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!

Google, Yahoo, and the Elephant In the Room

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

Google 123

CWmike writes "Linda Rosencrance reports that despite assurances from Google and Yahoo that their online advertising deal doesn't need regulatory approval, the two companies should not be too quick to dismiss Microsoft's influence on Capitol Hill. Andrew Frank, an analyst at Gartner, said both Yahoo and Google will benefit from the deal, but he also said Microsoft will do everything in its power to bring the arrangement to a screeching halt. 'Expect Microsoft to challenge it and come back aggressively with some search plans of its own,' he said. Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group, said Microsoft is a formidable opponent and knows how to play politics. 'Without Microsoft, this probably would stand up to regulatory scrutiny,' Enderle said. 'But Microsoft has increased its presence on Capitol Hill significantly ... and there are restraint of trade issues, so by the nature of Google's size and because Microsoft is going to be pounding on a lot of doors, I think this is going to be a problem.'"

cancel ×

123 comments

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

Bragging about Corruption. (4, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792213)

No matter how many times it's done, it's always amazing to see people endorse corruption. The anti-trust trial, destruction of competitors, ISO have all left a bad taste in people's mouth. Yet it seems there's always someone that says these "sharp" business practices are good and another that demands people respect them.

Inside information (0)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792223)

I heard that Yoo-hoo is going to buy them both as soon as they can work the name thing out.

Re:Inside information (2, Funny)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792449)

Yahooglesoft?

Re:Inside information (3, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792579)

I like Googhoo, but only on an empty stomach.

Re:Inside information (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793267)

YooSoftGoo

Re:Inside information (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794337)

In Soviet Russia GooSoftYou!

Re:Inside information (3, Funny)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794487)

I hate to promote an AC, but that was funny.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792275)

Shut up twitter. Microsoft is a big, nasty corporation for sure.

But objecting to a merger between two rivals is like appealing in cricket- You are asking the 'umpire' to investigate whether the rules mean that your opposition is acting illegally. Big companies are pretty much obliged to pull that shit on behalf of their shareholders.

MSFT will fall one day, but chumps like you forestall this inevitability. Please stop.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

krray (605395) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792393)

MSFT will fall one day, but chumps like you forestall this inevitability. Please stop.

Yes, please do stop. I expect to continue making money, hand over fist, on Apple stock. Google hasn't been disappointing either. In using the technologies it is painfully obvious how flawed Microsoft products are and become (after buying out various companies). I have a lot riding on Microsoft stock ... in the form of a short.

The sooner they fall ... the sooner I could simply retire.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792583)

Well dude you just buggered up in your stock picks.

Apple is falling, and I think for the foreseeable future the range is 210 and MSFT is just going up...

This is what happens when you let emotion get in the way of making sound trading decisions...

BTW I was long AAPL, but sold out on 184.42! What's AAPL now...

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793085)

> MSFT is just going up

That would be a refreshing change after being pretty much flat for five years.

Actually he's right (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#23797267)

and MSFT is just going up...

Not according to the two year chart [yahoo.com] . Averages out to be pretty flat. Especially compared to Apple [yahoo.com] . I might wonder where the revenue growth is going to come from? Vista?

They do have a high profit margin and lot of cash but there's nowhere to go but down. Unless they suddenly wake up one day with a commitment to value instead of just revenue, nothing is going to change.

I think he's right to short them.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793281)

Short Microsoft, you stand to make $30 for every share that you are short. If it takes Microsoft 10 years to vanish into nothing (this will *not* happen), you will have made $30 per share in ten years.

Investing $30 in municipal bonds (which are generally a good credit risk. They have a much lower downside than being short Microsoft), you would make ~$18.87, with essentially zero risk.

It's a good thing you are talking out your ass, being short Microsoft is a horrible investment.

There might be a decent trade being short Microsoft, but you are looking at a 10% upside, with pretty bad downside risk (what if Vista sales numbers aren't hollow? Microsoft goes to $40...you lose 30%).

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794467)

If it takes Microsoft 10 years to vanish into nothing (this will *not* happen), you will have made $30 per share in ten years.

Plus he has to make the dividend payments on the shares he is short.

