Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo! Expands Open Web Platform Plans

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the under-construction dept.

Yahoo! 67

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sounds familiar (1)

Frac O Mac (1138427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191308)

This sounds similar to the recent story about Google, I'm not surprised though.

Re:Sounds familiar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23191354)

Penis.

Re:Sounds familiar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23191580)

What about it? Do you have a way to englarge it? If only you had linked to some website for more information, I was starting to get interested.

Re:Sounds familiar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23192636)

Well, penis.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23196554)

Daren is this you ??

Re:Sounds familiar (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191616)

Correct. This smacks of being an entirely reactive maneuver to counter Google's new App Engine [google.com] 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:Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23192122)

No. You've got it backwards. Google's App Engine is a reactive response to Amazon's successful Elastic Computing Cloud [amazon.com] service.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23196272)

No, the two are nothing alike.

The App Engine is the logical extension of the Java -> Python compiler they released a couple years back.

It's essentially free web-hosting with an in-built application framework.

Ec2 is a virtualization platform designed for you to deploy entire server instances. But it's not all that great as a web server because Amazon, along with a total bandwidth charge, charges you per HTTP request. Not good. Especially in an Ajax era.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

IsaacSchlueter (780602) | more than 5 years ago | (#23200272)

No, the two are nothing alike.

My colleague Stephen Woods summed up the situation well [twitter.com] .

Yahoo announced Search Monkey, which runs user-installed apps based on search data. Please think for at least three seconds about this.

Search Monkey needs an underlying platform on which to run the code that developers wrote.

I'm not going to disclose any details about what we're doing beyond what Ari said, because, well, I like my job, and I'm not in the business of spoiling the release of products that I work on. But Ari did say that Yahoo is committed to our Open Strategy... And we have a platform where Search Monkey apps run... Apps written by outside developers... It's almost like Search Monkey might be the pilot consumer of some kind of "application platform", no?

Open Social is primarily about providing APIs and sandboxes and servers on which to run user-installed, outside-developed applications. It requires an application platform of *some* sort.

Yeah... nothing alike. No correlation whatsoever. And since Google's announcement came before ours, that obviously means that we just started working on it now. Everyone knows it just takes a few days to whip up a new software product, right?

It would be hideously naive to think that Google's App Platform has "nothing to do" with Open Social, or that Yahoo's app platform is just a response to Google's. Both companies have been working on this for a pretty long time behind closed doors.

The whole "apps on the web" idea is exciting, and new, but it's also extremely challenging. How long did it take for posix systems to "get it right" running apps on the desktop? You're executing one person's code, and (in an open social application, anyhow) giving it another person's data, and have to somehow make sure that no one can do anything bad with it. Being the first to break the news doesn't count for much in the long run.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#23200690)

Dude, Chill.

I wasn't even talking about Yahoo.

The post I replied to was a guy saying that the Google App Engine was "a reactive response to Amazon's successful Elastic Computing Cloud."

It's not.

Again, no Yahoo services were mentioned.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

IsaacSchlueter (780602) | more than 5 years ago | (#23203894)

Ahh....

Sorry, I've been hearing a lot about how what we're doing is a response to Google App Engine (which it absolutely is not), and misinterpreted your comment.

I should know better than to fire off responses without reading carefully. 100% my bad.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23207246)

It's all good.

Your post was actually quite interesting. I hadn't heard of Search Monkey.

So hey, +1 Off topic But Insightful

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

Electrum (94638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23202440)

Ec2 is a virtualization platform designed for you to deploy entire server instances. But it's not all that great as a web server because Amazon, along with a total bandwidth charge, charges you per HTTP request.

EC2 charges for instance-hours and bandwidth. S3 charges for bandwidth and per request. You're right that S3 isn't great as a CDN, because that's not what it is designed to do.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23207330)

Ahh, good catch.

Thank ya, sir.

Re:Sounds familiar (3, Informative)

IsaacSchlueter (780602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194808)

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

statement of intent [google.com]
yahoo joins open social [yahoo.com]
yahoo joins open social [google.com]

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.

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

D4rkn1ght (800767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192358)

I miss the days when Yahoo had a silver background and not too many images. It was made with plain old HTML for faster loading and was more useful. Yahoo, like other so call Web 2.0 sites are a mess of excessive javascript and proprietary browser plugins like flash.

