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!

Was the Yahoo-Google Deal a Ploy To Weaken Yahoo?

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the reply-hazy-ask-again dept.

Google 82

JagsLive writes with a link to a BetaNews story about a US Senator who is questioning whether the deal between Yahoo and Google was brokered with less than honorable intentions on Google's part. The advertising deal came under scrutiny from the Department of Justice recently for potential antitrust violations. The deal has now been delayed in order to allow investigators more time for evaluation. Meanwhile, rumors are circulating that Yahoo will cut as much as 20% of its workforce after an internal memo from CEO Jerry Yang called for "discipline" and said the company was "getting fit" for the long term. For their part, Google has launched a site endorsing the deal and attempting to smooth the way for its approval by providing facts and positive reactions from experts.

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

First! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255553)

Notice how the DOJ only moves on anti-trust issues when the complaint is from a big corp (Microsoft).

Re:First! (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 6 years ago | (#25255561)

the entire article/summary is just flamebait tbh. from TFA

In addition, the agreement is non-exclusive, meaning Yahoo could make a similar deal with another company

how can a non-exclusive deal weaken yahoo, they can choose to use a different provider or thier own ads at any point?

It CAN weaken them, but so can any deal.

Re:First! (3, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#25255825)

"how can a non-exclusive deal weaken yahoo"

My further entrenching a monopoly they compete with and making it far harder for new entrants of even existing market players to enter their space?

Oh, and why do you find it so hard to believe that Google would deliberately weaken its competitor? What if it was Microsoft brokering a similar deal with, say, Red Hat?

Seriously, enough with the "we love Google" rubbish. They're a profit seeking company, just like any other, and they don't play fair, they just have a better handle on how to direct your attention to the bones they throw at the FOSS community while they go about their business.

Re:First! (2, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 6 years ago | (#25256339)

Yahoo is primarily a content company nowadays. Sure, people use their search, but their other products are the popular ones. If the advertising deal were to go through and become stronger, Google would no longer be a competitor but then a partner. Both companies would have an incentive to work harder with each other, and both would benefit. It's win-win.

Or they could take the other direction and use the new money coming in to step up development on their own competing products and try to make them actually competitive.

This deal is good for Yahoo because it opens up options. More funding + more options = good.

Re:First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256819)

Not true. The two companies' core products are fundamentally in competition. Even if they have a joint venture in one area, that doesn't stop each board of directors looking at the other and thinking "gee, it'd be nice if you died".

IMHO this is just Google insidiously bringing that about.

Re:First! (1)

ishobo (160209) | about 6 years ago | (#25258003)

Yahoo is primarily a content company nowadays.

Yahoo has always been a content company. Their first service was a directory that was manually compiled. Search was added later, both in-house and using third parties such as Inktomi (which they bought).

Re:First! (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 6 years ago | (#25262367)

Oh, and why do you find it so hard to believe that Google would deliberately weaken its competitor?

Oh, I love you conspiracy nuts. You're all the same. What makes you think Google knew this would happen? Think back to the terms and situation of the deal. It was Yahoo who was in danger of being bought by Microsoft. How about we start blaming Microsoft for weakening Yahoo, since they obviously knew all this would happen.

This deal was mutual between the two and most people were thinking it would strengthen Yahoo. If it has weakened them and it was Google's plan, then Google was about the only one who called it. I love that you give them that much credit, but I don't.

Re:First! (5, Informative)

shadow349 (1034412) | about 6 years ago | (#25255983)

how can a non-exclusive deal weaken yahoo, they can choose to use a different provider or thier own ads at any point?

