseat flash? by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1
      Simply blocking Flash isn't enough, the ones you allow still store Flash cookies (.SOL files) on your system which can be used to track your browsing.

      Sure you can visit the Settings Manager page but that's no good if you want to set a machine (or domain) wide policy. For that I use the following in a batch file in the All Users Startup folder:

      RD "C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player" /S /Q

      You can also stick it in the netlogon share and run it as your users' login scripts.
  14. And TV? by khasim · · Score: 1

    Soon:
    MSNBC online running ads from Aquantive for Windows Vista.

    Eventually:
    MSNBC running ads from Aquantive for XBox720.

    1. Re:And TV? by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 1

      MSNBC - oh yeah... that was that channel that I immediately skip over when I flip channels. Not like there is ever anything worth watching on that channel.

      --
      My humor is probably your flamebait
    2. Re:And TV? by Tarlus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just edit your TV's hosts file.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    3. Re:And TV? by mickwd · · Score: 2, Funny

      localhost 127.0.0.1
      tedrogers 3.2.1.0
  15. You must be new here by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS has been copying or buying anyone else that is considered a leader in the marketplace since day one, if not before that. The only originality (if you can call it that) from MS has been their marketing strategy of forcing the world to buy their software when buying a pc. Had it not been for that kind of originality, MS would have been an also ran long ago... well, it could have happened that way. At this moment in time, Google and a few others have managed to carve out a spot in the marketplace before MS could buy them or run them out of business.

    1. Re:You must be new here by TechNit · · Score: 1

      NO you are very much correct! It's the absurdity of it all that keeps me laughing at their self imposed need to step into any and all aspects of whatever the flavor of the month is instead of focusing more on their core business. MSN and Live.com are both lame but they still keep throwing money at them... Actually I will admit that maps.live.com has proven useful but only in IE....sigh

      --
      Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
  16. In Other News . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a gesture to welcome the new acquisition, Aquantive received a shipment of new office furniture at their soon to be headquarters in the Microsoft complex. A welcome note from CEO Steve Ballmer was attached to the shipment. Current Aquantive employees were happy about the gesture but questioned why there appeared to be disportionately more chairs than employees. The estimates were a 5 to 1 ratio. In a separate shipment, bolts, bars, and steel plates were also delivered to the offices. An attached, unsigned note read: "You're going to need these for the chairs. Good luck and Godspeed."

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  17. indeed crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what do they intend to do with so many cheap eyeballs?

    1. Re:indeed crazy by Ep0xi · · Score: 0

      they have invented a quantum computer which actually works with the energy involved in moving the eye (REM)
      That technology is supposed to be the worst WMD ever, when properly combined with numbers like 666, or pentagons works as a massive weapon. Go and check the jewish KAbbalah for more info.

      --
      ?
  18. Microsoft Cult by Foofoobar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh there's a Microsoft-cult. It just consists of those stupid enough to invest in stock that has flatlined for the last 5 years and those silly enough to put all their development experience in one basket. You say anything about Microsoft that they don't like whether it's true or not and they instantly get panicky because you are either A) affecting their stock price or B) might actually be right and they would have to confront the fact that they are one trick ponies as developers (regardless of all the .NET hype).

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  19. Colour me confused.. by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    aQuantive has ~900 million in assets, and a current shareholder equity of ~600 million. Net revenue is the first quarter of this year was ~14 million.

    Microsoft is aquiring them for 6 billion? Sounds about as dumb-ass as Google with DoubleClick (what, 31x premium?).

    aQuantive stock is now 64.75 *up 27.88*. I missed it.

    As a Microsoft shareholder, I don't like this. What a waste of money! I mean, paying 3 billion would be high, but 6 billion?

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    1. Re:Colour me confused.. by mcguyver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doubleclick was bought at 15x premium of revenue! Not profit. That's just amazing. Aquantive is going for 13x revenue. I wonder if these deals are going to work out or have the same stink of AOL-Time Warner.

