Slashdot Mirror
Google And Microsoft Cross Swords Over Yahoo!
watzinaneihm writes "In a blog post Google has called Yahoo/Microsoft merger bad for the future of the internet. It is worried about the number of email and IM accounts this merged entity would control. Microsoft has countered with the argument that Google is actually the big bully in this instance, with most of the search market already tied up. The New York Times, in the meantime, has accused Google of a Microsoft fixation."
...I'm actually going to have to side with Microsoft on this one. On rather, I'm going to side with no one. The idea that this would make Microsoft a bigger "monopoly" is unfounded because neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has anywhere close to the highest marketshare of online searches or advertising. If we're so concerned about monopolies, competition in the field can only be a good thing. And at the rate it was going, unless something like this happened, no one would ever be able to stop Google.
The Computations of AdamR
http://www.adamreyher.com
Microsoft has countered with the argument that Google is actually the big bully in this instance
I wasn't aware that Google had finished their chair-launcher. I guess they have.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I love how Microsoft's take on the merger is that it will create more competition. Why is it that any time a big company swallows a smaller one, we're told that having fewer players in the field will increase competition? Do people actually buy that line of bull? Someone get these guys a dictionary.
...normally marry, don't they?
While it's obvious that MS has a certain fixation with Google - the new kids on the block - I'm also sure that it flows the other way too. Microsoft have developed core markets that Google is moving into, which I would wager is what got them rattled initially. However, with MS potentially buying Yahoo, the table does turn slightly and it becomes a case of MS parking their tanks on Google's lawn.
And there isn't anyone else out there big enough to do that to be honest... although whether it's a good move in the current economic climate remains to be seen.
MSFT countered the Google announcement that, "What Google is doing is throwing some FUD. Trying to scare people using monopoly, proprietary and other such terms. MSFT considers this tactic illegal, since we have innovated, invented and patented the FUD technique. We consider all forms of FUD dissemination to be an exclusive intellectual property right of MSFT and nobody else has any legitimate claim to it. We will add this to the tally to 293 patent violations against MSFT by Linux and its accomplice Google."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plays out. MS and Google are going to be knocking heads over this, it's Goliath vs Goliath and I reckon it's going to be a juicy bit of spectator sport. OTOH one side might just lose interest then it'll be boring - but we'll see...
When GOOG starts crying about competition, for whatever reason, you know that Web 2.0 is facing some serious issues. They should actually *want* the competition because they know that competition keeps them pushing hard to innovate.
Look, GOOG owns both search and online advertising right now. Not, not 100% "owns" but the marketshare for both is well over 50%.
Oh, and take a look at GOOG's share price:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GOOG&t=5y
They've been sliding down since about middle of November. What real innovations have we seen from GOOG recently? They are heading into wireless, phones, power grids, and so on. But what's really come of this? Where are they headed with search and advertising, their bread and butter?
How to Download YouTube Videos
So Google voice a legitimate worry about Microsoft, a company convicted of abusing its monopoly status in one market to dominate other markets, buying a company that would give them a large portion of a market and they are the bad guys in this? Lets be honest what Google is saying is the first thing that came to the minds of everyone in IT who are not on the Microsoft payroll. We all know how Microsoft works and we can all hazard a guess at what their aims are in attempting to purchase Yahoo. It is doubtful the good of the internet and consumers are particularly high on their list of priorities.
Would Yahoo enjoy the same Microsoft decisions that so guided Hotmail down the wonderful route of internal server migration?
Will they join the other service and take their place in the collective?
If you sell to MS, you know where your product is going in this space. If you are not badged MS then you are pretty much doomed to obscurity.
That's why they're exiting their Internet businesses. But seriously, you'd think Google would be encouraging the merger. They can concentrate on eliminating one flailing competitor instead of two.
I, for one, welcome our new Yahoogle-powered Anti-Microsoft overlords.
stuff |
Google has a Microsoft fixation? Ok, I'm not willing to argue that, but I think the fixation railroad runs both ways. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is more than a little pre-occupied with Google.
I don't see Google buying a company that makes operating systems and applications.
