Microsoft Should Acquire SAP, Not Yahoo

Reservoir Hill writes "Randall Stross has an insightful article in the NY Times that says that if Microsoft thinks this is the right time to try a major acquisition on a scale it has never tried before, it should pursue not Yahoo but SAP, another major player in business software, thus merging Microsoft's strength with that of another. This is more likely to produce a happy outcome than yoking two ailing businesses, Yahoo's and Microsoft's own online offerings, and hoping for a miracle. Stross points to Oracle as a company whose acquisition strategy has picked up key products and customers while avoiding venturing too far from its core business, or overpaying. Stross recommends that Microsoft acquire SAP and leave it alone as an autonomous division — which would avoid a culture-clash integration fiasco. Besides, large enterprise customers are arguably the best customers a software company can have. A few dozen well-paying Fortune 500 customers may actually be more valuable than tens of millions of Web e-mail 'customers' who pay nothing for the service and whose attention is not highly valued by online advertisers."

Comments

Re:No, whinney is right on the point and so is MS

[kdart]

Microsoft has never been customer focused. They only respond to, never lead, market trends.

Windows for Workgroups is a response to the Macintosh (another copy) of the Macintosh's built-in networking (appleshare). It was very easy to throw together a "workgroup" of Macs back then using cheap phone (cat 3) wiring. That was a niche MS was losing to, and they responded by copying it, as they always do.

Visual Basic grew out of BASIC, MS's very first actual product. Bill Gate's loves BASIC, and they stuck with it. But computer languages evolved and became better, but as usual MS hindered the adoption of better things.

Windows 3 is the biggest kludge in history. They only reason they could sell it is because "the masses" lack the technical knowledge to understand that, and MS exploits that naivete to the fullest. They also have their non-competive OEM deals. It's an unprotected, highly unstable system. Do customers really want that? I sure didn't, but there wasn't much choice...

Windows 95 was just more "evolution" of DOS/Windows, just enough to get more upgrade fees. It was also the only system that could do gaming at the time, since it really didn't have any operating system protections. That appealed to the mass market better. But it's hardly an enterprise OS. Why would anyone want that mess in their business? I sure didn't, but there wasn't much choice...