What merger? (1)

Mactrope (1256892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792395)

Who says a non exclusive deal is a merger? Even Enderle thinks the deal is legitimate but that M$ might be able to pull the wool over regulator's. We should all cry foul about things like this [latimes.com] .

Some details. (1, Informative)

ibane (1294214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792319)

A related story talked about the odd assortment of fake groups opposed to these deals [latimes.com] .

discussions have already provoked objections from an unusually diverse set of Washington players. In fact, it is safe to say that the American Corn Growers Assn. has never before joined forces with the Dominican American Business Network. Those and 14 other nonprofit organizations sent a joint letter to the Justice Department on Friday asking for an antitrust investigation of the possible Google-Yahoo alliance

That's from the same paper that covered the spamming of Senators by a M$ PR firm against the anti-trust trail. You might also remember them claiming to represent blind people opposing ODF. That spamming fooled no one at the time, so you wonder why they keep trying to pull the same stupid trick.

Re:Some details. (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792489)

A related story

Which you could have quoted and linked to in your original post without having to resort to using multiple accounts in the same thread. You're not even pretending [slashdot.org] anymore, you just paste the same links with three different accounts to see which one sticks.

moderation abouse. (0, Troll)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792757)

There's nothing trollish about the above. The fake groups are part of the corruption and the LA Times story covers it well.

Re:moderation abouse. (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792849)

This seems to be a favorite pastime [slashdot.org] of yours.

What are you complaining about anyway? Your twitter post got modded up, which is the whole point of this sockpuppet charade you play.

Re:moderation abouse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794201)

I saw you in the troll zoo [slashdot.org] .

how is this modded informative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793593)

isn't it common knowledge by now that twitter and ibane (and odder and mactrope and all the rest) are the same person? how can i get voted up if i'm replying to myself??

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792443)

No matter how many times it's done, it's always amazing to see people endorse corruption.
Request you name the golden period of US history where this was not the case. The Washington Administration?
The only effective change I can see is to diminish the power of the Fed. All else amounts to band-aids or salt for the wound, AFAICT. Truly amazing are those who'd grant even _more_ power to DC.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (-1, Troll)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792487)

The country has hit a new low when a company can brag, even if by proxy, about their ability to trick regulators before the regulators have been fooled.

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793237)

The only effective change I can see is to diminish the power of the Fed. [snip]
Technically, reducing the power of the fed is Gates' goal politically [wikipedia.org]

Re:Bragging about Corruption. (1)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796941)

Ohh, I think that's a bit simplistic. What about simply appointing the fed deciscion makers to lifetime positions and offering them $1 million/year in salary. That would probably dilute the ability of large corporations to influence their deciscions the same way the supreme court is LESS influenced by corporations or the public than members of congress.

In fact there are probably lots of ways you could reduce 'corruption' without pursuing your solution. Now there are other reasons you might not want the fed to have power (just because a deciscion isn't corrupt doesn't make it good) but I think you are going a bit far.

Enderle is mostly full of shit (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792227)

Rob Enderle is an idiot and a compulsive liar. He's also a paid Microsoft shill. His comments on the SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, etc. were always something along the lines of "SCO is going to win. SCO has a good case. Linux contains pirated UNIX code." And so forth. If Rob Enderle told me the sky was blue, I would run outside and check for myself.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (4, Informative)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792263)

If Rob Enderle told me the sky was blue, I would run outside and check for myself.

... because more likely than not, the atmospheric conditions would have changed enough to make the sky bright green.

I think we can trust Enderle (2, Informative)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792445)

to say exactly what Microsoft wants him to say. We might not believe regulators will do the same.

Re:I think we can trust Enderle (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792503)

to say exactly what Microsoft wants him to say. We might not believe regulators will do the same.

Oh, right.

As if Google and Yahoo! didn't have their own legal departments. And no lobbying power whatsoever.

Stop your karma-whoring fear-mongering, twitter. Your panicking is exaggerated, and completely unnecessary.