    2. Re:Colour me confused.. by paulbucalo · · Score: 1

      There's a great profile of CEO Brian McAndrews with details about the company on www.washingtonceo.com

    3. Re:Colour me confused.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, this purchase is probably fueled by Microsoft stock. So the premium may be a strong indication of how overvalued Microsoft (and Aquantive) thinks its stock is.

    4. Re:Colour me confused.. by Rolgar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're forgetting to use the synergistic multiplier to figure out the value added benefits of having turbo charged the money flux capacitor.

    5. Re:Colour me confused.. by Ravnen · · Score: 1

      I wonder if these deals are going to work out or have the same stink of AOL-Time Warner.
      Well, I don't think you can really compare them. These deals are for cash not shares, are tiny relative to the overall businesses operated by Google and Microsoft, and in both cases the acquiring firms are large and very profitable.

      The AOL takeover of Time Warner involved using ludicrously overpriced AOL shares to effectively buy Time Warner. The deal was only possible because of the .com bubble, and when the bubble burst, the major effect was that Time Warner shareholders had handed over most of the company to AOL shareholders, for very little in return. It's a completely different situation.

    6. Re:Colour me confused.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not just the money value.

      If they are worth 6 B$ they must be twice as evil as doubleclick.

      MS Evil won't be outdone!

    7. Re:Colour me confused.. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      but that only works if you have 1.21 jigga watts in the cap (and are driving at more than 87.99999 MPH)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    8. Re:Colour me confused.. by jagdish · · Score: 1

      The flux capacitor is in a state of discharge. If you reroute power thru the plasma conduits, we might be able to create a phased carrier wave of focussed tachyons, thereby disabling the comm links.

    9. Re:Colour me confused.. by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      As a Microsoft shareholder, I don't like this. What a waste of money! I mean, paying 3 billion would be high, but 6 billion?

            When I saw that aQuantive and its 2800 employees are located in Seattle, I knew why Gates paid the huge premium for the company.

        rd

  20. More... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    Why does the phrase "more money than brains" come to mind?...

  21. wRong nAme by wjsteele · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The capitalization of the company name should be "aQuantive" not "Aquantive."

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    1. Re:wRong nAme by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

      The capitalization of the company name should be "aQuantive" not "Aquantive."
      And good luck to everyone in MS forced to try and type this in Word with intellisense switched on.
  22. Only if you're still using IE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Annoying Silverlight ads are only really an issue if you're one of the poor folks still using IE. Those of us running Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc., won't be plagued by the crap which is known as Silverlight.

  23. Why bother buying companies by zixyer · · Score: 1

    when they are perfectly capable of doing their own marketing in-house?

  24. beginning of the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the dot-com bubble burst when firms were buying out firms for ridiculous prices (over a period between 2000-2001)?

  25. What hosts does this company use? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to block them all.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  26. yuck by AchiestDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now next thing you know they will be having those advert boxes just below the login box.
    and special offer notifications popping up during your screensaver
    not to mention linking with some telesails.
    so whenever you login and start to surf you will get a call

    dam will have to pattent that before m$ does , dam prior art in public domain above

    what was that deal they where on about for discounted versions for schools that the users
    would be compelled to watch advert streams before they could use it
    looks like that may be on the way to full price versions

    by the way , if using hotmail ,, messages from msn / microsoft cannot be put in junk

    wonder if this will be the same for all things owned my microsoft including junk adverts

    and no way to block it , then improve there add blocking for all other sites
    no wonder they wanted it bad they payed more than dubbel the share price for it

    1. Re:yuck by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      now next thing you know they will be having those advert boxes just below the login box. and special offer notifications popping up during your screensaver

      You're a complete dick. You do realize that MS/MSN has had an advertising arm for several years?

      Makes you wonder why they didn't do this in Vista, then.

      Oh I know why, because this would be fucking stupid, and everyone, including MS, knows that.

