×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

218 comments

If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Funny)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083775)

...adapt to their defenses and continue assimilation.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083805)

...adapt to their defenses and continue assimilation.

Having big boobs and a catsuit [wikipedia.org] helps too ;)

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Funny)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083825)

Somehow, I don't think Jeri Ryan works for Microsoft. Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies anywhere near Ryan. :D

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083867)

Somehow, I don't think Jeri Ryan works for Microsoft

So you've identified the problem.... now what's the solution?

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (1)

Krisbee (644227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083895)

Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies anywhere near Ryan. :D

Ah, but then you're ignoring the prefix...

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083911)

Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies anywhere near Ryan. :D

You obviously missed the two most important points here!

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (3, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083943)

Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies anywhere near Ryan. :D

You obviously missed the two most important points here!

Come to think of it, the word "micro" doesn't apply anywhere near Ryan!

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085623)

Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies to men anywhere near Ryan. :D

There fixed it for ya. :P

Five Ways Microsoft Could Change After Gates (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083909)

... They could fuck off. THAT would be a change.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083955)

The only reason they're doing so is because Yahoo's shareholders can see that it makes sense.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Interesting)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084023)

Sure, it's great for the shareholders. Unfortunately, it's a disaster for the internet and its users. Flickr with Silverlight? No thanks. Yahoo Mail -> Live conversion? No thanks. Replacing YUI with .NET AJAX? No thanks.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084841)

Well, do something about it then... Switch from Google to search.yahoo.com and make it easier to compete with Google. Google is the (traditional) Microsoft of the web, assimilating and dominating search.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (3, Insightful)

kg9ov (611270) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084905)

Thus the problem with publicly traded companies... the only thing that matters are the shareholders.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085385)

That's the silliest thing ever to say. You could just as easily say, "in a privately held company, the only thing that matters are the owners." You might say one is better than the other, but it's a pointless argument that totally depends on the situation. The mafia can be the owner of a private company, they can't be the owner of a public company, and I would much rather have shareholders coming after me than the mafia.

In any company, a lot of things matter: shareholders or owners, employees, customers, business partners....the fact is if you are depending on ANY company to "look out" for your best interest, you are highly naive. That's pretty much how life is, everyone is looking out for their own interest.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (1)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085535)

Yahoo Mail -> Live conversion? No thanks.

Why? You might actually start getting all your mail then.

Re:If at first you don't succeed.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084253)

Microsoft shareholders, on the other hand, should be screaming bloody murder.

Or, in Hollywood lingo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083991)

They're baaAACK!

Hmmm. Perhaps the Bill Gates-as-borg image should be changed to Steve-Ballmer-in-a-Hockey-Mask. Now that's scary!

So, is this a concession... (0, Flamebait)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083785)

...that Live Search sucks? They were all gung-ho about their Google-killer a few years back.

Re:So, is this a concession... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083897)

Not really. Yahoo is dead/dying. Few people search there, most are going to Google. So buying Yahoo is a way to put the three search engines together (MSN, Live, Yahoo) vs Google, Ask and the others.

Re:So, is this a concession... (2, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084029)

It's still something like 15% last I heard. That may not sound like a lot of share but comparing to browsers it's more than Opera and Safari have put together.

It would be a huge acquisition and could help build a lot of momentum if they can also get some good new stuff out.

Re:So, is this a concession... (2)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084031)

You just described "dogpile.com" ... and dogpile describes Microsoft quite accurately ... hiding in plain sight all along!

Clueless Mod... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24085353)

Clueless Mod ... This was not a troll.

dogpile.com [dogpile.com] is a search engine conglomerator. Dogpile returns search results from Yahoo, Live Search, MSN and Google. Just like the parent this post was in reply to mentioned.

So an on topic salient point is once again modded "troll" because a neophyte internet user has mod points, but lacks basic knowledge of the subject being discussed. (yea I know, I must be new here)

At least we can take comfort in the fact that moderator abuse can backfire because "Unfair" metamods count against the "unfair" moderator's Karma.

Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083793)

I thought MS just said it didn't make sense to purchase Yahoo after all and that they were going to focus on their core assets or something.

Re:Um (2, Funny)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083915)

Core assets = $30 billion USD. I guess that money's burning a hole in Ballmer's pocket.

Re:Um (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084167)

Am I the only one here that is seeing this Icahn guy as just a greedy dick?

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084257)

How many millions do you have invested in crashing stock?

Re:Um (2, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084271)

No, but i find most of the worlds population being greedy pricks. While im no communist i do think there are more important things to our society than money.

Re:Um (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084575)

It should be burning a hole in his pocket. Shareholders get antsy when companies hold on to a huge cash reserve without any plans for what they're going to do with it. That cash should be used to grow the company or should be returned to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. Having it sit in the bank isn't helping the shareholders at all.

Microsoft used to say they needed their big cash reserves to fight off giant lawsuits, especially the anti-trust suits. Now that the government has rolled over and given up, though, MS is going to have to come up with something to do with all that cash. Buying up other companies is a popular way to do that.

Re:Um (1)

myCopyWrong (1310641) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085091)

They could be sued again. Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to innovate like that.

Seriously, they had better do something. The $40 billion they have spent over the last few years has given the world Zune, Vista, Xbox, lots of worthless patents, a few other failures as well as a few billion lost in lawsuits. This is why their stock price has been flat for five years and never did recover pre dot-bomb pricing. You would have been better off with Tbills and a lot of institutional investors are going to have to answer for that.

Give it up already (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083843)

Yahoo isn't interested - give it up MS!
They don't want to tarnish their good name.

Re:Give it up already (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083967)

What good name? Really Yahoo has 0 reputation right now, good or bad. Google has a reputation, MS has a reputation, but Yahoo has no reputation. I think it is less of tarnishing a reputation and more of trying to hold second place rather then move down with MS.

Re:Give it up already (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084151)

Yahoo isn't interested - give it up MS!
They don't want to tarnish their good name.

They've pretty much already done that on their own. I used to use yahoo for services, google for search. Yahoo maps *used* to be the best mapping app out there, but then google outdid them. At that point in time, I still used Yahoo for movies and tv listings. They screwed those up horribly [ajaxian.com], and Google did better with their movie listings.

Yahoo was on top. They became complacent. Then in an effort to 'catch up' they alienated their user-base by releasing unusable crap.

Yahoo needs a restraining order (4, Funny)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083879)

As a yahoo user, I feel strangely threatened. I can't explain it, but it"s like a bad ex-girlfriend who just can't accept no for an answer.

Does not compute (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084005)

Not only is this not a car analogy, but...ex-girlfriend?

Re:Yahoo needs a restraining order (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084043)

Yahoo users feel one way Yahoo shareholders feel another way. :-) We'll see which group yields the most influence

Re:Yahoo needs a restraining order (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084363)

As a yahoo user, I feel strangely threatened. I can't explain it, but it"s like a bad ex-girlfriend who just can't accept no for an answer.

You're on Slashdot. Don't even pretend you know what the world girlfriend means. And especially don't pretend you know what it means to actually break up one!

Re:Yahoo needs a restraining order (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085211)

As a yahoo user, I feel strangely threatened. I can't explain it, but it"s like a bad ex-girlfriend who just can't accept no for an answer.

You're posting on Slashdot, so how would you know?

Lets get a count (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083891)

Who here find this surprising? Didn't think so.

And we are supposed to believe that MS can create competitive products? It doesn't look much like that. sad.

I found it surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083947)

A company with Microsoft's resources should be able to come up with a better business plan than a buy-in. I think they're impatient, for some reason not yet disclosed.

Re:I found it surprising (5, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084723)

A company with Microsoft's resources should be able to come up with a better business plan than a buy-in. I think they're impatient, for some reason not yet disclosed.