Vlasic was in a non-exclusive deal with Wal-Mart:

Vlasic Pickles was roped into a contract with Wal-Mart, in which Wal-Mart sold a 3 gallon jar of whole pickles for $2.97. Wal-Mart sold 240,000 gallons of pickles per week. But the price of the 3 gallon jar was so low, that it vastly undercut Vlasic's sales of 8 ounce and 16 ounce jars of cut pickles; further, Vlasic only made a few pennies per 3 gallon jar. With its profits tumbling, Vlasic asked Wal-Mart for the right to raise the price per 3 gallon jar to $3.49, and according to a Vlasic executive, Wal-Mart threatened that if Vlasic tried to back out of this feature of the contract, Wal-Mart would cease carrying any Vlasic product. Eventually, a Wal-Mart executive said, "Well, we've done to pickles what we did to orange juice. We've killed it"--meaning it had wiped out competitor products. Finally, it allowed Vlasic to raise prices; but in January 2001, Vlasic filed for bankruptcy. source []

Yahoo more like Wal-Mart in the deal. (3, Insightful)

pikine (771084) | about 6 years ago | (#25256151)

Google to Yahoo is like Vlasic to Wal-Mart in your example. Google is the supplier, and Yahoo the distributor. Establishing a distribution channel is the hard part, so Wal-Mart had an upper hand to threaten the termination of the non-exclusive deal because that would significantly affect Vlasic the supplier by undercutting its product distribution.

Yahoo in the Google ads deal already has its own distribution channel and even its own supply of ads. Yahoo is more like Wal-Mart, who carries its own Sam's Club breakfast cereal in addition to well-known brands such as Kellogg's and Quaker.

Re:Yahoo more like Wal-Mart in the deal. (1)

shadow349 (1034412) | about 6 years ago | (#25258121)

so Wal-Mart had an upper hand to threaten the termination of the non-exclusive deal because that would significantly affect Vlasic the supplier by undercutting its product distribution..

"So Google had an upper hand to threaten the termination of the non-exclusive deal because that would have a significant negative affect on Yahoo revenue, and, in turn, tank their stock."

Re:Yahoo more like Wal-Mart in the deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25259101)

That is just an awesome analogy! Were you stoned when you wrote that?

Re:Yahoo more like Wal-Mart in the deal. (1)

wdr1 (31310) | about 6 years ago | (#25261059)

Actually, I prefer to think of it this:

Yahoo uses PHP. Google uses Python.


Quoting LaRouche? That's sketchy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25257127)

LaRouche is a scammer and a kook.

But I have read that elsewhere, actually in a book about Wal-Mart.

Re:First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25258591)

+1 Internets for you sir.

I don't know (2, Funny)

DaleCooper82 (860396) | about 6 years ago | (#25255571)


Re:I don't know (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25263041)

On a more serious note, seeing as I have no idea either, does this have anything to do with their being a Yahoo! search result button on Google now? It just showed up like a week ago here. I have been a bit curious about that.

Feigned buyout intentions. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255585)

Feigned buyout intentions are used occasionally by unscrupulous business folks to damage competition. Here's a scenario used often (short version):

Potential buyer walk up to a company and says they would like to purchase it. The seller, who is interested says sure. After long negotiations, the buyer starts making demands for the deal to go through, such as: firing key employees because they "don't fit in the new company", canning key suppliers or not paying them on time to make the cash situation better, announcing to customers that there's a transaction going on, and other things to fuck up the company so that they will buy it - only under those conditions. Then, the buyer walks away. The seller is now pretty much fucked. It doesn't sound like anyone would fall for this, but after slow, very slow, negotiations for a while, and a strong desire by the seller to sell, it happens ever so slowly and after a while, the seller is afraid to bail because he's so far down the road, he keeps going along with the hopes of finishing.

BTW, not everyone can do this. You have to actually be someone who has the resources to do this. You or I walking up to a business, no matter how small, without any track record or business history will be ignored. It's usually done by competitors who want to knock out the competition. So, don't think you can wipe out the guy who screwed you on your WoW special edition throne.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 years ago | (#25255607)

Your analysis is informative and accurate. However, it is much more a description of the Microsoft/Yahoo deal(which was a potential buyout) rather than the Google/Yahoo deal(which would involve Yahoo running some AdSense on their sites).

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (3, Insightful)

zbend (827907) | about 6 years ago | (#25255657)

Wasn't Yahoo the one who rejected the deal? Even after MS came back and sweetened it?