      Except for the FUDbots.

  27. TAKE THAT GOOGLE! by gyranthir · · Score: 1

    We will copy your every move, we want to be you!! Seriously though, if these were people, Microsoft would be arrested for stalking Google and trying to copy cat every move they make. They are wanting to buy yahoo, which now, looks exactly like google. Microsoft getting desperate.

  28. In other news... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    ..Microsoft announces that SSL-by-default is their web browser's solution to phishing.

    Privoxy changed the page's contents? Sorry, can't display it, or at least you get a popup every time ("A man in the middle has altered this page, potentially adding malicious code that I desperately want to execute with full admin rights. Do you want to abort the load?")

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  29. Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I think this is a sign of Microsoft Panicing.

    IMHO is that since Google bought Doubleclick(Yuk) they have been lookin at getting slice of the Online Advertising Market.
    However (Dons invertment managers hat) to pay a premium of 68% over yesterday's close for each shae is just plain crazy.
    Ok, I know that there are billions of dollars in cash sitting in the Bank of Microsoft but really...
    If I were a Microsoft shareholder (and thankfully, I'm not) I would be looking for some detailed explanations as to why the paid so much over the odds for this business. Its not as if they were in a bidding war (or were they?)

    68% is just too heavy a premium to pay.

    This has all the signs of panic.

    Balmer wants to buy up an Ad company before Google buys them all. but 68%, Really. this is really bad economics and seems like we have returned to the Dot.Com Bubble days.

    Google must be laughing their socks off.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    1. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're panicked, maybe not. It does seem to me that if one wanted to ensure that one get a shot at every possible deal (in a sense, a veto on everybody else's deals, since Microsoft has so much cash to buy with), one might wish to signal a willingness to pay VERY hefty premiums for the right companies.

    2. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Companies have a statutory duty to their shareholders to operate their business properly.
      This especially includes their M&A activity.
      Paying a premium of say 10% is usually as high as you can go before shareholders start asking awkward questions.
      A premium of 68% is way beyond that level.
      It is the sort of level that could get shareholders angry. If enough of them sufficiently angry they can force a company to hold an EGM.
      It does not matter who the company is. One worth Billios or one worth a few Millions. The same rules apply to any company with publicly traded shares.
      A public Company has to operate according to certain rules. Shareoholders are a huge but largely silent force in the way a company operates. I wish more shareholders stood up and asked the company they own those really awkward questions that can keep a company ethically sound. It is obvious (from their past record) that Microsoft's owners don't really care about how the company operates. In view of the share performance of Microsoft(public record) over the past 3-5 years I think they should do so and with a big degree of urgency.

      If I were an analyst (I'm not so don't take this as any form of informed or authorised advice whatsoever) I would not give Microsoft anything but a SELL rating. Naturally you might have other views and opinions. For every seller there has to be a buyer.
      I would also rate Novell as a Sell but that is another long and complicated saga that has been discussed to death here and in other forums.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    3. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by AchiestDragon · · Score: 1

      ok so they payed well over the odds for it
      so having 68% of the shares , they have control but they are not the only share holders
      and that now the current trading price of the shares is well up on what they where,
      that makes the remaining share holders a nice profit.
      there not going to object to what microsoft wants so mutch so that is going to make them sort of yes men or

      (so may not be panic as mutch as showing the shareholders that there eather with them or leave now )

      that gives those who do not want to continue to hold shares in that company a instant leaving profit
      so there not going to be that bothered about leaving if not happy with the buyout by M$

      so not realy a panic buy but more of a payout

      and altough microsoft has had its own advertising although third party on msn for a number of years
      but is this all going to change ?

      what will m$ do to try to block other advertising companies and leave the only option to use theres
      now this would seriously threaten google , yahoo and others if IE had the capabilaty to block those adverts
      wile still letting though the microsoft owned advertising companies

      another possible monopoly for M$ to try and have a go at ?