It's all about Google.

If I were an MS strategist, Google's search business wouldn't scare me. If you lost sleep every time somebody made money doing something technological you'd go mad.

I'd be a little more concerned with Google's foray into online office suites, but I'd be fairly confident that wasn't a serious problem in the short to mid term.

The thing I'd be freaked about is Google's casual way of generating APIs for its popular services. That hits Microsoft where it lives.

This is a relatively low cost, low risk game for Google. Nobody expects them to provide soup-to-nuts service for all your IT needs; they're just throwing API shit against the wall. If it sticks, good for Google, bad for MS; if t doesn't, MS feels no pain, but neither does Google. It's just another interesting idea from Google.

This is like assymetrical warfare: MS is the conventional force, and Google is the guerilla force. Google chooses when and where to stike, and if it fails it doesn't cost them much. Tactical failures can even be strategic victories if they provoke a costly response. From MS's standpoint, it is necessary to limit Google's ability to strike when and where it will, and get away without much loss no matter the outcome. One thing you can do is start to poach on Google's engineering talent; taking people out of a team is disruptive. Another thing you can do is try to hurt them in places where they live, so you want them so focused at keeping their ad revenue flowing that they can't do anything else.

Google's strategic weakness is that it doesn't provide full solutions. It is an interesting technology company, not a product company. That's good for MS because once Google (or anybody else) provides a complete replacement for Office, Exchange and Sharepoint, bad things are going to happen to MS.

Gaining control of Yahoo makes sense for several reasons. First, it keeps them from cooperating with Google, which is the opposite of what MS wants. MS wants Google to have to work harder to get ad revenue, not less. Second, Yahoo is a product company, like MS; it could be the first to offer the complete, MS free product stack. Equally bad, Yahoo could goad Google into upgrading its products so they look more like a viable replacement for MS to enterprise customers.

The picture MS would prefer is Google struggling to maintain ad revenues, and facing a steep uphill battle in product adoption and API mindshare when it looks at MS dominated product areas.

No risk? (1)

myCopyWrong (1310641) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085343)

Are you really saying there's no risk to Google's innovation? They have invested big money in software and data centers.

Microsoft's counter to it is their usual take no prisoners and loot the assets of attack on an established competitor. It's not going to work because they can't really lock out Google or any other portion of the internet where drop in replacements of their product line have taken shape. All they can do is give the world another example of their business ethics. If you look at Microsoft's stock price, you can see that bad things have already happened.

Almost Seems Desperate - Doesnt It? (5, Insightful)

molotovjester (1273662) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083935)

Microsoft is showing how scared it is of losing the online search battle. Maybe because it realizes that it is also losing ground rapidly in software.

The nice thing about Rome is that we still have lots of pretty statues...too bad the same can't be said about old code.

Re:Almost Seems Desperate - Doesnt It? (1)

japandegreeinit (1028618) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085371)

Too bad you have no real understanding of the software market. Microsoft has not lost any market share, not according to IDC. More importantly, linux continues to do so, to Apple. But I am sure that you have some 6th sense that is telling you what the market says. Besides, all the Yahoo share holders would really like a buy out because it means that they would all make money. Do you actually know anything or are you simply one of those I hate Microsoft guys because they would never hire you?

Carl Icahn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24083973)

Is Microsoft puppet...dancing. Scientifically speaking, of course.

I'm glad I don't own MSFT (4, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24083989)

I thought about buying stock in Microsoft, but this behavior appears to be out of spite rather than a sound business decision.

Microsoft buying Yahoo would only have made sense if they never had MSN in the first place. It is buying a competitor to compete with its own products and if they intend to only shut it down or merge it with MSN, its only going to bleed massive amounts of money from MSFT in the process.

