Yahoo! Expands Open Web Platform Plans

Ian Lamont writes "Yahoo has announced it is further opening its Web platform to developers and moving closer to a Facebook-style social networking concept. Yahoo CTO Ari Balogh made the announcement at the Web 2.0 Expo, and said that while Yahoo already has open APIs for some services, it will expand the open API concept to other areas and make it more consistent for developers, while boosting the 'social' aspect of its services for its members. Analysts don't expect this to increase Microsoft's interest in Yahoo!. In fact, recent comments from Steve Ballmer suggest that Microsoft will give up entirely."

Comments

Re:Sounds familiar

[AKAImBatman]

Correct. This smacks of being an entirely reactive maneuver to counter Google's new App Engine feature.

Not to say that Yahoo! doesn't have a real platform to offer. They've been working hard to keep up with Google, and even manage to surpass them in some areas. (Though sadly, we're primarily talking about areas that Google doesn't compete.) It would be an interesting task to do a side-by-side comparison of the two platforms. Sadly, I don't think anyone will take Yahoo! seriously even if it is superior, just because they seem to be chasing Google's tail. Until they start making the big announcements before Google, they're going to always be in second place.

Re:And how does this help them against Google?

[naoursla]

Microsoft has already proposed a solution to help Yahoo! fix its business penetration.

Re:And how does this help them against Google?

[SashaMan]

Google gets this adoption b/c it has its fingers into every online ad outlet known to the Internet gods. Wrong - Google gets this adoption because it has the best search technology. I don't care how many ad outlets Google has - if it didn't have the best search technology no one would use it.

Re:And how does this help them against Google?

[naoursla]

Your both right. Adoption and technology improvement feed each other.

Balmer again

[splict]

What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary. Maybe some of this is out of context, but Ballmer just amazes me with the things he gets away with saying while still keeping his job.

Ballmer again repeated that acquiring Yahoo is essential for enabling Microsoft to succeed in the online advertising business, where both companies have been chasing Google.

Yet just the paragraph before that, the article states:

At a conference in Milan on Wednesday, CEO Steve Ballmer said Microsoft is "prepared to move forward without merging with Yahoo," according to a transcript provided by the company.

Ummm... Yeah... That's good for your stockholders (which incidentally through a gift I happen to be one of). I realize this is preparation in case they don't get Yahoo and of course they would move on without them. However, is it really smart to keep clamoring on about how essential they are for you to be competitive yet at the same time making it clear that you now have doubts if you can even do it?

Maybe I'm just being too hard on him or reading too much into it, but I did just finish rewatching "Pirates of Silicon Valley" last weekend and, well, it's just good fun. ;)

Re:Balmer again

[Enderandrew]

Balmer terrifies me.

I seriously wonder if he'd be the type of person to eat a baby if he thought it would give him a competetive edge. Perhaps he'd eat four babies just to be sure.

leading from behind

[owlnation]

So basically, this is yet another grasping at straws attempt to hold of the wolf at the door, by copying someone else's idea and further diluting their portfolio, and diversifying away from their core business.

When was the last time Yahoo innovated? In fact, have they ever?

And there folks is the reason why Yahoo is not long for this World. They've been very lucky to have lasted this long, they really should have gone under with the dotcom bubble.

Borrowed. Time.

Re:leading from behind

[owlnation]

Why not judge them on the quality of their products instead of who thought of it first?

I very much do. This being another reason why I'm certain they've been living on borrowed time. I agree that Google's dominance of the search market isn't a good thing for anyone, including Google. But Yahoo -- as also Google are now doing -- are resting on their laurels. Search hasn't advanced much for years. Yahoo could do that, but they don't. There's little revenue from IM, and their mail system is a broken spamfest hidden behind slow, heavy code and flash ads. You use gmail, I use gmail, we all use gmail, and we all know why.

This was also my point in my original post -- why diversify away from their core business? Especially when you are not the leader in your core business, and you are under threat. Yahoo has very, very bad management, and it has had for years. There's room for VAST improvements in search. Search in no way meets anyone's needs right now, but it looks like any improvement in search tech is going to come from the next Google/Yahoo -- a small enterprise run by a couple of smart guys with a server cluster held together with duct tape. This is because Yahoo (and also Google) aren't doing enough there.

Yahoo are dead men walking. This is actually a good thing, while Google tries to be not evil, Yahoo is evil. They shall be missed about as much as AOL.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Enderandrew]

Then again, many Yahoo sites are designed to work in all browsers, and you won't see much ActiveX or ASP.

That's part of why I thought it never made sense for Microsoft to buy them. Would Microsoft allow Microsoft owned web-services running on Apache, and coded in PHP? Would Microsoft demand that Yahoo re-write all their web services? Would they attempt to force the Yahoo user-base into Microsoft web services, and in turn just lose those users that they spent over $40 billion to acquire?

Re:Maybe we shouldn't have said anything

[Enderandrew]

Every internet company that does business in China abides by China's laws. Google was the only one to publicly struggle with the concept, and fight it for a while. So that makes them the bad guys.

Yahoo is the company that VOLUNTEERED data to hand over journalists who wrote about democracy.

Social Networking Bubble

[PocketPick]

Call me a fool, but am I the only one who is wondering why we need *MORE* Social Networking? What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content? Informative opinions from knowledgeable sources?

We're somehow losing sight of this, in favor of "social networking", which really just amounts to cheap content creation that generates large advertising dollars.

The internet is quickly becoming just one big complaint line - And who will deny that when everyone shouts, no one listens.

Re:Sounds familiar

[IsaacSchlueter]

Um... a reactive maneuver to *counter* Google?

statement of intent
yahoo joins open social
yahoo joins open social

This whole "open initiative" business shouldn't be news to anyone with any clue as to what's going on.

Granted, I've got a bit more clue to what's going on with this, since I'm a tech lead on this project at Yahoo. That intent agreement isn't just corporate BS. We (that is, actual programmers, not just CxO's) are talking with them on a regular basis. This is very much a cooperative initiative.

"Open" isn't just a new buzzword. Yeah, they've got their stuff and we've got ours, and we compete fiercely in a few areas. But they're both big companies, and it's a big internet, and there's a lot that Y! and Google can do together that benefits both parties.

People just like soap operas, and when there isn't a real soap opera, they manufacture one.

Full disclosure: in case you missed it above, I work at Yahoo, on our open social project, which is a big part of what this announcement was about.