      and if they did that then the could screw google / yahoo and most other internet advertising, with one
      IE update or large patch for IE useres , leaving google and yahoo with only firefox and other browsers that
      would let them show theres .

      and the usa would probably rule that it is being a monopoly in that area also and then do nothing about it,
      then place legislation to ensure that it is protected and any attempt to gain a share of its market would be
      a terrorest act.

      if not then they do think about users a bit more than shareholders profit and how to rase it and are not
      hell bent on trying to destroy google or yahoo and whate ever company may try to get in that section of the market

      the thought that it is within m$ power to control what adverts 90% of computer users may see is too
      bad to think of , it may be bad enough having to view adverts anyway but its not the point

    4. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear,

      the 68% was the PREMIUM that Microsoft paid over the closing price of the share the previous day.

      For example.
        Closing price = $100.00
        Microsoft Price = $100.00 + $68.00 = $168.00

        Microsoft has bought all the shares paying (IMHO) way over the odds for them. This (again IMHO) something the shareholders should be very suspicious about.

      Ok?

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    5. Re:Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic) by Oswald · · Score: 1
      First you ignore, rather than argue against, the possibility that the strategy I suggest might get good results and therefore be in the shareholders' interest. Then you proclaim that mismanagement on this scale might trigger a revolt. Then you bemoan the fact that Microsoft's shareholders are apparently asleep at the wheel, so this will probably not cause a revolt. In fact, you observe with regret, shareholders in general are largely moribund (except, you said earlier, for asking awkward questions if management chooses to buy out another company for more than 110% of its pre-offer price). Then you attack a couple of straw men and leave.

      Sorry, I can't pick out a coherent thread here to agree or disagree with. Except for the part about selling Microsoft--I agree with that.

  30. Re: MS Washing machine by Clockworkalien · · Score: 1

    MS Laundryprotect sees that a user is attempting to load white laundry into the washer. Cancel or allow?
    Allow.
    MS Laundryprotect is detecting an attempt to infuse the water with a third party product (Cheer Laundry Detergent). Cancel or allow?
    Allow.
    MS Laundry protect is detecting an attempt to infuse the water with fabric softener. Cancel or allow?
    Allow.

    --
    I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
  31. Re:Goatse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderator smoking too much crack alert. This is a troll not Offtopic. You cannot spell Goatse without the Gates.

  32. Just try to stop this AD by Steven_M_Campbell · · Score: 1

    Gee, won't it be just grand when hooks are written into MS operating systems to accommodate this advertising source. The computer could actually go looking for the advert! Go ahead, try to block it... oh did your updates stop... unblock 'this'.... yes... it feels like good times coming.

  33. Dot Com Boom 2.0 by rlp · · Score: 3, Funny

    New exit strategy - sell to Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  34. Improves their image? by dccase · · Score: 1

    They make Windows look better by giving us something we can hate more?

  35. Godwin... by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

    In fact, all replies to this story should be immediately compared to the comments of Goog^H^H^H^H the Nazies.

  36. Real things are hard to make and profit from. by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See, here's the thing. Real Things are really hard to make. Research, development, testing, certification, more testing, marketing, shipping, storing, selling, and maybe even shipping one more time make for a lot of money invested to not a lot of return, considering all the effort that goes into them. Sure, you might say that Sears makes a lot of Real Things and has a lot of Real Assets and employs a lot of Real People, but at the end of the day, are its profits in line with the amount of money invested to do all this Real Stuff?

    For an investor, your ROI in Google is higher (now) than Sears because Google doesn't have as much Real Whatever to build and maintain. Sears does. Are the amounts of money pouring into these databases and websites inflated right now? Yeah, probably. But the returns are at least theoretically there. The same thing happened with railroads and electricity around the turn of the century, but these things are now so legacy and so embedded that they've become nothing but commodities.