The smartest decision would be to let Yahoo die on its own and focus on more "fresh" markets or ones that is truly their bread and butter like Xbox, Office, and Windows. There is no need for it to dominate a market that is firmly entrenched in Google by aquring Yahoo. If nothing else it only helps Google and people who are short selling MSFT.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084191)

Microsoft buying Yahoo would only have made sense if they never had MSN in the first place. It is buying a competitor to compete with its own products and if they intend to only shut it down or merge it with MSN, its only going to bleed massive amounts of money from MSFT in the process.

Just like Google buying YouTube made sense because there was no Google Video, and Yahoo buying Jumpcut only made sense because there was no Yahoo Video.

Or, this could be exactly business as usual in the industry.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084599)

I thought Google paid way too much for YouTube, but at least they bought the company with the most market share. Microsoft wants to spend a ton on a company in decline. What are they going to do with it?

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084945)

Well, to be fair, Yahoo in general may not be awesome, but there are some products of theirs that are pretty good. I prefer Yahoo's news setup to Google's or Microsoft's. Flickr is pretty good. Yahoo video is probably technically superior to YouTube at this point, if still much lacking in market share. Yahoo Answers is without equal.

I don't get the idea of wanting to buy Yahoo's search, though. Live Search's problem isn't that it's technically inferior to Google at this point (though it may be) -- its problem is that Google has the mindshare (it's become the verb for doing an internet search), and buying Yahoo Search won't fix that.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (2, Interesting)

paazin (719486) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084267)

I find it bizarre that the financial folks out there considered Yahoo's possible buyout by Microsoft an absolute boon to both companies and thought Jerry Yang was an absolute moron for standing in the way - do they have their heads completely up their asses?

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

Wister285 (185087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084315)

This MSFT/YHOO nonsense is a testament to how unownable both stocks are. If MSFT thinks they need YHOO to survive, they are so misguided that they need to overhaul their decision calculus methods. YHOO not taking that deal to begin with was a joke. Their turnaround plan is basically vaporware! They should change their symbol to DNF already!

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

cryptodan (1098165) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084455)

I thought about buying stock in Microsoft, but this behavior appears to be out of spite rather than a sound business decision.

Microsoft buying Yahoo would only have made sense if they never had MSN in the first place. It is buying a competitor to compete with its own products and if they intend to only shut it down or merge it with MSN, its only going to bleed massive amounts of money from MSFT in the process.

The smartest decision would be to let Yahoo die on its own and focus on more "fresh" markets or ones that is truly their bread and butter like Xbox, Office, and Windows. There is no need for it to dominate a market that is firmly entrenched in Google by aquring Yahoo. If nothing else it only helps Google and people who are short selling MSFT.

Why would MSN Live and Yahoo allowed the integration of the two client protocols if they were competing with each other? Common sense and logic dictates that had they been in fierce competition that neither of them would have wanted Yahoo Messenger being capable of utilizing Live Email Addresses and vice versa on either clients. Yahoo and MusicMatch merged together and now MusicMatch is no more, and Yahoo's Launch cast took its place. Its business as usual.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084847)

Yeah, I'd like an explanation as to what MS gets by buying Yahoo. Are they going to use any particular technology, or are they just trying to buy the userbase? If the latter, then it makes me wonder how much of the userbase will stay when everything is converted to MS brands.

Like, if Microsoft ditches the Yahoo webmail and implements their own, ditches the chat client and makes Yahoo users use the MSN chat client, then how many users stick around? Or does Microsoft leave all of that intact?

I'm not ready to judge whether it would be good or bad, but I'd be interested to know what Microsoft intends to do with Yahoo once they own them. Or maybe they don't even know? I sometimes think that might be the case with some of these buy-outs, that they don't have a sound business case for them. Like maybe it's an semi-emotional decision, that they're hoping that by buying more people and having a bigger presence, they're less likely to fail regardless of what services they're offering.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085105)

I think this deal will be the doom of MS. The one thing that MS has going for it right now is a large cash reserve. This purchase will actually put MS heavily into debt. Yahoo is profitable but not wildly profitable as to pay back the purchase price. Even if they took over Google's position, they'd still be in debt. Financially, for this merger to work, they'd have to run Google out of the market. Even if they managed that, others are likely to follow in Google's place.

