Slashdot Mirror


Gates Explains Microsoft's Need for Yahoo

eldavojohn writes "Perhaps it's obvious to you and perhaps you'll be pleasantly surprised by his answer but Gates revealed to CNet why Microsoft needs Yahoo. From his response, "We have a strategy for competing in the search space that Google dominates today, that we'll pursue that we had before we made the Yahoo offer, and that we can pursue without that. It involves breakthrough engineering. We think that the combination with Yahoo would accelerate things in a very exciting way, because they do have great engineers, they have done a lot of great work. So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid. So, it's really about the people there that want to join in and create a better search, better portal for a very broad set of customers. That's the vision that's behind saying, hey, wouldn't this be a great combination.""

31 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Why not save $40 billion then? by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, if its the great engineers that they want, why not just allocate $40 million or so to hiring them away from Yahoo? Getting access to Yahoo technology isn't really as big of a deal if they are talking about making something new. And great engineers are good at coming up with ideas anyways. If Microsoft couldn't think of doing things a cheaper way, then I doubt they are going to be able to drop the fat enough to fight Google. They are just throwing money at the problem when there are other ways. They could make a think tank like Xerox PARC with all the engineers they could hire for a fraction of the cost. And it would be a safer investment because what's to stop those engineers from just quiting after the buyout? $40 billion could be better spent.

    Microsoft has forgotten that it doesn't take much money to get things done. A guy in a garage Bill, a guy in a garage.

    1. Re:Why not save $40 billion then? by rve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right. If I were a MS shareholder, I'd demand that they focus on making money selling the software people use to get to their Google services, not spending 40 billion trying to turn a very successful software company into a probably doomed internet content / advertisement company, directly competing with Google.

    2. Re:Why not save $40 billion then? by vtscott · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how many yahoo engineers have non-compete clauses in their contracts. If microsoft started cherry picking a bunch of yahoo engineers it seems very likely that yahoo would take legal action against those engineers. As far as the rest of your comment goes... It's an interesting idea, but microsoft seems to be less concerned about money and more about time. It takes time to develop those great ideas and get a bunch of customers on board. Yahoo already has the product developed and customers using it. This would allow microsoft to catch up now as opposed to 10 years down the road.

    3. Re:Why not save $40 billion then? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they want the yahoo groups, mail, etc. Once they make them "silverlight only" they will have effectively locked people into a microsoft web. How many people will change groups because one member says that he cannot access it with Firefox?

  2. Brute force and ignorance by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft is pursuing the buyout path because they can. They have a metric shitload of money, so throwing money around is their customary solution to every problem that comes their way.

    1. Re:Brute force and ignorance by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Funny

      a metric shitload Is that the SI shitload? Is it bigger or smaller than the imperial shitload? Can you combine the two shitloads when, for example, landing spacecraft?
      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    2. Re:Brute force and ignorance by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      actually MSFT can't afford to buy yahoo at the current price. they will have to take out some loans, or they will wipe out all of their cash on hand.

      MSFT has less than $20 billion in cash available. With a dropping stock price MSFT will have to borrow money to buy yahoo.

      On top of that MSFT has a history of screwing up acquisitions, and ruining whatever potentional they might of had. Remember yahoo is freeBSD based, MSFT will first attempt to replace all the servers with windows ones. Buy the time a new search engine is ready no one will remember yahoo brand.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Brute force and ignorance by zehaeva · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope its SI, its a lot easier talking about kiloshitloads and centeshitloads as opposed to trying to covert imperial shitloads to shittons and shitgallons.

    4. Re:Brute force and ignorance by haystor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cool thing about buying something like Yahoo is you can finance against the assets of the acquisition. Typically you might issue stock of your own company reflecting your value of theirs, only risking dilution of your own stock (looking at you Time Warner). Or some combo of that and cash.

      What he's not saying is MS wanted to buy market Yahoo has. Critical mass is the most important thing in the search space. You don't spend $46B for strategic hires.