Playground scenario: Big kid says to smaller big kid "stop pickling on me you big bully".
Is cowardice a necessity when one is running a corporation? It seems bullying and cowardice are in fashion these days and kindness and bravery are out.
-mcgrew
PS- sorry guys, I'm in a bad mood today
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
IMO, I predict Microsoft's power in the U.S. is about to grow by leaps and bounds.
This company, IMO, is so deeply connected in our system it will be impossible to make any serious strides for another O.S. (penis whipped Mac aside) on the desktop unless they sold out already (Linspire, Xandros, etc.)
IMO Microsoft will eventually take over everything, not just computing, they will expand, expand, expand.
I bet Gates will hold some government job soon.
Microsoft would prefer a controlled^Wsecured Microsoft(r) Inter-Network, let's call it MSN for short
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
When it's Godzilla vs Godzilla, Tokyo gets trashed either way.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Google learned with Microsoft. Google doesn't need to bid for Yahoo, or even buy Yahoo shares to break the deal. Just use FUD! As long as Google creates enough fear, uncertainty, doubt about the merger of Yahoo and Microsoft, it can stop the deal. Microsoft has done this for years now, with impressive results (after all, they have a monopoly on the OS/Office area).
Microsoft is going to take a little of its own medicine now...
I guess this means Christmas cards are out of the question this year.
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
in a few years Google is buying Microsoft anyway.
.sig: No such file or directory
Microsoft is the guys here with the massive OEM deals to push their products onto the market, and using the economy gained from that to make "impossible" deals when they're thirsty of making a deal.
What has Google made? The main things would be... A search engine that beats the pants off Microsoft, designed while they were still a startup company? It hasn't really evolved much since that (actually that's a bit to my dismay). Oh, and their ads. Thanks to their (mostly) text-based ads, they found a niche and sucessfully expanded upon it as (surprise, surprise!) people found those ads more likeable than the banner shit spewn forth by competing advertising programs.
Anyway, trying to take a neutral stance on this, I think the thing here is that regardless if Microsoft and Yahoo merges, or Google and Yahoo does it, it will form a company with a very powerful web platform. So maybe neither should be allowed to? But if one should be, I think both should. Microsoft's abuse of their position is another matter than the power in the market this merge would form IMHO, and they should be caught for that stuff when that happens.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"What real innovations have we seen from GOOG recently?"
- What real innovations have we seen from Microsoft recently?
- How many free tools does Microsoft release without requiring you run Windows or Mac?
- Where's Microsoft's Summer of Code?
- Where has Microsoft delivered on bringing Windows and Linux together? You know, interoperability? Ballmer and the "They said it couldn't be done" Novell thing? How many DirectX games can you play on Linux without Wine or some other program NOT developed by Microsoft? Where has Microsoft done anything to seriously open closed formats to Linux users? And for anyone who says, "They're a company, it's their job to make money" or the same "people have to eat!" bullshit can blow me.
Seriously, people, do you think this company will ever change? How far up your ass does their dick have to be until you realize they're fucking you?
Go hug your Microsoft Halo toy while drinking your proprietary Silverlight jizm and playing on your Microsoft patent agreement Xandros, Linspire, or whatever distro this week has rolled over and decided to bite the patent pillow.
"The New York Times, in the meantime, has accused Google of a Microsoft fixation."
Just this quote from Ballmer alone would put most companies on defcon 5. I wouldnt call it a fixation as much as a normal healthy reflex when someone attacks you.
"I'm going to f--ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f--ing kill Google,"
HTTP/1.1 400
See? See? The bad guy (Microsoft) kidnaps the princess (Yahoo!) and The valiant knight (Google) comes to the rescue! And there was much epic battling. Then the princess stabbed both in the back. The end.
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
If it goes ahead it will be hugely disruptive of Microsoft as various in-house factions battle to increase their own influence and grab as much of the meat off the Yahoo bones as they can.
Both Google and Microsoft,if REALLY worried about who get to control what for what reasons need to follow this simple formulae.
Both parties contribute half the money for buyout.
Both parties agree that I will run the business favoring only my own interests.