Re:I'm glad I don't own MSFT (1)

Crazyswedishguy (1020008) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085587)

The smartest decision would be to let Yahoo die on its own

Not if you can have a say in where current Yahoo users end up. If you can migrate that marketshare to your own products (whether or not you maintain the Yahoo brand name), you're better off (as Microsoft) than letting Google get them.

In the end, there's good cause to think that a merger will result in synergies that will improve overall margins.

Also, I'm pretty sure those guys gave some thought to it before bidding over $40Bn.

Death of Yahoo (2, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084013)

If yahoo would sell its search business i seriously doubt it will survive many months. I dont think Carl Icahn will let a single dime from any eventual sale of the search business go anywhere but straight into the stock owners pockets. Just like Google Yahoo cant gather any users without its search business regardless of what services they might have.

If they sell Yahoo it has to be in whole or they will waste the total value of the company for a very small one-time gain.

As a computer user i would really like it if Microsoft go out and buy Yahoo, just to see Microsofts faces when every single user jumps ship to Google instead

Re:Death of Yahoo (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085383)

If they sell Yahoo it has to be in whole or they will waste the total value of the company for a very small one-time gain.
That's the modus operandi of Carl Icahn see TWA circa 1985. Btw calling him an activist investor is like calling Genghis Khan an activist equestrian.

Typical Business Practice (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084079)

This stuff shouldn't be a surprise, in other industries this type of thing goes on all the time. Make an offer, have it rejected, sweeten it etc until the shareholders start selling. Eventually the big shareholders sell when the pot is sweet enough. For Yahoo, it may be a stretch to say they aren't interested at all, they just aren't interested in the present offer. Remember, in the free market, everyone has their price. The question really is how much will MS overpay for Yahoo if they want it that badly.

Re:Typical Business Practice (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084485)

This stuff shouldn't be a surprise, in other industries this type of thing goes on all the time.

In other industries, there's usually a sound business reason for a takeover. A Microsoft/Yahoo takeover would be a disaster for both companies.

Re:Typical Business Practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24085325)

Keyword... usually... not always though, there have been some horrors...

Look at the Time-Warner AOL thing

PowerSet (5, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084091)

Didn't Microsoft already decide to abandon the quest for Yahoo! and purchase the search technology from PowerSet?

To be a fly on the wall in these meetings:
Ballmer: Let's buy Yahoo.
Board Member: They won't sell.
Ballmer: Did you ask them, or tell them?
Board Member: A little of both.
Ballmer: Did you say we'll be their best friend?
Board Member: Yeah, but Yang just watched Pirates of Silicon Valley and isn't fooled.
Ballmer: Is that the movie with Johnny Depp, or the good one with Jenna Jameson?
Board Member:...
Ballmer: What's this "PowerSet" thing?
Board Member: That's a start-up Websearch company. They're doing a lot of what we want to do with Live search.
Ballmer: Great! Buy it!
Board Member: Okay, so I guess that takes care of the Yahoo--
Ballmer: Buy them, too!
Board Member: What? Why? Powerset will--
Ballmer: They're working with Google! It's anti-competitive! We have to buy them! And it will make Live search even stronger after we incorperate SourPet--
Board Member: PowerSet--
Ballmer: Whatever! Just buy Yahoo so we can say we're not anti-competitive.
Board Member: You want to purchase two separate Internet search systems, incorperate them into our failed system, to avoid anti-competitive practices?
Ballmer: Finally! It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes, y'know?