      --
      t
    5. Re:Brute force and ignorance by naoursla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Selling ads is what matters in the search business.
      Selling niche ads is what made Google money.
      To sell niche ads you have to have lots and lots of niches.
      To have lots and lots of niches you have to have lots and lots of customers and you have to know what niche those customers are in.
      To have lots and lots of customers you need quality results.
      Luckily in search, your customers tell you what niche they are in with their search queries.
      Also, if you someone manage to get lots and lots of customers you can use their search behavior to improve your results.
      The search engine with the largest number of customers improves their search engine the fastest.
      They also happen to make the most money.

    6. Re:Brute force and ignorance by zehaeva · · Score: 4, Funny

      you mean like how infinity + infinity = infinity? so then a shitload would be the finite version of infinity? I think I just gave myself a headache ...

    7. Re:Brute force and ignorance by Teilo · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was no real quality of search results when that fight took place. It was a different era, with little more than keyword lookups. I totally disagree. When Google first appeared on the scene, they had two things that nobody else did. The first was speed. It was jaw-droppingly fast. Nobody was that fast. Not Yahoo. Not Altavista.

      Second, was a design decision: That search results would contain every word you typed. No more of this +term nonsense. This made things very simple for users who don't care to learn a search-term language.

      The result: happy users.

      After that, they hit hard on designing good algorithms, and hired the mathematical talent to do it. Nobody else treated search with so much science. This made users even more happy. Google had the most relevant results.

      So - Google won because, from the common end user's perspective, they had a superior product. Period. That plays right into the GP's argument. Superior product = more customers = more ad revenue = the first .com services company to be seriously in the black.
      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    8. Re:Brute force and ignorance by naoursla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But Google was first to the search market with effective statistical natural language processing techniques.

  3. Translation: by brennanw · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Look, we innovate. We innovate the hell out of stuff. Just yesterday I innovated a donut by taking one off some old guy when I pushed him down a flight of stairs. And Yahoo!, well, we're innovating them right now, and we're going to keep innovating them until they stop moving. Then we'll use their bloated corpse to innovate any Google employee that gets in our way."

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  4. Translation by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Without Yahoo, we are years behind, and likely to stay that way"

    Am I right or am I right?

  5. Gates Explain's Microsoft's Need for Yahoo by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    from the Cmdr-Taco-needs-a-grammar-checker dept.

  6. And here I thought... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here I thought it was because Yahoo's pages are as fugly and user-hostile as Microsoft's. Shows how dumb I am.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  7. Where have I heard this before by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid.

    This is the school of thought that thinks if you get nine women pregnant you will have a baby in one month.

  8. what about marketshare? by utnapistim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid. So, it's really about the people there that want to join in and create a better search, better portal for a very broad set of customers.
    While I'm sure the people and the innovation speed and all that sound nice, if he'd have said "We want yahoo for the marketshare" it would have been more credible.
    --
    Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    1. Re:what about marketshare? by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, they don't just want the marketshare. They want to synergize the paradigm!

      And combined accelerate double the speed rapid faster.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  9. To Bill Gates by uss · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Bill Gates,

    First, Take a look at http://www.eep.com/merchant/newsite/samples/ee/ee0801.htm, for "Why Most Mergers Fail".

    Next, take a look at press releases involving mergers in financial and industrial companies.
    Note, how there is highest emphasis on cost savings, and very little mention of ideals and NEW business strategy after the merger.

    Lastly, the kind of "merger" you are suggesting is typically done as a buyout of a small company by a much larger company.

    See! This is what happens if you drop out of Business School.

    For just a 0.1% Fee based on the deal value, I can help provide further advice.

    Good Luck!

