Comments on: Why Microsoft+Yahoo>Google

By: Shalako

Shalako — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:06:21 +0000

Redmond is stressed and really cannot see anyone being greater than it. It is definitely good for us.
Microsoft has definitely done the good for the world despite monopolizing the market and making real good $ out of it.
Google is the best thing that could happen to search engine so far. So now with Redmond desperate on its tail as a consumer we get 2 choices a better and upbeat delivery from google and a valiant effort to make it better from Redmond. Now this can only be possible for redmond if he buys off a company than sit and invest in infrastructure and people to develop it for him.

bothways as we all see it, it is a gain gain for every consumer. I hope google does not foil it by pushing a larger pie at yahoo now.. then the whole equation changes. Google will have fantatic meta search and added to that a directory capability. Redmond would turn real pink on that though.

By: John Simpson

John Simpson — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:10:11 +0000

I agree that the merger is a good idea, however, I don’t think search is the way that Microsoft is going to be able to beat Google. I think Microsoft’s money is what may beat Google down the road. If Microsoft can wear Google down and keep them in the game, competing hard to remain in first, Google will run out of money and Microsoft will win. Does that mean Google will go out of business? Who knows. I guess anything is possible, but that’s not likely.

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:47:23 +0000

NASDAQ itself serves as a upscale casino for the American bourgeois and the IT sugar-daddies

Ha – indeed it does. Seems to me that a market model should use casino-like behavior analysis rather than more rational stuff.

By: horatiox

horatiox — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:29:33 +0000

It’s a gamble, that’s fer sure. (of course NASDAQ itself serves as a upscale casino for the American bourgeois and the IT sugar-daddies). What’s interesting is how Microsoft execs decided that MSN was no longer just a software company specializing in operating systems (or that other great rip-off Word), but morphed into sort of a mega-media-production company, and now join the battle for “who will be the Search-engine Pimp”.

Exciting: though more exciting would be some politicos with enough spine to enforce Zee Regulations, and file anti-trusts on MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc.. That said, it might be recalled the great Contrarian, Karl Marx hisself indulged in some speculation: imagine his joy had he some yahoo stock and it magically climbed up a few clicks merely because the Big MSN said they might buy out the Yahoo boys. Ah the wonders of market manipulation. (;))

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:38:51 +0000

I think it’ll most likely prove to be a horrible move, depending on how Microsoft handles it. I just can’t imagine them handling the whole transition and ownership of Yahoo properties well.

From what I’ve seen of Adcenter’s platform, I’m not psyched about them managing the future of YSM. Maybe they’ll let the current YSM team continue to manage it, who knows.

By: OMG ! Microsoft Proposes to Yahoo! | Athow.com, Tech life at its fullest..

OMG ! Microsoft Proposes to Yahoo! | Athow.com, Tech life at its fullest.. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:16:10 +0000

[...] Mashable!, SearchRank Blog, TechBizMedia, Clickety Clack, Laughing Squid, Incremental Blogger, Joe Duck and Yahoo! [...]

By: felix

felix — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:16:41 +0000

While, I agree that there are ways that Microsoft and Yahoo can benefit from each other, I disagree that a merger is a way to reach those benefits. The primary problem, as you mention is that they are both giant, bureaucratic companies companies having execution problems. Combining 2 giant, culturally different bureaucracies is not the recipe to speed up innovation, it will throw cement into both their works. Especially if Microsoft starts imposing a .net infrastructure on them – not that there’s anything wrong with .net – but that will be significant for Yahoo, even if it starts small. I don’t see it… strong partnership, mutual stakes, I think those would be more reasonable ways to join up.