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (2, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | about 6 years ago | (#25255737)

Yes, because it remained a lowball offer and would have resulted in the mass flight of whatever good employees Yahoo had anyway. Also, becoming part of Microsoft is not real high on the list of independent organizations' ambitions. Ask Bungie, for instance.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256659)

The only one who thought the Microsoft offer was lowball is the delusional Yahoo execs. Microsoft offered a 40% premium on the market price. That's generous by any measure.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (2, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | about 6 years ago | (#25255743)

I think you have this the wrong way round. MS were a more than enthusiastic potential buyer, bidding far above the market value of the company. It was Yahoo who dragged their feet on the whole deal, forcing MS to continually improve their bid until Yahoo finally rejected the offer altogether. Yahoo got their share price bumped and MS got massively embarrassed.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (2)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 6 years ago | (#25256025)

Microsoft has a history of going up to companies, offering them lots of cash, dragging on negotiations, and then using their closeness to a company to create a good-enough clone while simutaneous breaking off negotiations. Even if one were to assume that Microsoft had good intentions, Yahoo would still be in the same mess because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and clearly it's very questionable for Microsoft to use its Windows monopoly to buy a stake in the search/ad market when it has failed so badly so far trying to fairly compete.

Besides, such massive acquisitions don't generally happen overnight. So, I'd hardly call Yahoo's actions "dragging their feet". I would agree, though, that Microsoft did become embarrassed. It's rather used to being able to just throw ungodly sums of money at another company and to see the other company bend over backwards to obtain it. Finally, a company was wise enough to realize that even with all the money Microsoft was offering, the actual risk was very possibly much too great to simply jump at the offer without some actual consideration. Perhaps Yahoo was wrong. But, if there's one thing the subprime mortgage fiasco has shown, it's that if you merely jump at the dollar value being shown without considering the actual risk involved, you can be massively burned.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 6 years ago | (#25256217)

Well I personally agree it is a bad idea,but for different reasons. After getting tired of "Googlepedia" I have switched full time to Yahoo search and it is REALLY good,better IMHO than Google. When I type something like "Gears of War" or "The Dark Knight" into Google,the first entry is always Wikipedia,and clicking the more button only gets more Google crap like Google Earth. Whereas I type the same into Yahoo and get The official site as the first listing,and if I hit the more button(the little down tab below the search box) I get reviews,trailers,release date,etc. You know,stuff you would actually want. So I hope that Yahoo doesn't end up just rehashing Google search,because frankly Google search kinda sucks.

Re:Feigned buyout intentions. (1)

failedlogic (627314) | about 6 years ago | (#25256607)

Sounds like Mafia Tactics 101.

I am slightly confused by the article's tone... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 years ago | (#25255587)

On the one hand, I find the idea that running Google ads might be a really bad idea, in the strategic sense, for Yahoo unsurprising and certainly plausible enough. It might be that Yahoo would actually make more money as a receptacle for Google ads than they would by running the same ads themselves; but that certainly isn't a vote of confidence in Yahoo's own advertising mechanism. Were Yahoo to accept such an offer, it would certainly suggest that the niche they think they can compete in is declining.

On the other hand, nowhere in the story do I get any explanation of where "bad faith" and "less than honorable intentions" come in. Google's offer to run advertising on other people's web properties, in exchange for money, is common, not substantially different from similar schemes from others, and just not all that devious. Yahoo might well be stupid to take the deal, I don't know; but I don't understand how the offer is underhanded.

Don't be ridiculous (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | about 6 years ago | (#25255599)

Yes, I understand, we have to look at Google with skepticism, but I seriously don't get this.

Therefore, critics contend that an advertiser will have an incentive to bypass Yahoo entirely and only bid for Google advertisements since an advertisement purchased with Google could be placed on both Yahoo and Google's search result pages.

Captain Obvious to the rescue! Somebody quickly tell Yahoo, they must have overlooked this possibility when selling their adspace to Google!

Re:Don't be ridiculous (3, Funny)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25255671)

Shit! I dropped the keys to the Noshitmobile down the drain!

