Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Falafulu Fisi — Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:34 -0000

Kermit said...
The most idiotic statement I’ve seen from you, Scoble, and that’s saying a lot. Good grief, when you worked at Microsoft, did you actually have a clue as to what was going on there?

Kermit is correct here. It is obvious that you don't read computing peer review publications, which you might have missed of what different teams from Microsoft Research are doing. For example, look at the Web & Mining Group's research selected publications here.

“Web Search & Mining Group”
http://research.microsoft.c...

It is obvious that Microsoft Research are ahead of Google in terms of knowledge about universal search engine. Universal search is basically extending text search to multimedia data search, which involve computer vision & digital signal processing and these are area that Google are novice in, but Microsoft had done work on those areas in the past. All it needs from Microsoft is to combine those disparate search systems into one, then they have a universal search engine .Also read about this:

"Text-Search Tricks Speak Volumes in Image Search"
http://research.microsoft.c...

I believe that the media have also hyped any story from Google, because they think that any word coming out from Google must be true.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

anon — Mon, 21 May 2007 02:41:44 -0000

As far as I'm concerned, anything that drives Satansoft ah Microsoft out of business is my knight in shining armor.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Mon, 21 May 2007 01:16:21 -0000

I think there's something more fundamental to all of this internet search biz than meets the eye. Advertising revenue is nothing compared to the information gathered by statistically analyzing the searches of millions and millions of consumers. Every time you search for something, you're telling Google about some desire or curiosity you have in a product, cultural artifact, etc. They can analyze this type of data and understand a great deal about emerging markets. Basically, when people search, they tell these big companies what they are about to go out and buy. I bet the major revenue comes through not by advertising but by using search data to make extremely well-informed investment decisions. Google/Microsoft/Yahoo know exactly when and what to invest money in to, and markets range from real estate to global currency to common stocks. Knowledge is power. The YouTube purchase wasn't about sending more people to Google search, it was about tacking on smart analysis software in to the back-end of YouTube, learning more about human behavior on-the-fly.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Matt Lambert — Sun, 20 May 2007 18:21:02 -0000

What a load of vitriolic comments you're getting.

Gee whiz - I would imagine you feel like packing it all in and starting again under an assumed name.

Perhaps, just for a laugh, you should put some really opinionated stuff on here. Thanks for the laughs. Matt

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

James — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:51:57 -0000

Comments 2, 3 & 4 are from the worst kind of MS Weenies imaginable. I can only imagine they have stock.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Chris Aubeck — Sun, 20 May 2007 06:55:05 -0000

"This is a blog entry for blog entries sake. It has no real value or worth and doesn’t contribute to anything."

Very much the same as your comment, then?

How can anyone sit before the internet and have to ask others what a word means?

http://www.google.com/searc...

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Sun, 20 May 2007 04:15:06 -0000

Neal, get out from under your rock, or your CB radio, or whatever antiquated aparatus it is that you use to amuse yourself. You remind me of my grandmother.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Henry Falkner — Sun, 20 May 2007 00:36:49 -0000

This type of blabbering is what I regard as self-abuse in public.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Nona Yabizness — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:56:34 -0000

Oh, and don't forget Google's calculator service... That's a non-sponsored service so I presume it support David Russell's point on building brand loyalty.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Nona Yabizness — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:54:45 -0000

Personally, I like the new word "monetize" but would prefer it to be spelt in English as monetise. It doesn't seem to look right when written in American.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

David Russell — Sat, 19 May 2007 12:20:17 -0000

That's what Google does with ALL of its 'extra' services - YouTube, Gmail, Google Apps. None of these actually make any money, they are all aimed at increasing loyalty to the Google 'brand' and increasing/maintaining Google's market share in its main search business.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Chris — Sat, 19 May 2007 11:44:11 -0000

Well, I do like Google's purchase of Youtube, I don't think that they will make any money from it.As a casual user of Yourtube, I like some of the user created content, but the current format of Youtube's video stream is pretty low quality. I don't think that Google's attempt to fully index Youtube's content will reveal anything other than the vast majority of it's user's content is nothing more than Copyright theft. I think that most of the Copyrighted content on Youtube is not fair use, it's just people to lazy to record a show, or to cheap to buy something they want to watch. We It comes to improving the long term prospects of the web, I'll take Microsoft's, or Apple's money making model over the other models.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Keith Ballard — Sat, 19 May 2007 07:30:56 -0000

You mean "monetize" is a real word? I thought I was reasonably literate, but I've never heard of it. If people want to communicate with the world via the Internet, then surely it would be sensible for them to use English that most people will understand? This is especially true when you consider that the vast majority of web articles are written in English, but a large number of the readers do NOT have English as their first language. They should not be excluded from debate and participation by the use of jargon, slang and awful Americanisations.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Moonloon — Fri, 18 May 2007 17:32:57 -0000

I'm not as clever as half the commentators on here, but isn't this whole Google/You Tube thing a bit like describing a wank as a "hot session, with someone who's really into me, and will do ANYTHING I want" with the guys next day at work?