Ask the AntiTrust Senator and DOJ about it. (1)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792709)

Quoted [theregister.co.uk] in The Register yesterday,

Senator Herb Kohl, head of the Antitrust Subcommittee. "We will closely examine the joint venture between Google and Yahoo announced today," his statement read. "This collaboration between two technology giants and direct competitors for Internet advertising and search services raises important competition concerns. "The consequences for advertisers and consumers could be far-reaching and warrant careful review, and we plan to investigate the competitive and privacy implications of this deal further in the Antitrust Subcommittee."

The US Justice Department is also looking at the deal [theregister.co.uk] . This is the same administration that gave M$ a slap on the wrist for it's proven anti-trust behavior, so this kind of corruption is not entirely surprising. That does not make it any less outrageous or obvious [latimes.com] .

This is the influence Enderle is talking about but it should be waning. The current administration's time is up.

Re:Ask the AntiTrust Senator and DOJ about it. (4, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792937)

The current administration's time is up.

Why, thank you, Captain Obvious. We'd hoped nobody would actually notice the quiet little elections we have going on behind the scenes.

Investigating this kind of deals doesn't seem like too bad a thing; I think there should be more of them, too.
If, however, this deal got sanctioned, while Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour didn't, then we would have a problem. Please do not create a problem where there is none. Yet.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (1, Insightful)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792327)

Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying. I dont know anything about this guy, but just because he was wrong about that doesnt mean he is wrong about this.

Personally, I can see how he has a point. Google and Yahoo control an overwhelming percentage of the market share when combined. Do you really want Google to have no major competitors other than MS? (if you can even count MS as a major competitor in that space, they are pretty small relative to Google) I know everyone likes google around here, but competition is a good thing. Yahoo is/was Google's biggest competitor.

If we had good competition we would see things like advertisers getting better deals and third party websites that host adwords getting a higher percentage. Currently Google's price markup between what they charge advertisers and what they give third party websites is huge.

Im not saying google is an evil company, just that advertisers and adwords customers would benefit greatly if Google had real competition. Yet they keep buying competitors (like doubleclick) or doing deals with companies like Yahoo to effectively remove them from competition.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792385)

Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying. I dont know anything about this guy, but just because he was wrong about that doesnt mean he is wrong about this.
Wrong is an understatement. Enderle was saying the same things even after the judge threw out all of SCO's claims.

Personally, I can see how he has a point. Google and Yahoo control an overwhelming percentage of the market share when combined.
They have competition [google.com] . If none are as big as Google and Yahoo, maybe it's their approach rather than Google buying up all the competition. Even so, an alliance between Yahoo and Google is hardly going to make a monopoly -- Yahoo will still be competing with Google, they will just get the mutual benefit of each others' customers.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (2, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792431)

My guess is you're not an ad buyer. How anyone argue Google + Yahoo hookup is not detrimental to competition is beyond me.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792483)

Easily. Google will carry Yahoo's ads and Yahoo will carry Google's ads. As an ad buyer, you still have a choice of vendors, with your ads hitting a wider audience. How this a bad thing?

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792825)

So Google's subsidizing Yahoo's ad business. Giving crumbs to your competitor to keep him on life support is not a competition.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792441)

And I never understood how that could be considered a logical fallacy.

If somebody lies due to invalid evidence and backs it up, we can show it was the evidence, not the person.
If somebody lies because they were paid to do so, we can rest assured that they will most likely do it again.
If somebody is a habitual liar, we can be sure they will lie again.

In cases 2 and 3, we need to actively doubt anything said and check with a neutral third party. To do anything but that makes no sense.

Only in journal writing (science journals) do we not need consider the author as we can assume that they are telling the truth because they give enough evidence that we can recreate said journal writing.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (3, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793879)

And I never understood how that could be considered a logical fallacy.

The fallacy is if you attempt to refute the statement by it, as in "this guy lies often. Therefore what he's saying now is a lie."
That's not the same as being doubtful.

Re:Enderle is totally full of shit (1)

toby (759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792459)

Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying

The fact is that nothing he says can be trusted, because he's in the pay of Microsoft. Furthermore we have substantial evidence he is happy to lie for money (viz SCO). Wouldn't you like to know that before you waste your time on his press release that is clearly angled to spread FUD about Microsoft competition?