FAILZoRS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084121)

out how to make the Nigger associ4tion troubles of Walnut much as Windows obtain a copy of lizard - In other else up their asses of America (GNAA) of America (GNAA)

give me the ball puppy (3, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084137)

give me the ball puppy, drop the ball, give me the ball puppy, drop the ball puppy, puppy drop the ball, puppy give me the ball, drop the ball puppy puppy drop the ball, puppy, PUPPY GIVE ME THE BALL, drop the ball puppy, give me the ball, drop it,, drop it, drop the ball

Fortune's take: Not Compting w/ Google on Tech (4, Interesting)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084157)

Fortun'e take on this is interesting (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/technology/kirkpatrick_search.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008070405). They're arguing that Microsoft's pursuit of Yahoo has little to do with competing with Google on technology...because Google's innovation is not in technology. They're competing with Google's business model. This strikes me as very similar to some of the criticisms I hear on Microsoft: they don't innovate in technology - they innovate in business model (e.g. realizing that Windows/OS's was a good business). It's intersting to see the mainsteam media starting to catch onto Google as business innnovator but not a technology innovator. I mostly agree with two big exceptions. One is that Google clearly has some decent search algorithms. Nothing that can't be equaled or beaten but they do provide decent search results. Two, while invisible to us, they must have some pretty amazing software to manage their datacenters. The irony there is that this innovation is more similar to enterprise software...the old boring on-premise stuff that Google likes to trash.

Google not a technology innovator says Slashdoter (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084707)

"Fortun'e take on this is interesting .. [slashdot.org] They're competing with Google's business model"

Insert free advert for Live Search .. :)

"This strikes me as very similar to some of the criticisms I hear on Microsoft: they don't innovate in technology - they innovate in business model"

This is new to me, that Ms 'innovate in business model', if by innovate you mean lean on the the OEMs to keep other companies technology off their Desktop, then I can acquiesce to that. Do you have any other examples of Microsoft innovating in business models.

"It's intersting to see the mainsteam media starting to catch onto Google as business innnovator but not a technology innovator"

It's news to me that the mainstream media doesn't think Google is a technology innovator, Is that the current subliminal meme of the day .. :)

"this innovation is more similar to enterprise software...the old boring on-premise stuff that Google likes to trash"

What innovation does Google like to trash, give examples and specific quotes?

Re:Fortune's take: Not Compting w/ Google on Tech (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084737)

I largely disagree with the suggestion that Google hasn't been a technology innovator. As you point out, their search engine won out because it was massively better search technology than the competition. Then you've got Gmail and Google Maps which took Ajax and web-based-apps to a new level, crushing the competition with better technology. Google also has major innovations in using MapReduce and commodity hardware infrastructure that allows them to scale their technologies extremely cheaply and reliably.

That's not to imply they haven't had business innovations as well - Google Ads and Google Apps are smart business implementations of existing technology. Or, for that matter, making their search engine *search* instead of turning it into a spam portal like other search engines at the time.

Re:Fortune's take: Not Compting w/ Google on Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24085255)

I hate to burst your Google bubble, but the only thing Google can be given credit for is a slightly better search algorithm.

Maps were an aquired technology and lots of other sites had made "scrolling huge datasets with AJAX" before that. Just because CNN didn't notice it before Google launched it, doesn't mean that it was especially "innovative"

Gmail was pretty much a "one man invention", that Google didn't even think of making into a product untill much later.

Re:Fortune's take: Not Compting w/ Google on Tech (3, Insightful)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085589)

As I said, Gmail and Google Maps took Ajax and web-based-apps to a new level, crushing the competition with better technology. I didn't say Google invented the internet, or even invented Ajax.

Google innovated in these areas by applying creative uses of new technology, and that's why it's Google Maps not Mapquest, and Gmail not Yahoo Mail or Hotmail that everyone uses these days. Google deserves every ounce of credit for these.

And yes, every innovation comes back to some individual or purchased company or whatever who actually sat there and wrote the code. A company (Google in this case) promoted and marketed and guided these excellent ideas and helped turn them into successes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that process.