    The web is essentially the boomtown of the 21st century, like all the other industries (manufacturing or service) that have passed into the sphere of commodity. After information has -- and it will, I think, someday -- become a commodity, we'll find something else to form another speculative bubble around with a high ROI. It's the way of things. Today is no different from yesterday. The numbers just look bigger now.

    --
    What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
  37. $6 bl. The only company is worth to buy is Google. by inews.110mb.com · · Score: 1

    $6 bl. The only company is worth to buy is Google. That is the only ad model that truly works. My essential news see on http://inews.110mb.com/

  38. I found two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:I found two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More (same registrar):

      aa-rf-search.com
      aa-rfsearch.com
      ar-search.com
      ar-search.net
      ar-search.org
      atdmt.com
      atlasSolutions.com
      atlasdmt.com
      avenuea-razorfish-search.com
      avenuea-razorFish.com
      avenuea.com
      avenuearazorfishsearch.com
      avenueasearch.com
      dna.co.uk
      drivepm.com
      i-frontier.com
      razorfishsearch.com
      rocheusa.com

  39. Digital marketing firm? by g0at · · Score: 1

    They sell fingers?

    -b

  40. Lemmings... by SuluSulu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So does this mean that if Google jumps off a cliff Microsoft would do it too?

  41. Is this wise? by slapout · · Score: 1

    Is this a good business decision on Microsoft's part? Or are they just trying to keep up with the Jones'?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  42. -1, Troll...? not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell?

    Braxton_Bragg, if I were you I'd check your freaks list and try to figure out which a$$ did it.

    This is just another example of some stooge gaming the system.

    And if you're new, don't worry about the negative karma. Your history says you'll have it back in a little while. If I had mod points, I'd probably hit both posts with an "+1, underrated"

    And modder, pull your head out of your arse before it gets embedded so far that Microshaft starts giving you calls for consultation on rectal-cranial inversions.

  43. independent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > the shrinking independent online advertising sector.

    And one of the reasons that its customers were using this agency was because it _was_ independent. I would expect the customers to shuffle off somewhere else now.

  44. Loose Lips by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    You have to wonder how much longer The Chair Thrower is going to have a job ...

    Shhh! Just let him keep buying little-known companies for $6B a pop. Heck, I've got one for him...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Loose Lips by mr_death · · Score: 1

      Heck, I've got one for him...

      Me, too. Although I'd charge him an extra $4B for his general obnoxiousness, sweaty dancing, and extreme blowhardedness.

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
  45. We just heard about them by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Sorta suprised you would need to block an advertising firm just because MS bought them. Would think most ad firms would already be blocked as a matter of course

    It's not that - nobody's every heard about these guys - that is until Microsoft ponied up <drevil>six billion dollars</drevil> for them.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  46. Nice by okinawa_hdr · · Score: 1

    Instead of paying for talent, they buy a and advertising company. Does this seem backwards?

  47. sounds familiar by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    Bill: "Boooohoooohooooo I told DoubleClick I liked her, but she saied she already has a boyfriend... Google... what does he have that I don't have?"
    Steve: "Good looks, money, more clicks, he isn't such an assh..."
    Bill: "BOOOOOOhUUUUhUUUUhuuuuuu"
    Steve: "uh... I mean NOTHING of course! He's just a One-Trick-Pony! and we will dominate the searchengine market soon anyways"
    Bill: "Bah, What's the Point??? That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft..."
    Steve: "Alright, Bill - I have a plan... you need to make her jealous! - you go and date another Ad Firm!... lets see... Oh look, there's Aquantive... she always liked you..."
    Bill: "But she's ugly and I don't like her"
    Steve: "That doesn't matter - you go out with her and take her to a restaurant, that's double as expensive as the one where Google went with DoubleClick"
    Bill: "yeah, that will really make DoubleClick mad! - HEY, AQUANTIVE! CAN I TALK TO YOU FOR A SECOND?"