Re:Don't be ridiculous (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#25255865)

Other than furthering Google's market cap on internet advertising and pushing them closer to a practical monopoly (there will always be competition, but none that really competes on any large scale), is that really a problem? Yahoo's page views won't change at all, and chances are that $googleAdSenseRevenue > ($yahooAdSales - $yahooAdSalesOverhead - $yahooAdPayouts). If AdSense keeps the rest of the internet afloat, why should Yahoo have to feel left out?

Truth be told, having a "Google Custom Search" logo in the Yahoo search box might do a bit of harm to branding, but most of the people using Yahoo are using it as a home page (sports, weather, news) rather than primarily as a search engine. In my limited observations, at least. If Google made their iGoogle pages a bit more obvious, they could probably have Yahoo dead within a week.

Lobbyists (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 6 years ago | (#25255601)

MS spend tend of millions lobbying against this. They'll get something for their (considerable) money.

Clearly the answer is. (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#25255621)


Clearly the answer is. (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#25255625)


weaken it???? (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#25255629)

WOW, MS has loads of friends in lots of low places.

Off-topic, but still of interest (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255663)

First episode of Douglas Adam's Dirk Gently mystery: The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul is available, get it while it's hot!

mplayer -dumpstream -playlist []

Re:Off-topic, but still of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255895)

Thank you very much, oh kind AC! :)

Filth. (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#25255687)

total filth.

department of justice, the department which has had its all applicants and candidates for positions of power 'screened' by a bitch of bush administration, who later admitted to screening candidates more than FORTY times in regard to their political views, BY 'MISTAKE'. a mistake that has been done forty times.

department of justice is a joke, and is a puppet at the hands of bush administration and whichever big buck corporation that supports it. yea, you got my meaning.

Flamebait ? (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#25256259)

since when truth became flamebait ?

the woman CONFESSED in front of a senate committee for god's sakes. she said 'i made a mistake'. they asked, how many times, she said FORTY.

leave aside being flamebait, this explains how big a joke department of justice is, and what motives it has for accusing google with undermining yahoo.

ill wake you up -> microsoft.

In other news (1)

louzer (1006689) | about 6 years ago | (#25255691)

Google competitor Microsoft in the mean-time came up with a plan that's so crazy it just might work. Instead of buying Yahoo to beat Google, they will pay people in the US $1 million per year to not use Google. A special program will monitor their web activitiy to ensure this. Danny Sullivan comments, "Absurdly expensive? It can seem that way at first, but consider the math. There's an estimated 300 million people living in the United States. If you pay each one $1 million for the next three years, thatâ(TM)s just under $1 billion. That saves Microsoft $39 billion compared to what it was going to spend on purchasing Yahoo."

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255727)

Yeah, consider the math. 300M * 1M * 3 = 900 000 000 000 000 = 900 Trillion.

Re:In other news (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#25255881)

Someone just flunked out of Verizon Math. Even if you're using old-school billion with the milliard intermediary between 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000.

But even still, for a million bucks a year, I'd find some way to navigate using that thing that Microsoft calls a search engine.

Re:In other news (1)

bds1986 (1268378) | about 6 years ago | (#25256925)

Math issues aside, what are you planning to do about the other 6 billion people on the planet who might want to access Google?

Google is the new bad guy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255709)

They've become the new IBM. Nobody trusts them, with reason. Their products are a piece of shit (Orkut, Chrome, Android). They tell everybody how nice and green they are but they're the most polluting IT company in the world.

Re:Google is the new bad guy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256383)

Chrome is incredible at what it does (vastly speeds up code-heavy sites), Orkut is practically a way of life in Brazil and India, and Android phones aren't even out yet but Motorola is committing hundreds of people to developing on it because they love it so much. If those are the "worst" products you can pick out, then Google seems to be doing pretty well.

This deal is more likely to strengthen Yahoo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255721)

That really doesn't make much sense. Consider this:

- Yahoo tested Google's AdSense instead of their own ad system a while ago.

- Then they switched to AdSense.

Obviously, this means that the cut they got from AdSense was higher than what they got from their own ad system, because Google's ads are better/better targeted/people pay more for AdSense/whatever other reason.