Both parties agree I will keep 90% of all profits.
Both parties agree to do the same in future business squabbles.
Ol' uncle flyneye will keep the kids from fighting and set a good moral example for both.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
would it be fair then?
People can switch search-engines every day, but groups not so. How many groups or mailing lists do you belong to? How many of those are yahoo groups. I would be very surprised if anyone belonged to half a dozen groups or more without at least one being yahoo.
Moving a group is difficult, and it need the owner to want to. If you are a member you could set up a rival, but the chances are you would end up talking to yourself. Now suppose those groups switched to Silverlight (for a richer user experience) and required IE7 running on windows to access. This would be a big downer for any competitive desktops.
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
if anyone in the computing industry doesn't have a Microsoft fixation, you should probably stay away from them. You never know what MS will do next and given their market share that isn't exactly something you want to be oblivious to.
" Google And Microsoft Cross Swords Over Yahoo!"
Did anyone else picture an asthmatic Ballmer dressed in black telling a scruffy Schmidt "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine...lets see how well you HANDLE it!"
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
What I don't understand about acquisitions is this...
Say Microsoft buys Yahoo for $45 billion. That money goes in to Yahoo's reserves. Deal is over, and now Microsoft now owns Yahoo.
But since Microsoft now owns Yahoo, doesn't Microsoft now own that $45 billion it just gave to Yahoo?
Am I missing something?
Big, successful companies buy smaller, less successful companies with strengths in areas that they lack. It's just the nature of the market.
Google essentially left Google Video to sleep with the innovation fishes and just threw a bunch of cash at YouTube instead, and obviously Microsoft has done this a million times before. Hell, Yahoo itself has bought smaller companies in areas where it wasn't doing well.
So is this Microsoft's fault for providing the best product, or their competitor's faults for providing lesser products? Nobody is forcing people to use Microsoft's services, just most of us probably use them because they don't suck. Or are the lesser of whatever evils the available alternatives offer.
It seems that things are rumbling pretty fierce over at Yahoo! now. It definitely seems like they're ready to sell at least parts of their organization off. It was announced that Yahoo! is selling off their Yahoo! Music Unlimited service to Rhapsody: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-02-04-yahoo-music-rhapsody_N.htm/
What this means is really in the eye of the beholder. Could Yahoo! want to ensure that Microsoft doesn't get a firm foot in the downloadable/streaming music business? Do they want to see Rhapsody succeed? Maybe this is just part of the company that MS isn't interested in, so they're trying to sell it off seperately? Or, most likely, they're trying to sell off a sinking ship...which, IMO, is really sad. Sure, the service was limited to Windows and the software sucked horribly, but it was a tremendous product for the price. I listen to it ever day and I'm saddened that I'll have to pay twice as much for Rhapsody now...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
But, aren't we all fixated on Microsoft? They've been the dominant force in the IT industry for the last two decades and any company ignores them at their peril, so why shouldn't Google and everyone else here be wary of their every move, especially when it's so big? You know they're up to no good. Also, Google does not have a track record that's anywhere near as controversial as Microsoft's.
Well, they were convicted because of actions which can be described as pretty, pretty closed to that.
Google's entire annual revenue fits into Microsoft's profit margin alone. Google is small compared to Microsoft. A little hard to be the 'big bully'. And unlike Microsoft's more diversified revenue stream, Google pretty much relies on one comparatively fragile market, online advertising, a market Microsoft wasn't even interested in until long after Google dmeonstrated it could be so lucrative.
If MS wants to beat Google at online marketing, they should offer better deals to affiliate sites and advertisers.
The parent has alot of good ideas about whats going on in the big Google/Microsoft/Yahoo rumble. Makes sense to me.
(posted something similar earlier, but I'll repeat it anyway)
- Yahoo has more frequent visitors than any MS website
- Yahoo has more online properties of value (games.yahoo.com, flickr, groups, launch, many more)
- Yahoo has a waay larger employee headcount compared to MS's online business division
- Yahoo's branding strategy and customer loyalty is waay higher.