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  48. Re:$6 bl. The only company is worth to buy is Goog by fondacio · · Score: 1

    That is the only ad model that truly works. And to prove that point, you attempt a model that most definitely will not work.
  49. Its called risk for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "...On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose."

    Unfortunately, playing it 'safe' isn't necessarily either... so you may as well go for it.

    I used to have a nice comfortable business, was conservative in its development, just to be safe, but still built it up over 8 years into a respectable concern, carefully planning my course with the idea of eventually translating it into a comfortable retirement sitting on a beach. A combination of events over a period of a little over a year however ended up in my not only closing the doors, but being severely in debt.

    Over the next 3-4 years though, as I worked off the debt and re-assembled my life, I discovered that comfortable wasn't comfortable anymore. Part of it was anger that I was starting all over, but largely it was just the realization that conservative really carried no more guarantee than going for it. And going for it brings out a lot of inspiration. I feel much more alive.

    I am now a couple of years away from retirement. A few years later than I had planned originally, but better off. I built a new business, and pushed it much harder. Not only is it more successful, but I've had a blast. And I'm looking forward to a much more interesting retirement. Instead of sitting on the beach I'm definitely going to be getting in the water.

  50. Not like buying detergent by Bullfish · · Score: 1

    Probably the reason MS was pissed at Google buying doubleclick was that they were negotiating with these guys at the time. Buying a company for millions, billions in this case, isn't like buying detergent. This deal was probably in the works for months, if not a year or more. Google buying doubleclick may have driven MS to the price they paid out of competitive necessity. MS has lots of cash, the seller knows it... profit! Google also moving first gave them a kick in the pants in the stock market, MS is likely to get less if a reaction. Whether planned or coincidence, the Google move pushed MS into the situation where they plopped down the sum. Lucky or smart of Google, unfortunate though nowhere near crippling for MS. It's just business. MS has larger cash reserves than some countries, they'll get by and continue to do well. Google is growing and I kick myself for not getting any stock.

  51. Re:I think it's pretty simple... by symbolic · · Score: 1

    Put rather succinctly...

    Microsoft to Google: "My pee pee is bigger than your pee pee."

  52. research $ by rajafarian · · Score: 1

    Ahh, I see they've decided to innovate some more to compete with Google...

    Do you suppose that the research they did to determine to buy this company is counted in the billions and billions of money that they put into "research" every year?

  53. MiniMSFT was NOT impressed either by toby · · Score: 1

    Quoth Who da'Punk:

    Holy crap.

    In my opinion, this is a huge demonstration of fear, desperation, and dim-dog market tail-light chasing greed on our part. Every acquisition represents our failure to use our 70,000+ employee base to solve a solution or create a new market. Rather than buying back stock or pushing out a dividend, shareholder money got mis-invested in a hugely overpriced acquisition. And you're a shareholder why?

    --
    you had me at #!
  54. ...and MSFTExtremeMakeover goes ballistic by toby · · Score: 1

    It's Official: Ballmer has lost it:

    Is aQuantive everyone else's leftover and a poor choice? No, it's an excellent company. ... However, it was also a great company last year, the year before that, the year before that, and the year before that - when incidentally it was trading at a fraction of the current market price and already on the radar of investment forums including MSFT's own Moneycentral (not to mention being right under MS's nose in Seattle). But just like in '00/'01, when Ballmer could and should have been using MSFT's [then] legendary cash pile to make a ton of smart accretive acquisitions for pennies on the dollar, he was too distracted. ... this expensive and rather desperate acquisition is proof positive that even Ballmer acknowledges it. So, once again, shareholders get to pick up the tab. ... As Warren Buffett says, "The best side to be on in a bidding war is the losing side". So why did MSFT management do the unthinkable and not only engage in, but win, a bidding war? Because they once again failed to proactively understand the market and competitive forces and thereby position the company advantageously and cost-effectively. ... Such is the collective brilliance that we paid $1B in bonuses for.
    --
    you had me at #!