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Crimsonleech — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:07:24 -0000

monetize |ˌmʌnɪtʌɪz| verb [ trans. ] convert into or express in the form of currency. • [usu. as adj. ] ( monetized) adapt (a society) to the use of money : a fully monetized society. DERIVATIVES monetization |-ˌzeɪʃ(ə)n| noun ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French monétiser, from Latin moneta ‘money.’

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Nick Halstead — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:10:21 -0000

I am in two minds about the merging of search 'streams' into one super search. My first thought was that I do not want irrelevant videos/images/etc interwoven with the results that I want. Why? because I am sceptical of the search engine being able to second guess what I want from a particular set of keywords. The second thing I thought was, if it works then it will save me time from having to swap between various streams thus saving me time + money.

But I cannot question that it is a stroke of genius (and forsite) and anyone saying 'it was obvious' are the same who say 'I could have thought of that'.

My own real concern is that Google is not showing signs of improving relevancy calculation, because of 'over linking' search results are becoming twisted, and although Google continue make the 'good fight' I await to see what the next generation of technology is that improves the results themselves. But for the minute Google are still way out in the lead, so who can catch up?

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Chris — Fri, 18 May 2007 11:58:12 -0000

"But, to interest Wall Street you have to show you have something new and exciting that could explode onto the market every few years."

This is true - and since Wall Street has been worried that Google is a one-trick pony, slightly improving search/ad by integrating another big site into their results may not be the new and exciting source of revenue that Wall Street might have imagined possible when YouTube was acquired.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Nikolai — Fri, 18 May 2007 10:34:56 -0000

I am getting that Foggy feeling myself.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

David — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:45:42 -0000

This is a blog entry for blog entries sake. It has no real value or worth and doesn't contribute to anything.

What is 'monetize'?

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Marc — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:42:40 -0000

The inevitable backlash against Google wont be long, and with Firefox usage on the rise I think that will mean more people blocking out adverts, which does render Google's whole revenue platform slightly useless.
As for MS always needing to make money, tell that the the guys who were on the XBox1 team!

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

chen2 — Fri, 18 May 2007 07:38:05 -0000

Google's search engine offers a much greater market than MSN and Yahoo, with or without youtube.

Its wins on simplicity.

When you search for something, 99% of the ppl do not need other rubbish infos like news, weather, games, music etc. They just need clear and smart results. Even if they wanted to be entertained, many knows of websites specializing in those services.

That is why no matter how much more features Yahoo and MSN add, or how their results matches those of Google,s they still can't beat the giant

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

MacDaddy — Fri, 18 May 2007 07:24:30 -0000

All this is pretty superfluous really, I mean, the internet is still only the internet at the end of the day. I'm sure most people have other uses for their computers than searching Google, Microsoft or whoever, I know I do. Besides, I think it's high time that Microsoft et al stop trying to assume ownership of the internet, it's rediculous. I also agree with Neal, who really cares if YouTube is returned in Google search results, I do hope Google give us the option to turn that 'feature' off.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Soyapi — Fri, 18 May 2007 06:49:00 -0000

"Regarding everyone knowing that YouTube would be integrated into search. Hmmm, you must be reading different reports than I am (and I read a lot of blogs and journalists’ reports, so that’s saying a lot)"

@Scoble, you might have missed Wired's Interview with Google's CEO.

Here's an excerpt that talks about search monetization with YouTube:

Wired: You thought there was a good chance of litigation when you bought YouTube. The deal set aside $200 million to cover the cost of lawsuits. Why did you make the acquisition if you anticipated so much hassle?

Schmidt: Because we think it’s fantastic. I mean, we really do think that the YouTube phenomenon is sustainable for many, many years. And the argument is simple: People are using videoclips everywhere. They’re sharing them. They’re building communities around them. YouTube’s traffic continues to grow rapidly. Video is something that we think is going to be embedded everywhere. And it makes sense, from Google’s perspective, to be the operator of the largest site that contains all that video.
Obviously, we would like to include licensed, copyrighted content -- legally -- and then make money on it. But YouTube itself can pay off -- and this is where the critics get it wrong -- in simple searches. Because, remember, when you go to YouTube, you do a search. When you go to Google, you do a search. As we integrate those searches, which we’re working on, it will drive a lot of traffic to both places. So the trick, overall, is generating more searches, more uses of Google.

Wired: Which generates more pageviews, which generates more ad revenue.

Schmidt: You got it.

Wired: Does that mean we will soon see video ads on YouTube?

Schmidt: Absolutely. ......

Read the rest at http://www.wired.com/techbi...

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

Paco — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:21:22 -0000

MS is doomed and they know it. They are now just another company that develops software. That's it. No more, no less. There is nothing special about MS anymore.

The future is open for freedom and open source and it's about time. We need to follow the EU and be become very unfriendly towards software patents.

Re: Google to Yahoo and Microsoft: the $1.65 billion was worth it

thenewg — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:08:34 -0000

I agree with the comment about putting Microsoft in a box. How things change over time.

Reminds me of the old joke (which I’ll mess up here I’m sure): “Granddad died peacefully in his sleep. The passengers in his car died screaming their heads off as he drove them off the cliff.”

Vision is still one of the best assets with innovation I guess.