- The Yahoo! brand doesn't have an image problem (people like Yahoo or are more or less neutral about it)
On the other hand..- MS has a huge branding problem with it's online properties
- A lot of people aren't even aware of most of these properties
- Hotmail and MSN.com are probably MS's only sites that get as many clicks as any of Yahoo's sites -- but they can't be monetized.
So why would MS pay 44B for yahoo only to turn it into MSN?Google is right to object -- and to block by helping Yahoo -- because Microsoft is an intensively abusive monopoly by culture and history and conviction. They're the neighborhood predator, and everyone living there knows it.
Google has become successful by being very good at what it does and does it without abusing its power. Microsoft, well, if the Gentle Reader can't recite a litany of even the most recent abuses, it's useless for me to list them. Go, Google.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Is this for me? If so, I won't bite :)
I agree with you. People only believe they are "forced" into MS use because they buy OEM systems that come with it pre-installed. There is plenty of choice when you do the work yourself; or ask a technically inclined friend.
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
Google is a big player, but only in search. MS is a monster everywhere. In addition, Google has NEVER screwed over a partner or misused their size. OTH, MS does nothing but.
Overall, MS has shown that they are masters at what they do; market and spread FUD.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just something that I have not seen noted anywhere yet, but google's dominance of the search market is earned and is also fragile. I remember using yahoo and thinking it was great, then I moved over to AltaVista, then onto google, my loyalty only exists as long as I do not find a better way of getting the answers I want.
Google is my preferred search engine and has been almost exclusively for quite some time now, but I am not tied to them in the same way I am with email and instant messaging. The potential merger between Yahoo and MicroSoft is not something I think would be good for anyone, will it improve searches? nope, MicroSoft spent a huge sum relaunching their search product, and I did try it but I still found google faster and returned the better information. As for advertising revenue, googles advertising model means they make the most money because most people use their service. Should they fail to be the best search engine, they will see drops in revenue to match. So I am not concerned by their advertising side.
I like Yahoo and use several of their services, I fear (which is unfounded except from MicroSoft's reputation and track record) that should they get control of Yahoo it will be a bad day for the internet. I fear it would not take very long before the feeling of being able to trust Yahoo is tarnished (whether fair or not) by Microsoft's reputation and actions.
Sadly with the premium that has been placed on Yahoo it may turn into a hostile take over by Microsoft as if they really want it who is really going to turn down the cash?
My hope is that Yahoo's board say no and Microsoft back off not wanting to add to their negative press and image. This could be good for Yahoo as it may show that Yahoo still has a high value suggesting time could be given to management to make the changes necessary to the business and have time for a return to be seen.
As for competition, 3 big companies trying to do the best search or 2, which gives the best environment for innovation?
Just my 7 pence
I find it very hard to believe that Eric Schmidt's comments on the Microsoft/Yahoo deal are all about what's best for the Internet. Give me a break. This seems to be the first time that I sense any vulnerability from Google. They've had a very long honeymoon. Perhaps it's over? GOOG is down another $12 today and more than $200/share since mid-December. That'll put a crimp in Schmidt's airplane buying plans. Well...probalby not...but it will put a crimp in Google's ability to buy innovation.
Google are diversifying faster, wider and with more innovation than yahoo. What new services/products/programs has yahoo introduced in the last 2 years? Anything that has the wow factor of, say, Google Earth, maps, Android?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"No fixation, no envy -- just business as usual." We know what Steve Ballmer thinks of Google: Ballmer Throws A Chair At "F*ing Google".
....
Quotes:
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay... Among other things, Mr. Ballmer told me that "Google's not a real company. It's a house of cards."
Maybe not fixation, maybe not envy, but SOME kind of mental illness.
Remember, what is a self-evident truth to you is not to everyone. The anti-Microsoft sentiment is almost exclusive to the geek crowd, which is a teeny tiny minority, and it's hardly universal among even us.
Per this Bloomberg update http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anDGP.twSjqw&refer=home Microsoft will have to borrow money to pay for this.
Also from the article:
The software maker could do more than borrow to expedite the takeover. Microsoft may seek to oust Yahoo's directors should they reject the bid and offer its own slate of nominees, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified.