Not even. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792473)

Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying.
No. If people were saying that he's wrong because he's a well known Presbyterian you'd be correct.

Saying that he's been consistently wrong ... and ALWAYS on Microsoft's (and their allies) side ... is called "experience" or "learning from history".

Remember the old saw about those who do not learn from history.

Now, he MIGHT be correct this time. But also remember that it is possible to get the correct answer with faulty "logic" and false "facts".

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (2)

phuul (997836) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794297)

The problem with Rob Enderle is that his success rate is actually lower than Sylvia Browns "psychic predictions." He consistently gives extremely bad analysis and advice. Now does mean that what he says is wrong? No. In fact saying that Microsoft will fight it anyway they can is borderline Captain Obvious. But any article that quotes Mr. Enderle raises some serious credibility questions about the reporter and the publication/site that posts it.

Re:Enderle is MOSTLY full of shit (1)

SpammersAreScum (697628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793033)

All very true. At the same time, he has occasionally gotten things right. It would not surprise me if this turned out to be one of those times.

Enderle is 99.9% full of shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793251)

> 'Expect Microsoft to challenge it and come back
> aggressively with some search plans of its own,'

Yes. Because its search has been a success so far.
Seriously,... what does come back aggressively with some search plans of its own even mean? Where they gonna abandon search? Of course not mister obvious.

> Microsoft is a formidable opponent and knows
> how to play politics.

Attaboy Robbie boy, your head is almoooost all the way in!

Who besides John Dvorak actually cares what this moron says? Seems his paid infomercials pieces are the only time you mention him...

But we will miss him in a few years.. just like we miss Goatse. We;ll gather on some site and shoot the bull about the old days on the net and someone will say; "What was the name of that moron who ran his (undermanned) one man think tank and used to write the stupidest thing about Linux?"

Long live RobukakEnderle.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793311)

Follow the money. SCO was largely a pump-and-dump scheme, IMO, so I wouldn't be surprised if Enderle was an investor there. Now Icahn and other opportunistic speculators are trying to force Yahoo into a sale; if Enderle's investments were public, we may see some YHOO stock there.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (2, Insightful)

tom's a-cold (253195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793671)

When a sock puppet like Enderle says something about Microsoft's intentions, it probably came from Microsoft. Whether it's true or not is a separate question.

A new front (3, Interesting)

j35ter (895427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792231)

Google and Yahoo should start their own operating system business...just to make a point

Throwing some weight around? (1)

Rog7 (182880) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792243)

I guess they can do more than just throw chairs around.

Either way, if they do, it still amounts to a temper-tantrum.

The elephant may smash all the chairs in the room (4, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792245)

... but the Google-Yahoo deal is non-exclusive, so I guess that'll get them off the hook.

I do find it quite ominous that Microsoft has been put on the defensive, and they can only try to defend by making the government stop their competitors.
They are influential, but it is growing ever more obvious they cannot compete with their own tech, no matter how much money they may have.

It's sad, really.

Re:The elephant may smash all the chairs in the ro (2, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792621)

well given how much this line has been used against them, its hardly surprising that they want to see google judged in the same way.

Or is that 'they want to use it as an excuse to stop google from beating them into a messy pulp on search'.

Re:The elephant may smash all the chairs in the ro (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792629)

Sad? That raw money can't buy power?

I call that inspiring.

Rob Enderele (5, Informative)

xmodem_and_rommon (884879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792251)

Rob Enderele, Rob Enderele, Rob Enderele, where do I know that name?

ah, thats where
http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/09/24/sco-linux-and-rob-enderle-a-conclusion/ [linuxquestions.org]
http://daringfireball.net/2003/12/enderle [daringfireball.net]
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34004/128 [tgdaily.com]

As far as i'm concerned, that man has ZERO credibility.

M$ might like him to shut up. (2, Interesting)

ibane (1294214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792367)

It's true that M$ is throwing its weight and money around Washington [slashdot.org] .

The question is if Enderele's mouth helps or hurts the soft. These kinds of statements are designed to manipulate people on Wall Street, but they are smarter [google.com] than M$ thinks they are [google.com] .