I'm not 100% against AJAX or Flash, it's the over use of it on situations that it's not requiered.

Yahoo need to keep their front and news page free of these requirements. If they want to change their look to myspace or facebook they should do it on their other pages.

Re:Sounds familiar (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192926)

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:Sounds familiar (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23193196)

what your looking for is http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
www.yahoo.com has changed into a portal for thier content, much like msn, fortunatly google, have left thier portal quite light. the main problem with msn/yahoo is that nobody bothers going to www.yahoo.com for anything other than search (which most people do from firefox or thier googlebar.

What m$ needs to do is partner with yahoo, so that ie7 uses yahoo searches, that way it might get used instead of people having to install googlebar because live search sucks so much? I really hope that ms & yahoo get thier act together and start pushing google, id hate to see google to an MS and just stagnate because nothing is even close to it. perhaps if yahoo & msn just rolled over and let somebody like altavista through

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

IsaacSchlueter (780602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194864)

Yahoo owns AltaVista. Has for a while, actually.

`dig altavista.com` for more info.

In the footer, it says "Overture Services, Inc."

Overture was acquired by Yahoo back in 2003 (which makes it practically biblical in internet time.)

Nonsense (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23196306)

Overture was acquired by Yahoo back in 2003 (which makes it practically biblical in internet time.)


Nonsense! The entire internet is only 3 years old.

Don't tell me you're a wing nut that believes in the "old internet theory?"

And how does this help them against Google? (1)

xtaski (457801) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191398)

The problem Yahoo! seems to be skirting is that Google has mass adoption already and they can't seem to find a way around it. Google gets this adoption b/c it has its fingers into every online ad outlet known to the Internet gods. Yahoo! needs to get its hands dirty and lay off the technology and fix its business penetration first...

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (2, Insightful)

naoursla (99850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191752)

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

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192370)

Not sure how MS is going to help them.

Flying chairs do not normally penetrate the right objects/areas.

And if a MS buyout of Yahoo! would help there is no explanation for the utter failure of Microsoft's online businesses thus far.

Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23192552)

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

I didn't realize "bend over" was a solution to anything...

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (1)

smartdreamer (666870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23230792)

Death by extinction? Remember everyone, suicide is not the answer.

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (1)

naoursla (99850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23232714)

Does a catepillar commit suicide when it spins a cocoon to transform into a butterfly?

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (2, Informative)

SashaMan (263632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191984)

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? (2, Insightful)

naoursla (99850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192008)

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

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (1)

naoursla (99850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192216)

Ugh... I can't believe I confused "your" and "you're".

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23209610)

Google does not have the best search technology. I've been using yahoo mail and search for about 6 years. Google search does not yield as good results 8 times out of 10 that actually are what I'm looking for. The only reason I ever use Google is if I can't find what I'm looking for via Yahoo search.

The only thing I like about gmail is that it has free pop3 access. Yes, I use gmail, but only for mailing lists which I barely ever check. Yahoo's e-mail is more customizable than gmail, plus they give you the option to not use their beta, if you want (which I don't since I'd rather not use javascript when checking my e-mail via w3m). With gmail, you're stuck with their horrible unconfigurable color scheme. Not to mention the fact that it's a known fact that gmail indexes your e-mail. If I want a good web e-mail service I'll use Yahoo. Plus I remember trying to e-mail myself a simple zip file containing a few backgrounds I had, and gmail wouldn't let me send the file, arghhhh. Personally I'd prefer using pine or mutt and forget about webmail, altogether. Yet, if I have to use webmail (which is useful when you need to check your e-mail from multiple locations) it would definitely be Yahoo!

The only thing I don't like about yahoo is how they changed their tv listings (tv.yahoo.com) a few years back. Ever since then I've used titantv - since it's much better.

Different Companies Different Approaches (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23192772)

Google is the plumbing Yahoo! is the house. Takes longer to build a house and more to maintain it. Yahoo! should never have gone into the plumbing biz when it bought Overture...that was its only mistake (other than some implementation issues around value added web services and monetization).

Re:And how does this help them against Google? (1)

IsaacSchlueter (780602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23209972)

You've got a few things backwards there.

Google doesn't have their fingers into every online ad outlet. They just have the widest search market share. Search ads are the most valuable because they are the most targeted and acted-upon: 1) We know what you want right now (because you entered it in the search box), and 2) You're planning on clicking something very soon.