I've seen plenty of companies take good people and good ideas, and instead of recognizing and promoting them, they demoralize the individuals and pervert the best of ideas into an abomination. This is often done in the name of "marketing" (check out ICQ's massive failure in AOL's hands), or copying the existing market instead of doing something original (last company I worked for wouldn't even consider doing anything other than directly copying features from the market leader).

A company that recognizes and promotes innovative ideas deserves all the credit they can get.

Does it matter? (1)

belal1 (981326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084189)

I mean, yahoo just plain sucks. People call it an open source company yet it has yet to release an update to its messenger client for linux. their search feature is as good as webcrawler back in 1995 (which wasn't good). their mail service is worse than aol's free mail service. their music service is dead. Besides, for many people who have made it a habit to goto google the minute they open their web browser, its easier/habitual to type blackle.com/google.com than typing yahoo.com.

My one question.... (2, Insightful)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084207)

for goodness sake, WHY? Seriously. Does Microsoft really think Yahoo will help them? It'll just make a bloated conglomerate even more bloated with extraneous staff and duplicate job junctions. Sure, some of those will be weeded out, but dammit, when will MS get the point that they don't need to be BIGGER, they need to be LEANER and more efficient in doing things. Get rid of redundant redundancy. Stop having 12 guys work on the Start menu. And you wonder why their products are so bloody crappy now. Will they ever learn?

In not-quite-related news (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084233)

I usually use babelfish to make words translations, but I was shocked to be redirected from babelfish.altavista.com to babelfish.yahoo.com the other day.

Has Yahoo! bought AltaVista? Wouldn't their new combined marketshare make them an even bigger threat for Microsoft?

What if Yahoo! is in the process of buying all the once-major players? (WebCrawler, AltaVista, etc)

Re:In not-quite-related news (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084525)

What if Yahoo! is in the process of buying all the once-major players? (WebCrawler, AltaVista, etc)

Whoa, then maybe Yahoo! could buy itself.

Yahoo bought Altavista and AllTheWeb years ago (3, Informative)

frik85 (951295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084565)

Yahoo bought Altavista and AllTheWeb years ago.
All those former well known web search services are just brands for Yahoo search.
btw. Bablefish is just a brand name around the underlying third party software "Systran".

Brilliant! (1)

BKuhl (2470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084325)

This is brilliant! Release a letter stating that you would be interested if there is a new board. Have Icahn's board elected, which from all I have seen is completely incompetent of running the company should a merger NOT take place. Then make a half-hearted attempt at the new merger, announce that you cannot reach an agreement and now you've hobbled another competitor without spending a dime. Now, if they can just get their act together they could swoop in and grab some of Yahoo! market share. I can't tell if this is incompetence on Microsoft's part or pure brilliance, but it may work out great for them....

Interesting questions .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084415)

When was the first contact between Icahn and Microsoft regarding the yahoo takeover bid?

Exactly when did Icahn start buying yahoo shares?

Who complained to the justice department over the yahoo/google deal?

Who approached in relation to the MS/Yahoo takeover bid?

What exactly is the quid pro quo in Icahn helping out Microsoft on the acquisition?


"I do believe the following -- that this company, yahoo!, is a very strategic and important acquisition for microsoft"

"The only way, you know, that microsoft can compete in the long run with google is to have yahoo!"

"once you've don an alternative deal and given the search to Microsoft, you don't need Microsoft to buy you anymore"

"How closely are you in communication, carl, with microsoft's management?"

"Well, you know, I really -- I wouldn't say closely and I wouldn't want to talk about it anyway, you know? .. Certainly. I do talk to them [cnbc.com], you know, occasionally and maybe more than occasionally on the yahoo! Side"

Yahoo already peaked (4, Insightful)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084487)

Yahoo peaked when it released Yahoo Mail. They haven't really done anything new or innovative or even relevant since.

Re:Yahoo already peaked (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085413)

so why do you think Microsoft/Balmer is so hell bent on shutting them down?