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792425)

"M$"? "the soft"? Thinking a company is "smarter" than another because of their stock price?

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792667)

That's Twitter, what did you expect

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792723)

Of course he does, it's one of the names on his .sig

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792821)

I know, but thanks anyway.

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (1)

willeyhill (1277478) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792855)

He said Wall Street was smart enough to know a growing from a failing company. Over the last five years, M$'s stock has been flat, while Google's is worth five times more. Silly little name troll.

Re:M$ might like him to shut up. (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792983)

You know a flat stock price isn't an indicator of a failing company? Of course you do, but that would be the truth.

Don't forget to reply to me with your 'Mactrope' account just like you just replied to willy with your 'willeyhill' account.

What do you know? (1)

ibane (1294214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794283)

A stock that's flat is one that's losing value to inflation. Don't try to tell me their dividends keep up with it. Buying M$ anytime in the last ten years has been like flushing money down the toilet, but it's worse for M$ because stock options were a significant part of employee compensation. They have lost the ability to offer that and are no longer able to attract tallent.

Re:What do you know? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794495)

Don't try to tell me their dividends keep up with it.
Why not, because it would disprove your point?

Also, disappointed you used ibane to reply. What's this I hear about you having an account that you haven't used to reply to yourself with yet? Could this be a new attempt at honesty, or are you just priming it's mod points so you can use it later and hope nobody will notice?

Save it, that was a rhetorical question.

Re:Rob Enderele (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793591)

Umm. The daringfireball article makes fun of Enderle (not Enderele, dear) for predicting Intel Macs, iPods that play video, and iPods that use flash memory. Of course, those things will never happen.

Him again? (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792287)

Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group...

The guy who suggested SCO had a case, spoke at one of their annual meetings. Which put him the company of tech luminaries such as Maureen O'Gara. Seems like he spends the bulk of his time being an "independent" shill for Microsoft. Why do news organizations keep turning to a tool like him for quotes?

How much PR money does it take to wield that much influence over tech media?

Re:Him again? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#23798403)

Why do news organizations keep turning to a tool like him for quotes?

Because like any fugly bar skank, he's so desperate for attention that he'll do all the work. "Journalists" are just as lazy and incompetent as the rest of us.

Yahoo needs a new board... (2, Insightful)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792293)

I am really starting to get annoyed with Yahoo and how they are handling this. They are a beaten company, because they just sat around and did nothing... Google crushed their future business model, and now instead of letting themselves be purchased by what appears the best fit from a competition standpoint, they instead are poisoning it in a number of ways.

I am certainly no fan of MS, but Google definitely needs to stay nervous in my opinion. This will, they will not eventually fall into the same trap that Yahoo did.... The trap of laziness...

Re:Yahoo needs a new board... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792555)

I am certainly no fan of MS
oh.

Re:Yahoo needs a new board... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793089)

Yahoo is WIDELY used outside the US. In many countries, particularly in South America and Eastern Europe, it is THE go-to web portal and search engine. That is far from a "beaten" company.

Also, letting themselves be purchased is DEFINITELY not the "best fit from a competition standpoint." Since when is GIVING UP competition? How is consolidating the effective market to two corporations from three pro-competitive?

Oh, and Yahoo wasn't lazy. They're problem was they tried to do too much at once. They got diluted and distracted, not lathargic.

That could happen to Google, but so far the people running Google seem to have their heads on straight and are doing quite well.

Re:Yahoo needs a new board... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793381)

I am really starting to get annoyed with Yahoo and how they are handling this. They are a beaten company, because they just sat around and did nothing... Google crushed their future business model, and now instead of letting themselves be purchased by what appears the best fit from a competition standpoint, they instead are poisoning it in a number of ways.

I am certainly no fan of MS, but Google definitely needs to stay nervous in my opinion. This will, they will not eventually fall into the same trap that Yahoo did.... The trap of laziness...
Yahoo did nothing; but play with Linux apps and technologies. When you think Yahoo!, you think presence and communication; not search for-the-most-part - not to mention internet safety for what it's worth.

Google do noting? Ah, last I heard they were a multi-tiered developer. Google is competing on every level of technology; from presence - to commanding hardware.