Yahoo has much greater mass adoption than google in every other area in which they compete. Yahoo Mail is the single largest email provider on earth. (About double Hotmail's user base, and 13 times GMail's.) Yahoo is also the top seller of display ads (ie, ads on non-SERP pages.)

That's not to say that Google isn't making any money in display ads, or that no one uses GMail. But Google has one monstrously successful moneymaker, and that gives the company the freedom to play around in a lot of other areas without worrying too much about the costs.

It's debatable whether Google or Yahoo has an objectively better search product based on the results they return. It's hard to measure, and they're mostly the same, anyhow. But Google had a "modern" search algorithm first (ie, using link-weighting, very smart freetext search, etc.), and that built the brand. Brand loyalty IS a measurable quality.

I've watched user studies where participants were told to run searches on both Google and Yahoo, and report which provided better results. 50% of the time, the logo from one was actually shown with the result set from the other search engine. Almost every.single.time users will say that the page with the logo they usually use has better results, even if the results are actually coming from the other search engine. When it comes to search market share, brand loyalty is worth quite a bit more than quality.

Yahoo! needs to get its hands dirty and lay off the technology and fix its business penetration first...

If anything Yahoo! needs to stop trying to be all things to all people, and focus on the areas where it is successful. Like Ari Balogh said in the Web2.0 talk, there's a lot of un-leveraged information and social activity, as well as a lot of not-strictly-social activity, that Yahoo can use to be a much more interesting destination than other socially focused sites (ie, facebook, MySpace, etc.)

In real life, it's not like you spend some time being social for the sake of being social, and the rest of the time you're a hermit. (Well, maybe for /.ers... Minus the social half...) In real life, we mostly communicate with people about other things we're doing. Going to the game? You'll need tickets. Invite some folks. Flying into town? Let your visitees know when you'll land. Arrange a pickup from the airport. Buying a car? It would be good to get some reviews from other people, and maybe get introduced to a FOAF in the area who's a mechanic. And so on.

Yahoo has the "fingers in the market" so to speak, to provide that experience in a lot of areas. But it's not an easy thing to really get right, and it requires a delicate balance of agility and focus. But that's what Ari was talking about: making "social" an integral part of a bigger system. Not "social for the sake of being social," and not "a duck with a social network attached."

Some of their API protocols are interesting (0, Offtopic)

Jack B. Nimple (1275372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191514)

I was looking through some of their API Documentation [yahoo.com] and found a couple of points that stuck in my mind. Are they really as open as they say they are? I think not....

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23191680)

I think that the parent has stumbled on a very intriguing point. If you check the example they linked, you'll see that there is "phone home" code in there. Maybe they are just using this to harvest information as they see fit. Eeevvill.....

Great find! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23191878)

Although, I think you should have highlighted the fact more strongly that while sites may call these APIs, they're basically giving their user data over to Yahoo. Thanks for the link, made me think twice certainly.

Do not click on the link! (1)

NekoYasha (1040568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192146)

... unless you have disabled JavaScript.

I did and all of a sudden, 14 mail client windows appeared on my desktop asking me to subscribe to some strange newsgroup I haven't heard about. In addition I cannot close my browser because the page is displaying a JavaScript Alert.

In addition, the page may contain materials unsuitable for minors. Luckily Quicktime failed to load them.

Last Measure (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192512)

Sounds like Last Measure, the ultimate GNAA troll.

Regardless, I would be very suspect of any rds.yahoo.com links -- rds appears to be some sort of Yahoo redirection service. Treat it as you would tinyurl, etc.

Re:Do not click on the link! (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195478)

It's called GNAA [gnaa.us] last measure [lastmeasure.com] and is a rather unfunny troll package.
Avoid it by not clicking any links that point to anything hosted on on.nimp.org, notlong.org or similar. Be aware of redirection services like Yahoo's (rds.yahoo.com stands for re-direction service) or tinyurl.com.
Also, if your browser allows endless alert() loops, you might want to switch to a sensible alternative [opera.com] that let's you halt all javascript from an alert() dialog box.

Re:Some of their API protocols are interesting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23192806)

Do not click on parent's link. Couldn't slashcode just block out rds.yahoo.com links?