Equally obviously, the people who run Yahoo's ad system aren't needed any more. So they get laid off. New positions will open at Google though.

In other words, Yahoo is making *more* money now than before. That's not what I'd typically call 'weakening' a company.

The drawbacks for Yahoo are the following:

- Google - its main competitor - is ALSO making more money now.

- They're dependent on their main competitor; given Google's history of mostly not being assholes, that's not as bad as being dependent on other companies though. Still, I'd call this the main drawback of the deal.

- Google now knows everything about Yahoo's audience. Since they have the largest search engine and the Google toolbar though, they probably already knew this before.

To wrap it up, I do not believe that this is weakening Yahoo.

Re:This deal is more likely to strengthen Yahoo (3, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#25255911)

No, but it does change their place in the market. Yahoo goes from being a search, ad, and content provider to solely a content provider (one which, like the rest of the internet, uses AdSense as its primary source of income). Not only does it strengthen both companies, but it lowers the hostility between them - Google gets to focus on search and ad targeting, and Yahoo gets to focus on gaudy design to wrap around information aggregated from other sources (again, like the rest of the internet).

It just so happens that Yahoo, as the #1 site on the internet (not sure on the metric, probably time spent there per day, as I expect google would beat them on uniques), tends to do this a lot more effectively than anyone else, and as such is able to bring in a lot more money with AdSense than anyone else.

However, judging by the comments here, they seem to be losing their enthusiasm! just! a! bit!

Re:This deal is more likely to strengthen Yahoo (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256665)

I don't believe Yahoo is going to be exclusively running Google ads. I heard from someone who works for Yahoo that this deal helps them by supplementing their own ads in related to searching. Apparently Google has more granularity in their ability to target ads at certain groups of people. Ones that Yahoo may not have the right ads they'd be interested in to begin with.

Re:This deal is more likely to strengthen Yahoo (1)

pcgabe (712924) | about 6 years ago | (#25257829)

- Google - its main competitor - [...]

Google and Yahoo aren't really main competitors, anymore than Google and Microsoft are main competitors. Yahoo and Microsoft are so much more than a search engine/advertising model/free e-email.

When I lived in Japan, for example, Yahoo was my Internet and phone provider. Google doesn't do that. Don't assume that all the Yahoo you personally experience is the extent of the company.

Re:This deal is more likely to strengthen Yahoo (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 years ago | (#25259043)

When I lived in Japan, for example, Yahoo was my Internet and phone provider
I'm pretty sure the service that uses the name Yahoo in japan is not part of Yahoo and is just using the name under license.

This is just proof (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25255761)

You can never trust those open source motherfuckers. They'll try to fuck you in the ass any time you bend over to pick up the soap.

I don't think so (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about 6 years ago | (#25255835)

There was a lot of technology MS wanted to 'innovate' from Yahoo, not just the advertising/search services (Yahoo Groups, Zimbra, YahooMail, a lot of PHP coders and code). Though I think MS thought Yahoo would be more desperate and be able to finagle something cheaper, but they misjudged them.


Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25257231)

Wtf would Microsoft want with PHP coders or code? It would offend their sensitive sensibilities to use anything but ASP.NET...

So? Is anyone really surprised? (1, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about 6 years ago | (#25255849)

Google is a publicly traded company and as such it's only obligation is to it's shareholders.

Few companies set out to do bad deeds but most won't rule them out. Google was supposed to be different. Regarding "Don't be evil"(tm), CEO Eric Schmidt recently clarified the policy saying that it was simply meant as a conversation starter.

Here's Google from good to bad...
+7.1 - Philanthropy
Creating a foundation to fight poverty.
+5.3 - Coddling staff
Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.
-2.4 - Moral Triage
Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame
-4.8 - Immaturity
Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International [] for giving them a last place rank.
-6.7 - Screwing staff
Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.
-8.3 - Censorship
Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
Source: Wired 16.10

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256103)

Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.

This argument is, and always will be, fucking retarded.