Unlike M$, Google invites leading technologies and even amatuer programmers the opportunity to join-in on future development. M$ is proprietary/communism at best. Attempts to buy out the technologies and I have seen where that goes...No Where!

Now that freedom has been re-introduced to the masses by-way of Linux and open source software applications, communism will fall - the walls will come tumbling down around M$.

Now tell me! Do you feel the love the hackers created? Can't hate them because they are assisting with the demise of M$. I don't hate M$, I hate their business model and the practices they create.

The trap of laziness...
This is Microsoft's exact problem now. Laziness allows the "Thousand-Yard-Stare" They keep-up their practices of bloat-ware. M$ may-as-well relocate to Cuba or China.

Re:Yahoo needs a new board... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793797)

Now that freedom has been re-introduced to the masses by-way of Linux and open source software applications


As much as I'd like to see it, you're dead wrong here. The vast majority of consumers wind up with Windows. The rest wind up with OS X. A vanishingly small number of people are moving to OSS.

Re:Yahoo needs a new board... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793955)

Google will and is becoming a force that will, soon enough, begin to block innovation and cause some grief to persons who depend on them, just like MS. However, they are still a reasonable company, mostly because they have to fight against Yahoo. MS is a non issue except that it has cash it can use to cause problems.

I think that Google did one thing that no one else did. Quietly controlled cost, invested heavily in R&D, and pretty much created the profitable ad based service model. Yahoo did not sit around and do nothing. Yahoo was an incumbent that had a reasonable enough business model. The problem is the model did not scale as it required massive human input. One must, however give them credit for two things. First, they saw and effectively filled a demand. Second, in a field littered with ineffective firms, they exist. They are not on the top. They do not generate the massive short term gains that some investors want, but they do appear to here to stay.

The deal with MS was purely designed to destabilize the market and allow MS to give the appearance that it was doing something. Such a deal, in the long term, likely would have only split Yahoos market share between Google and MS. This would have been fine for MS as it has the assets to pay huge amounts of money for market share, but would have hurt the market because Google would not have to work so hard to grow market share, revenue, and stock price.

As it is, Google has to fight, Yahoo has a niche, and MS will continue to shovel money into the sector, guaranteeing future growth.

Rob Enderle (0, Redundant)

xmodem_and_rommon (884879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792301)

Rob Enderle, Rob Enderle, Rob Enderle, where have I heard that name?

Ah, that's where.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=enderle+site%3Agroklaw.net&btnG=Search [google.com]
As far as I'm concerned, that man has zero credibility

Re:Rob Enderle (1)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795073)

This post, this post, this post, where have I read it before?

Ah that's where.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=583955&cid=23792251 [slashdot.org]
I know you want mod points but please - try to vary up the posts a little.

Re:Rob Enderle (1)

xmodem_and_rommon (884879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23797679)

yeah, my bad...browser crashed as i hit submit and I didn't see the post when i went to look for it.

Hmmm. what about Google's payout? (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792345)

Google cut the deal such that if somebody else buys Yahoo, then Google get 250M (poison pill). What happens with that?

And Microsoft has problems w/monopolies why? (1)

DJ_Maiko (1044980) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792353)

I mean, after all, Microsoft knows absolutely nothing about monopolozing markets right?

Rob Enderale wears a wig (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792359)

all he would have to do is remove that toupee and he is instantly transformed in to that Video Professor guy...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=video%20professor [google.com]

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Rob+Enderle [google.com]

they sure look like the same guy to me whom cater to the clueless...

The Hill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792423)

1. Rob Enderele is indeed an ill-informed shill.

2. Particularly after Nellie Krooes has noticed the OOXML/ISO debacle, and while it is an election year in which the EU will be disposed to put up will even less shit from the US it would behove M$ to be ___very___ careful.

3. People outside the US are now fully pleased that the crooks that brought you the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis and the Credit Crunch and are now in the midst of the Oil Price scam have managed to buy sufficient of your 'Hill' to make this kind of comment credible.

The next Administration needs to ensure that the 'Hill' on the take, pork, and bought influence are exposed, and continued perpetrators see the inside of Fort Levenworth, which is where Gates and Balmer should already be for the buy ISO fiasco.