If you can't beat 'em, join em. (1)

bluemetal (1269852) | more than 6 years ago | (#23191908)

Except that Yahoo is joining the networking crowd and Microsoft is well... NOT being joined by anybody. I think it is a good move by Yahoo. So many companies stagnate the market by resisting change even as their product begins to slip. Yahoo choosing to solve the problem before it gets out of hand says something for their business model. Whether or not it works is another story.

Balmer again (3, Interesting)

splict (1024037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192200)

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 (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192992)

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.

Re:Balmer again (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23196002)

What other advantages that come from eating babies do you use to throw slurs at people?

Balmer's probably a dick, but that doesn't justify witch hunt style tactics.

Re:Balmer again (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23196656)

It's called a joke. I don't believe anyone seriously thinks he eats babies.

And clearly you don't understand the term "witch hunt style tactics".

Re:Balmer again (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23196806)

Often, jokes are funny.

And I'm pretty sure that shouting something outrageous and scandalous about someone you don't like or disagree with is exactly a witch hunt style tactic, especially when it is done out of the view of the subject.

Mod Parent Up, Funny (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23210808)

It's the crazy eyes. He always looks like somebody's tugging at his scalp to keep them so wide open. Also, he's just such a Pollyanna. Nothing Microsoft does is ever admitted as a "mistake" until it gets to WinME proportions.

Since gaining a competitive edge from eating babies is obviously absurd, I didn't have any trouble telling that your remark was ironic. To start a witch hunt would require an allegation that is horrifying, but plausible. "He acquired a taste for dog meat on a trip to [very poor country] as a youth, and now secretly dines regularly both on puppies and kittens retrieved by interns from pounds" might work, if you're interested in starting a witch hunt. "Turned me into a newt" probably won't cut it, these days.

Re:Balmer again (1)

indiejade (850391) | more than 5 years ago | (#23198548)

What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary.

Microsoft could walk away from Yahoo deal [itworld.com] Precisely. If investors had wanted to entrust their dollars with Microsoft management, they would have invested in Microsoft stock, not Yahoo! stock.


Of all the web companies, Yahoo! is actually in one of the best positions to capitalize on changing standards, even moreso than Google, I think; the key word in the previous sentence being "capitalize". Perhaps one of the reasons Microsoft was/is so eager to get its hands on Yahoo is the intangible and intellectual properties, many of which currently adhere to open or freely-researchable standards. Microsoft doesn't generally tend to be a purporter of open or freely-researchable standards unless it can get its brand name or the Microsoft logo in there somewhere.

leading from behind (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192496)

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 (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23193006)

Their new web mail system. Mind you Google kicked them into high-gear, but you can drag and drop messages into folders and other nifty-ness like that.

Re:leading from behind (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23193876)

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

Given msn & yahoos dominance of the IM & webmail markets, i wouldnt write them off yet. If they start integrated these apps into the instant messaging side of thing they could generate much more revenue than googles offerings. Personally i just wish they would do something to stop google from coasting, like actually get good search results and maybe buy a browser?

Re:leading from behind (2, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195396)

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:leading from behind (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195452)

If you want further proof of Yahoo's impending demise... this story's been on the front page for about 14 hours. This is the 38th comment.

No-one cares about Yahoo. No-one. They've no fanbois, they've no apologists, no-one even really even hates them enough to come here and post flamebait libel.

I bet you even money Yahoo is owned by someone else by the year's end.

Re:leading from behind (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23195856)

You use gmail, I use gmail, we all use gmail, and we all know why.
actually i use yahoo, not by choice or anything, but for webmail i cant be botherd to go around changing regularly, there may be migration in webmail but its going to be slow because nobody cares enough to go through the hastel of changing for very little benefit. The interface isn't that bad, most people want a heavy interface instead of a light one, the load times are reasonable on any connection. As for spam, the spam filter removes all actual spam, all the rubbish in my inbox is because I signed up to a million things with this address (probably why I get so much spam).

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
I see this alot on slashdot, the answer is simple, a small investment generates more revenue in new markets than a large investment in your existing market. To get anywhere with search tech it will take a lot of work, but to build a better portal is a lot easier. If you realise your always going to play second fiddle to somebody else in your key market, why not try and find a market you might be leaders in? The idea of only doing one thing and doing it well isnt the be all and end all of business management.