Talk about hostile takeover.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
MS woke up late to the internet. Once they woke up, their attempts at gaining a foothold were more or less unsuccessful.
Indeed. However this move is possibly their most bone-headed reaction yet. I have no doubt it's straight from the brain of Steve I'm going to fucking kill Google Ballmer. Acquiring Yahoo is another attempt to tame the internet and tie it to Windows services, and it will fail as dismally as the last few attempts, because the internet (and Yahoo) is the antithesis of Microsoft.
Users on the web don't like being 'monetized' unless there's something in it for them, and they'll resist attempts by MS to change that balance of power. Those attempts by MS to exploit users are inevitable because it's just not in Ballmer's (or Microsoft's) DNA to let users get something for nothing.
For Microsoft as a company, swallowing Yahoo whole is going to create many more problems than it solves. It will drive the good engineers to Google (very few of Yahoo's people could thrive under the entirely different MS culture), it'll give Microsoft lots of new properties which directly compete with their own offerings, it'll make all the MS Live employees very nervous and trigger more internal turf wars, and finally, it will land MS with servicing lots of disgruntled users on services like Flickr who will desert in droves at the first attempt to corral them into an MS only internet (as MS is prone to do - see ActiveX, IE, Silverlight, etc). Their business model (lock in the users and milk them for profits) isn't under threat, it's past its sell by date; you can't continually abuse your users forever and expect them never to walk away, particularly not if you're trying to operate as a web services company, and I have my doubts that Ballmer et al will ever learn this lesson. They've done too well in the past by applying it to abandon it now.
Still, if you don't work at Yahoo, and you're not keen on Microsoft dominating yet another market, this foolish move is heartening news. Google must be celebrating the beginning of the end of the dark ages of the internet. This will tie up MS for years.
Yes, Google blocking Microsoft is a selfish scheme, but I would look the other way in this case because Yahoo big proponent of open source. If Microsoft takes over Yahoo then say good bye to a lot of open source funding (directly or indirectly) by their work on open sourced projects.
Is this a possible outcome?
Despite occasional ad hominem suggestions to that effect in forums (usually just to discredit anyone with a preference at all), I haven't seen any evidence that OS issues have become "religious" AT ALL, could you back that up with some evidence? There are sure a lot of ignorance-based preferences, but not knowing better is completely different to a religious approach.
I won't try to defend their China policy. There aren't a lot of things they CAN do, but that doesn't mean they have to do business there. If you want to compare the two, though, find me a company that does business in China and DOESN'T do those things. Hint: Microsoft does business in China and they also run a search engine.
However, in another way, Google is FAR less evil than Microsoft. Microsoft dominates markets and then controls them for its own benefit. They always expand by acquiring someone's product and then use it to drive out as much of the competition as possible.
Google, on the other hand, opens things up for customer benefit, like they're doing with Android in the cell phone market. They're working as an anti-Microsoft to compete by opening markets where customers are unhappy and being used.
In other words, I have plenty of reason to prefer Google to Microsoft. Sure, someday they may well lose their leadership and turn evil. It's a very real possibility. But I won't hate them for their success until they use it for evil.
What was that Nietzsche quote Slashdot had at the bottom of every page last week?
"Cynicism is the only way base souls can approach truth."
The reasons this merger will benefit Google:
--Nowadays it is 'hip' for a startup to be bought by Yahoo. In fact it's a very succesfull exit for a startup. Google and Yahoo compete for the new startups that are coming to the Internet (like flickr in its time, etc.)
--It's very anti-'hip' to be bought by Microsoft. Most companies would prefer to go to Google than 'sell-out' by going Microsoft.
In the end, this means cheaper startups for Google. And the watering down of the Yahoo! trademark.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
It's Ooh!Mycoirsofat.
Wouldn't Yahoogle violate anti-trust laws?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
MS will leverage his monopolistic position to get a leg on the search market.
Siding with them is siding against your best interests.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Share sliding since November.
While there is a global turmoil in the financial markets.
Shock horror.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.