The US no longer has high ground or moral influence.

This would be true, if not... (2, Interesting)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792541)

...for what Microsoft has been trying to do for the past few months: make them and Yahoo ONE COMPANY. For them to argue that Yahoo and Google cooperating on one deal is worse than them wanting to cooperate with Yahoo on everything would be ludicrous. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it'll never fly.

Re:This would be true, if not... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794199)

Except that in 'net space Microsoft has a minority market share. They don't have the same clout as Google does when it comes to the Internet. That's what they are counting on. I hope it doesn't fly, but never underestimate the power of bribes in the right places.

Pot calling the kettle black... (1)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792545)

This seems more than a little disingenuous of Microsoft considering they wanted to do the same thing with Yahoo! against Google. I would hope that even a junior politician in Washington would see the truth of it. If not, they better be aware that they may be voted out of office should they side with MS on this issue.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793541)

Well, ISTR, but Microsoft + Yahoo would still be smaller than Google in the on-line advertising market, or would at least be comparable in size, so Google would have vaguely credible competition. This way, there will be Google + Yahoo versus MS, and everyone else is insignificant. Still, MS should be able to come up with some way of using their desktop and browser market share work in their favour, possibly by filtering out all Yahoo and Google ads before displaying the page, and adding their own (or at least preventing them from being filtered).

Not that I am against the deal, or a future Goohoo merger, since I would much prefer that Google gets more people's personal data than MS does, on the basis that Google have most of what they are getting anyway, and they have less of a history of dirty tricks and insecurity.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black... (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23798059)

You really think losing a couple of nerd/geek votes from the slashdot crowd is going to get anyone voted out? Sorry, I don't think the slashdot effect works on a political level, especially federal politics.

If MS does complain about this... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792573)

I hope something is simultaneously done about their monopoly.

M$ pounding doors (1)

1 a bee (817783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792627)

Okay. My only take away from this article--reading between Enderale's lines--is

".. Microsoft is .. pounding on a lot of doors, I think this is .. a problem."
Translation: they've pounded my door, and I dutifully came up with this bullshit noise.

--
Have USB, Will Travel - http://www.faunos.com/ [faunos.com]

Is twitter schizophrenic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792715)

Apparently there's a chance twitter is experiencing schizophrenia, as he seems to have a number of Schneider's first-rank symptoms [wikipedia.org] .

Delusions of being controlled by an external force;
Tux
The belief that thoughts are being inserted into or withdrawn from one's conscious mind;
Microsoft
The belief that one's thoughts are being broadcast to other people;
/.
Hearing hallucinatory voices that comment on one's thoughts or actions or that have a conversation with other hallucinated voices.
All his various sock puppet accounts that he's actively using and abusing to hold a conversation with himself.

I know that Steve Ballmer isn't too thin, but.... (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792717)

...it's just cruel to describe him as an elephant.

Capitol (1)

stefaanh (189270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792915)

I think they are making a "capitol" mistake. They should stick with their core business. Producing Snow Vista.

Re:Capitol (1)

rwwyatt (963545) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794787)

I would have thought Vista was enough of a Snow Job as it is, you mean there's more to come?

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793631)

It is going to be an interesting showdown of powers.

Careful Whom You Quote (1)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793739)

I stopped reading the article summary as soon as I saw Enderle's name in it. The entire article must be bullshit from start to finish.

haiku (1)

sl0ppy (454532) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794511)

the water goes in
hydrogen and oxygen
the energy flows

Re:haiku (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795061)

Hmmm... Doubly Zen since its in the wrong discussion. :)

It's all fun and games... (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794521)

...until someone else holds the monopoly.

Uhh! Elephants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794833)

Awww... I couldn't find anything about elephants in the article :(

First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795231)

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?

Access is the coin of the politician realm. The "go along to get along" culture means that they're always talking out of every side of their mouth to accommodate every conversation they've had that doesn't get them indicted. So just inserting your point of view into their environment is the key to carrying your point of view into legislation.

