-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/02/01/microsoft-to-buy-yahoo-ray-ozzie-roars/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
1 day ago · 22 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
1 week ago · 181 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
1 day ago · 7 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
I would love to see Google have some real competition.
Robert Scoble works at PodTech.net (title: Vice President of Media Development). Everything here, though, is his personal opinion and is not read or approved before it is posted. No warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions or anything else offered here.
or
are you still working for Podtech?
not a total fit? they aren't a fit at all! MS cares about businesses, Y! cares about users.
the tech is COMPLETELY different. integration won't happen, shutdowns will.
These are all very valuable resources in my opinion. However, they are just the tools, the bare essentials. I feel the next big thing will come in the form of video and helping others learn and catch up to this type of technology.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/02/01/microsoft...
dj
Then again, I know nothing about running a business. These are just my instincts.
If Microsoft tried to port Yahoo!'s products to an all-Microsoft environment it would have to do it over the empty desks of the Yahoo! product teams. There's no way most of them would stick around for that kind of pain in such a hot developer job market.
My 2c here.
Oh, good. Just what the world needs, a meaner Microsoft.
Rather than do this, they should get out of the web portal biz, make an online version of Office and make a deal with Google to host it on Google (Google gets rid of the horrible Google Docs/Spreadsheets garbage), and both companies make money on the advertising.
Ok, it should be about the synergy, and maybe there's some advertisement dollars waiting. But this also means that the war chest needs to be filled (you know just plain old cash) which is flowing to Yahoo stockholders if the deal goes through. Second there's this magic figure of 40 know and 80 in 2010. (i'm talking about the illusive figure they're using about advertisement revenue). As most people know advertising is one of those industries that tends to be hit hard when there's economic downturn.....
Then there's this company that's targeted at enterprises and there's yahoo which is primarily in the users business. You run a big risk of alienating one or both sides....
Technically this could become a horror story. If MS decides to migrate yahoo's infrastructure, they will face two problems, the first is that probably a lot of yahoo engineers will run away... and the second is that this might not be so easy as they would guess it is... Just look at what happened to hotmail when they started migrating that... it still doesn't work decently in any other browser than IE.
There's a lot of duplicates between msn and yahoo. Guess what will happen when tough decisions need to be made if you want to achieve the said synergy....
Such a large undertaking like this one tends do draw energy from a company and in most cases leads to inertia, in most cases for at least a year... In normal business this isn't such a problem in the internet age, this is ages. You can't stand still for a year.
If the advertising would be such a big deal, why not get together and tell them that you're going to help them and do some Business Process Outsourcing, they're happy and you're happy and you'll have a lot more cash at hand??
Actually this would be a perfect poison pill for yahoo if they would go for such a deal with Google ;)
For Microsoft to convert the Yahoo infrastructure to Windows would be the height of foolishness.
Micorsoft is very guilty of the NIH (not invented here) syndrome.
Yahoo relies very heavily on FreeBSD, and for good reason. It's the most realiable, scalable UNIX-like OS out there. And free. Granted, Yahoo has probably added alot of proprietary goodies to it, which they can under the BSD license.
If the deal goes through, then I can see in about a year or so alot of people losing their jobs. This could be uncool for the people that are considered redundant.
What's the core of Google's earnings? Search eyeballs, eyeballs that convert better than any other type of online advertising and which are in short supply. Google's got them. Yahoo has a fair chunk to. Microsoft hasn't been able to grow them organically.
aQuantive needs inventory? They're buying Yahoo for that? Seriously. C'mon. Open up contextual ads, take 2 billion of the 45 billion you're giving to Yahoo, and you could simply rent a fair chunk of the web to knock out AdSense.
There's a lot going on in this deal, but it boils down to Microsoft having been seriously chasing Google now for five years (it's been five years) and unable to catch or gain on it in search. So go get the number two.
Ray roars? Cashing chips in and buying out the #2, losing triple the value due to duplication and sloppy merger-digestion? That's been Microsoft from the get-go.
This deal is a Apple cultite and Linux weenie dream come true.
But what's the future for either of them? MSFT makes all its money from software that is moving to the web, and Yahoo has lots of users that aren't sufficiently monetized. I actually like the combination, especially since one thing MSFT can do well is run a company. Yahoo can't. It's as if it uys things and then misplaces them. Like Flickr and Upcoming.
Just saw you on NewsNight -stop being so nervous/hyper :p
Anyway, Microsoft is doing it's typical MO -it will keep on trying and trying, then buy.
Microsoft are stupid for doing this now, as Google will be able to use it to let the Double-Click deal to go through.
I also don't think it's a definite deal, yang's just re-asserted himself, unless some firm commitments are promised, I don't think they'll go for it -and MS will kill yahoo if its not an agreed (with senior management) deal.
After having a 90%+ desk-top market, all the trials, m+a, killing competitors, anti-trust enquiries et al, the power to kill things like Realnames, and a decade later, microsoft only has about 10% -they completely wasted what they had.
Yours kindly,
Shakir Razak
P.s.
Can you please contact me re: fastcompany.tv
I can't find the link, but there's this vision (as others share) that Robbie Bach who runs x-box has where content from x-box would be available on Windows Mobile will be available on Windows IPTV in a "multi-symantic mixed-world web", and with the userbase of yahoo, which are far more 'normal' non-tech consumers, they will be better able to ferment that audience, and upscale office-live before google, etc have the time to gain traction.
How many users did yahoo/hotmail lose to gmail once they started offering similar storage/features!
Yahoo would also be able to act as a porous element of MS's services, compared to their natural instinct to have a closed world. -but whoever said it would be better to spend the money to acquire current adsense-clients (lower margin, up-fronts) is probably right.