Re:leading from behind (1)

peter_gzowski (465076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23196220)

I'll tell you where they have the opportunity to innovate in this area: Fantasy Sports. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen any web services available for developers to build fantasy sports applications. If they open up their statistics and games for outside developers to build on, that would be huge.

Maybe we shouldn't have said anything (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23192592)

On the one hand, perhaps Ballmer and co. have been listening to all the contempt among well informed techies that the merger is an incredibly stupid idea, and so perhaps we should have kept our mouths shut, and let them accelerate their destruction.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that would be worth the price of sacrificing Yahoo, warts and all.

I'm really feeling like Google will be the next tech company to hate.  They're not not evil, folks, and the sooner you get used to the idea the better.  They help the Chinese government censor their web searches--that's all I need to know, and I'm simply not interested in their excuses.

MS is psychopathic, and their bad acting has really driven techies away in droves, which I believe has hurt their other businesses--like search.  Who of us slashdotters is going to set up Grandma with MSN as her default page?  Not too many.

Google, however, is much more intelligent, and I suspect will cause quite a lot of damage more through blithe ignorance of their own limitations before it's all said and done.

Re:Maybe we shouldn't have said anything (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23193016)

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.

United States' policy to China is soft (1)

gr8scot (1172435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23210876)

You can't blame Google. Write your Congressman if it bothers you that they're bending over for communists, and they are, Democrat and Republican alike. Free Tibet.

Re:United States' policy to China is soft (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23210944)

I'm all for a free Tibet. I somewhat agree with Google though that they said it was better to comply and create inroads rather than not be in China at all.

The Song Remains The Same (1)

wardco (546670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23193810)

I used to work at VeriSign and Balogh would regularly make all kinds of meaningless corporate noises that were impossible to parse. But somehow he is considered one of the best CTOs out there -- go figure.

This Yahoo fiction is a bit better, but the notion that there is a coherent platform there that can be "opened" is laughable. Balogh is just spinning a pleasant new fantasy to slot him up for a nice position of money and power when Microsoft owns the store.

Social Networking Bubble (2, Insightful)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23194200)

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:Social Networking Bubble (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 5 years ago | (#23196872)

What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?
I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.

Re:Social Networking Bubble (1)

deanlandolt (1004507) | more than 5 years ago | (#23197440)

What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?
I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.
I can't tell if you're serious or if you just wanted to slip that amusing little grammernazism in. But don't be fooled by this ignorant argument -- this is the same *cult of the amateur* argument debunked over and over 'round these parts. Nothing about participatory news implies everyone's voice is equal.

Re:Social Networking Bubble (1)

michaeljpastor (995209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23207650)

What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?
I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.
I can't tell if you're serious or if you just wanted to slip that amusing little grammernazism in. But don't be fooled by this ignorant argument -- this is the same *cult of the amateur* argument debunked over and over 'round these parts. Nothing about participatory news implies everyone's voice is equal.
Except for the fact that as it is currently structured, everyone's voice *is* equal. Reputation is a highly complex social structure, and the way most social reputations are calculated online are either 1) so subjective (personal) as to be valuable only to the person doing the ranking or 2) so objective (mutual) as to make everyone a miasmic shade of grey indiscernible to anyone with a "normal sense of vision" Until online reputation encompasses *both* the subjective and objective (and everything in between), it will continue to be worthless. And that includes slashdot's system! Context, a separate issue, is also important, and again is ignored in current systems.

Yuo Fai/l I7. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23194650)

the facts and Fact came into than this BSD box, Discussions on slings are limited, who sell another the resources that Not so bad. To the the mundane chores a previously may well remain For membership. were taken over ASSOCIATION OF real problems that visions going your replies rather roots and gets on represents the His clash with to de7iver what, reformatted first avoid going and its long term You should bring Baby take my AMERICA) is the We strongly urge Usenet is roughly

Better areas of focus for Microsoft (1)

DavidApi (136128) | more than 5 years ago | (#23202284)

Microsoft should go back to making shitty Operating Systems. Or concentrate on adding support to ODF documents to their reasonably okay office suite (tip to Microsoft - add the support to Office 2003 and ditch 2007). Or even to .... no, don't bother. Microsoft should really really concentrate on being a good and morally improved IT industry citizen, and less of a bully and purveyor of inferior products. Why do they need to have this constant fear of another company having more market share and expertise than them in every aspect of IT?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?