  10. Re:Breakthrough Engineering? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft's approach to breakthrough engineering is through acquisitions? Is it just me or do I sense an oxymoron here... Yes. Just like "innovated" PowerPoint and they "innovated" MS-DOS, etc. Bill Gates thinks "innovate" == "acquire through any means necessary".
  11. Boil it down by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    better portal for a very broad set of customers

    You can boil his entire quote down to the above 7 words. Microsoft likes nothing more than to get their name/software/web properties in front of everyone's face. Adding Yahoo and all Yahoo's users to their portfolio is what they want. Imagine if all of a sudden everyone with a @yahoo.com email address automatically had a Passport account... all of a sudden Yahoo messenger is 100% compatible with MSN messenger.

    --
    We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
  12. Problem is... by JamesP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take great engineers, put them in a crappy company and they'll not be that bright.

    Most of the problems (of people sucking) are inside the companies: philosophy work environment, colleagues, etc.

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  13. Re:But you're so wrong! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Marketers in the computer industry, no matter where they work, have a picture of Bill Gates on their wall, candles lined underneath, and genuflect to it every time they enter or leave that room. Doesn't everybody have one those? *amazed*
  14. No Zimbra??? by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just an hour ago, I spoke to a Zimbra partner, and he informs me that in case MS does get to buy Yahoo, Zimbra would be out of it, to allay antitrust fears. That would mean Zimbra will have to be sold back by Yahoo and bought over by some other company. Is this true? Or is the popularity of Zimbra the reason why Microsoft would buy Yahoo to kill it off?

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  15. Translation by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have a strategy for competing in the search space that Google dominates today,

    "Ballmer has his panties in a bunch. He said we're going to fucking kill Google, and he gets a little attached sometimes, you know? So now we've got to figure a way to f'ing kill Google."

    that we'll pursue that we had before we made the Yahoo offer,

    "In case you think we're upset about Yahoo's rejection, we're not. Ballmer's still stuck on the '<expletive> kill Google' thing (do I have to keep saying it?) - he can't even see Yahoo past the bulging vein in his forehead."

    <from offstage> "Yes you have got to goddammed keep saying it!" <sound of chair crashing into wall>

    and that we can pursue without that.

    "OK, we admit he's a little obsessed. But don't think this will divert an painful amount of capital into an a space in which we have utterly failed for years. Because, ummm, we don't want you to think that."

    It involves breakthrough engineering.

    "All we need is some of that breakthrough engineering stuff. We hear that stuff is all the rage with the kids these days, and we figure if we can get some of it, we'll be all set to *** kill Google."

    We think that the combination with Yahoo would accelerate things in a very exciting way,

    "We looked around for startups to partner with, so we could copy their technology then dump them, but apparently everyone has heard the compendium of stories that start with Stac. We figure it'll be easier to buy Yahoo. (we figure it would be easier to host a snowman making competition in hell, incidentally) Just have to figure a way past that little, 'Yahoo flipping hates us' thing."

  16. Microsoft doesn't have enough debt by pacalis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft is way underleveraged for a mature company. With debt as cheap as it is, especially given MSFTs debt rating, they should go into debt whether they buy YHOO or pay out additional dividents.

  17. Re:Um, didn't Gates quit? by Kaetemi · · Score: 5, Funny

    yep, he's responsible for putting back the chairs

    --
    Kaetemi
  18. Why Microsoft REALLY wants Yahoo by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is not very well known, but I remember talking to an engineer at Yahoo, and I asked, "How do you make money?" He said, this was a couple years ago, that 60% of all e-commerce sites were hosted by yahoo. Think about that, credit cards, transactions, data, users, etc. M$ would live to control that.

    Think of all the anti-competitive stuff they could do. Subtle problems with non-windows platforms or non IE browsers. A requirement of Microsoft Wallet. (Remember that?)

    There are a ton of reasons why Yahoo owned by microsoft would be a bad thing for the world. I hope Yahoo remains independent.

  19. Re:"because they do have great engineers" by udippel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft needs more programmers

    DEVELOPERS!
    it is, for the uninformed AC