Yours kindly,
Shakir Razak
What credentials exactly are there in CC's ever-sceptical potshots that would lend any form of credibility?
I doubt Robert's bank account is sorry he left Microsoft... :)
Not sure if it will help either company but let them try and we can watch to see what happens. Then again there are too many exciting and new companies and products coming out to even focus much attention on those two companies...
The statement about positioning against Google Docs? Laughable. Nobody uses it. It barely registers. I rather doubt MS is all that worried about Google Docs. If they had to it would be easy to take Office on line.
Well, I'd have to stand way back in line, as everyone is sour on this deal, I hardly stand out. But glad you like the flowerly-theaterish wording. I just hope more of Hollywood/Burbank does, beyond the go-nowhere options. :)
Microsoft itself has serious issues over the perception of its' brand - the company is seen as being as hip as Bill Gates himself these days.
So, essentially what we have is like the marriage of an octogenarian fuddy-duddy to a schizophrenic. I can only see it it ending in tears.
As segmented traffic becomes more coveted this looks attractive in the long run for gates and co. In the short run there is lots of room for error merging cultures that are drastically different.
Unlikely. Yahoo already favors IE 7. The Yahoo portal, especially Yahoo Mail barely works with Opera, my favorite browser.
This is not Opera's fault. It's Yahoo's. Opera is the most standards compliant browser available. Sites still code for their preferred browsers.
Now that Netscape Navigator is dead, there is one less browser to worry about. Really, the only browsers they need to code for are Opera, Firefox, Mozilla Seamonkey, IE 6/7, and Safari. Maxthon uses IE's rendering engine.
Microsoft would be nuts to mess with Flickr and other successful Yahoo properties. They would lose all the users and ad revenue they are so worried about. What I think is so funny is that the same people that are alarmed at MS messing with Flickr are the same ones using XP and Vista already. What gives? If they feel so passiionately about not being affiliated with MS, then they should go buy a Mac or use Linux.
I've not had any trouble whatsoever with Vista Premium. In fact, I'd stay it's the most stable OS I've used to date. I've had more crashes under OS X and Linux.
If I owned Microsoft, I would buy Yahoo in a New York minute.
So, what’s next; who will eventually buy-out eBay? Is this where this is leading to?
Join me in my logo contest for Yahoo’s new logo: http://webdesignbysteve.com/blog/?p=58
Kind regards,
Shakir Razak
http://www.texttechnologies.com/2008/02/03/micr... gives 19 major areas of synergy, and it would be higher if I hadn't been sick.
In other news, did you block me on Twitter just because I had the temerity to disagree with you?
CAM
Brilliant!
I mean, come on people, a monopoly is bad. You should be supporting this move.
Anyone who thinks Google can hold on forever is deluding themselves. All good things come to an end. The ad thing cannot go on forever. It just cannot. Sooner or later they are going to have to diversify and find other ways to make money.
There is going to be a new, better player before long. There always is.
Take a look at history...
Altavista was the deal back in the 90s, then Yahoo, then Google. Someone else will step up to the plate before too long. I think that someone else has a much better chance if Microsoft buys Yahoo. If there are three or more major players, it makes it more difficult. With only one of two, it's much easier to get a small audience, offer great products and services and grow it.
I'm hoping the deal happens, but MS had better not tamper with the good things like Flickr. Even simply rebranding these services could have a major impact in usage.
Kind of the point I was making. The difference is that if you allow people to have a virtual monopoly without offering any competitive alternative then the market will stagnate.
It's true that in the 90's and early 00's that there was much jockeying for position but then I'm not sure that the same market conditions apply now. It would be difficult to see a start up muscling in on Google's territory these days for example.
You're right. Market conditions are very different now. Back them, anyone with a good idea was buried in cash by the VCs and angels. Good luck with that now. You almost have to be already profitable before anyone will look at you. The days of free money are over.
Google will be difficult to muscle in one, but not impossible. Methinks that people are already clamoring for change, but no one has, or can, step up to the plate. Yet. I'm not sure why. Maybe money, maybe they don't know how to present an idea, maybe they are in fear of failing. Who knows. I'm ready for change myself. The net is beginning to stagnate already.
No one is really offering anything that radical or different. We have email, RSS, IM, stuff like Qik, Twitter, Flickr. So what if they are all tied together. So what if you can upload videos by phone or know where everyone is at all times. This is still not radical, it's just incremental progression.
When they invent the holodeck, I'll be impressed.
When they invent avatars that I can interact with, I'll be impressed. Avatars that derive their power from say, cell towers, much like PoE devices or wirelessly powered devices. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing these things now. I think too many people are focusing only on new/different ways to communicate rather than coming up with new paradigms. Email is boring. Twitter is boring. Web-enabled phones that do everything are boring. Give me an avatar that I can take with me, one that I can dictate messages to, one that can maintain my calendar and remind me of appointments, etc. We have the ability to do this stuff, we are just draining money into making old tech better. No fun...
Maybe Tim was scobleized by this thread. ;-)
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080203-1...
@Robert - you're right about the 300 million email users. But how would Microsoft and Yahoo create incremental revenue from the user base? Hotmail (along with other MSN properties) was Microsoft's strategy (outlined at Searchification) for increasing share of search. So far, no dice.
I posted on Feb 1 that paid search was driving the hostile bid. So far, no one's made a cogent argument for another deal driver.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080201-0...
@ Danny: Not sure I understand why you'd want Microsoft to spend $2 billion to "simply rent a fair chunk of the web." How would that knock out AdSense?
And what kind of ROI would you expect from the $2B investment?