And if yahoo is so bad, how bad can Microsoft's MSN be since they are still in a distant 3rd place?

So either Microsoft is a technological failure and can't code a search engine to find an index.html page if it was on their own site, or it is that AND they need to eliminate 2nd place before the 2nd place advertisers move to Google instead of Microsoft. Just like how they grew MS Exchange by purchasing Hotmail and claiming them in marketshare numbers, is this a ploy to purchase an install base because they can't win users over with mediocre Microsoft technology?

LoB

Resistance is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084495)

http://tech.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=109

They don't need to buy Yahoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24084535)

Microsoft doesn't actually have to _buy_ Yahoo!. They previously made an offer, Yahoo's stocks soared. They "negotiated," and retracted that offer and Yahoo's stocks plummeted further than they had been at to begin with.

Rinse, repeat, until the competition is effectively destroyed.

Re:They don't need to buy Yahoo! (2, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085527)

Maybe they can get BayStar to help fund Icahn's take over and make it look like someone else is behind it. Or maybe help by funding a new SCO company looking to get into search engine technology and advertising.

Microsoft has dozens of techniques to undermine Yahoo but if they drive away yahoo customers, will they want to go to Microsoft or Google? Maybe they've got a No-Go-Google feature planned for a Vista update. One thing is certain, this now shows that Steve Balmer will not rest until Yahoo is no longer a Google partner. IMO

LoB

It will never stop (1)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084547)

<frankenstein_voice>Ballmer get what Ballmer wants.</frankenstein_voice>

Re:It will never stop (1)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084577)

And yes, I know that Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster. But <no_name_voice>...</no_name_voice> didn't have the desired affect.

wtf is an "investor activist"? (4, Insightful)

EjectButton (618561) | more than 5 years ago | (#24084877)

when did corporate raider get changed to "investor activist"? I must have missed that memo.

Also Icahn and his ilk have no interest in real "investment", he simply wants to boost the stock price long enough to dump it. They don't understand or care that the two companies are a horrible match technology wise, management wise, and corporate culture wise and that a merger between the two would leave Yahoo an empty shell a year later.

Apparently when you are a sufficiently large publicly traded corporation it is expected that you adopt short-sighted suicidal tendencies.

no chair left standing in Balmers new office (0, Troll)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085235)

it seems that Steve "Monkey Boy" Balmer is still having a fit about killing Google and won't let up until he's purchased every other search company/product out there.

How many more times will we hear Microsoft claim monopoly in Googles position yet they are the ones who have not only been in court many times of illegal monopolistic practices but have been convicted of it? Besides, Microsoft's massive financial failures outside of the leveraged Windows monopoly is legendary so how could Microsoft consuming Yahoo be good for anybody but the already convicted monopolist?

My guess is that Balmer knows he has one year to destroy Yahoo or profits from the Google/Yahoo partnership will end that opportunity for a long long time. So long that Microsofts MSN will probably lose 10's of billions more over another 10 years.

LoB

Entertain me. (1)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085257)

They should do to Yahoo! what they did to Hotmail. Take a system that runs perfectly fine on FreeBSD, spend ten billion dollars to switch it over to Windows Server, and get no benefit out of it whatsoever, other than the ability to brag that it runs on Windows, which won't be much of a brag, given all the bugs and problems that will be introduced during the massive job of switching the systems.

If this is the case, then why am I saying that they should do this? For my entertainment and laughing pleasure.

You can't buy cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24085479)

The people who are on Yahoo BECAUSE it's not Microsoft will just shift to something else.

Snake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24085575)

Could someone please for the love of all that is right put him out of his misery?

Trying to tank, not trying to buy (3, Insightful)

Rog7 (182880) | more than 5 years ago | (#24085607)

At this point, considering the approach, I strongly suspect that Microsoft is less interested in purchasing Yahoo! as they are in just removing Yahoo! from the field.

This sort of corporate business makes me weep for our entire culture. =/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...