Every elected official should be required to fill their calendar from their constituents first, after they schedule meetings with their official staff. They should be allowed to reserve up to 1/3 of their office hours for people outside their constituency. Within those groups, people whose agenda is personal, even if they're the principals of their corporation or organization (eg. on its Board of Directors, shareholder committee, or executive tier) should all get equal access to the official. And every agenda should be published in their calendar, as well as the list of meeting attendees. Except in rare cases of actual national security, which must be confirmed by the relevant security committee in Congress, in order to be kept secret (though not from that oversight committee).

We shouldn't have to wait for the paid corporate reps to get done deciding everything for a gang of figureheads. We're a republic. These people are supposed to represent us every day, not just on the campaign leading up to the Election Day "accountability moment".

Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (5, Interesting)

WeirdJohn (1170585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795485)

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?


Sorry, that only happens in a democracy.

Yes I know this will be modded into oblivion. But please realise that The Rest Of The World does not acknowledge the USA as a shining example of Democracy and Freedom. I think it's because you've lost that "of the people, by the people, for the people" bit, and now have "of the moneyed, by the moneyed, for the moneyed".

Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23797441)

That's true, but it was never any different in the US. Except maybe on TV for a while, and in the movies.

But for that matter, it's even less true in other countries. Plus, it's also truer in individual US states than in the country as a whole. Which is what you have to compare most other countries to, where the US states are vastly more democratic and accessible than European, Asian, Latin American, African or other countries. The US is also vastly more Democratic that the EU as a whole, especially in terms of access, or any other comparable entity, like the CIS (Russia), or Japan or anywhere else.

Nowhere is a shining example of democracy and freedom. The US has its problems, some worse than other countries. But let's not pretend that the US is at all alone in them, or that anywhere is really that beacon. In fact, it doesn't really seem like democracy and freedom shine - they're inherently grubby, like the people ourselves.

Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (3, Interesting)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796965)

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?

All Americans do have that access.

But officials are a limited resource. Obviously the Americans that work harder to get some of that resource will be the ones who benefit the most from those resources.

What you're really asking is "wouldn't it be nice if nobody was allowed to put any more effort into influencing officials than the effort I put into it today?"

And no, that wouldn't be nice at all. It's a free country: Everybody is free to specialize in accessing and influencing officials if they want to, and free to sell the benefits of their specialization to the highest bidder. And free to specialize in something else, and thereby generate enough personal wealth to retain the services of a lobbying specialist. And free to form an association with any number of other like-minded citizens, and pool their wealth for the purpose of accessing and influencing officials either directly, or through the services of a specialist. And free to do none of the above, and whine about it on the Internet instead.

Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23797619)

No, not all Americans have that access. What makes you say that? Have you ever tried to get a meeting with your senator? When IBM, or just the Coca-Cola bottling plant, wants a meeting, they get one that month, if not that day. If some mere constituent wants one, they can wait months, if they get one at all. Some states with very low populations (in their ratio to their 2 senators, or even in their ratio to their reps, which also vary by almost 100%) do have more easy access. But most states, the ones with Congressmembers with power, don't let just anyone from the public talk to them.

I have worked with national, provincial/state, municipal and county governments for over a decade. I'm talking from experience. What are you talking from?

Aren't you just talking from some purely theoretical, probably "libertarian", perspective? You libertarians like to say that everyone's equally free to make a lot more money than everyone else, and then buy more influence, so it's fair. Maybe in SimCity, but in the real world, there are enormous disparities between people's opportunities, that is the amorphous but still binding social reality we call "class". Do you really think that George Bush Jr got his political influence because of his hard work and talent, or because of his class? Do you really think that he's at all unique, or rather that he's the general rule?

On the Internet, "libertarians" are free to talk like you've got some evidence. But what you've got is the plot from an Ayn Rand novel. They haven't even made that kind of fiction into a videogame yet, but you're trying to live in it. The rest of us don't.

Does MS feed off of bad press and products now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795723)

After vista do they really need to embrace the Bush way of doing things?(turning whatever one touches to shit)
Maybe instead of corporate bulling company's that won't merge with your dieing company you should make a good OS that is worth buying before you run out of your money...

tag: robenderleisalier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23796733)

tag: robenderleisalier
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>