These are your only two options when dealing with China:
1) Play by their rules, begin to do business there, then once you're entrenched there begin to try to make changes.
2) Don't play by their rules, get blocked completely. A Chinese-owned search engine takes over and is completely in the pocket of the government and always will be.

That's it. Those are your only choices. Which is the better one for the people? If you think anything but the first, you're a fucking idiot.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256747)

No, if it's anything but the first, you're an ethical person. If it IS the first, you're a capitalist.

That's the choice everyone faces, and that's the choice Google faces, too. As far as I'm concerned, they can choose either option; I'm not going to chastise them for wanting to operate in China, and for adhering to local laws there then. However, I do expect them to be honest about it.

Other than that, I'll note that "Which is the better one for the people? If you think anything but the first, you're a fucking idiot." is essentially just an even more idiotic version of the Nuremberg defense: instead of "I was just following orders", you've gone to "I've done something bad, but if I hadn't, someone else would've, and they would've been even worse!". Are you really unable to see why that is not a sound argument? If Google wants to earn money in China, let them, but your BS is just BS.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 6 years ago | (#25258435)

You're forgetting
3) Use the company's profits to hire an army and puchase nuclear weapons on the black market, then overthrow the Chinese government to get the law changed.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25262763)


Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25261661)

I think your dad was a fucking idiot. Or fucking an idiot. Or both.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (1)

gacl (1078259) | about 6 years ago | (#25261887)

Money is not all there is in life. If i choose to not do business in China because i would have to support an oppressive government does not make me a fucking idiot. Let the evil ones do evil.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256209)

You forget about a LOT more "evil" stuff, like Google discriminating against its own employees based on age and such. Couple quick links: [] []

And that's still ignoring the over-charging people over click fraud (for which the settlement was a couple more bucks worth of advertizing) and contless more issues.

They've been doing evil for a while.

Meanwhile, they pretend to care about Linux, yet, there's no Picasa for Linux (no, running under WINE doesn't count), nor Chrome, etc. Lots of talk, but they don't put money where their mouth is.

Yes, they do have a good search engine, but that's about it. They're there to make serious $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ by throwing ads at us.

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256915)

-2.4 - Moral Triage
Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame

Even if they didn't use Google and had a copy of their own photo's in their own home, the Police could still get a warrant. What's different? If Google denied the search they would be charged with obstruction.
Also note that practically every Terms of Service from an online service says that they will cooperate with authorities in Privacy clauses.

So Google is bad for following the law, not breaching it's own contract, and *legally* cooperating with authorities who wish to do a *legal* search?

You're an idiot

Re:So? Is anyone really surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25259191)

"smear campaign"? are you nuts? 2 European journalists "independently" told PI that Google told them about a Microsoft conflict of interest, and that's your "smear campaign"?
please read , right from your link, to perhaps get some clue.

I'm not even going to touch your 'on-site care' stuff..

I work at Yahoo (4, Informative)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | about 6 years ago | (#25255851)

I work at Yahoo at the Mission College campus. This article is about oh, 6 months too late? We at Yahoo already figured this out, months ago.

The day that Jerry betrayed us and announced that they were doing a "trial" test of Google ads was the nail in the coffin for most Yahoos. If you cede search and search advertising, you might as well ditch every sense of innovation and technology that the company has. And he did that. I mean, honestly, what else is there at Yahoo in terms of technology? Nothing, we become nothing more than AOL, a content provider.

In the conference call he had with search when they first announced the "experiment", he said "I want to thank you for all the hard work that you did, and it's because of all your hard work that it allows us to try this experiment." How ridiculous was this statement? It was disgusting and I guess he didn't realize how backhanded that statement was.

OF COURSE Google wants to keep Yahoo weak. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but at least a combined Yahoo-Microsoft would have had a chance to compete against Google and wrest some of that advertising space away, with Microsoft's deep pockets. Instead of fighting, which all the Yahoos wanted to do, we are just a bunch of snivelling bitches of Google now. By doing this, they prevented any decently sized competitor from being created, and they kept their two second-largest competitors separate and ununified. It was a brilliant move on Google's part.

The fact is, projects like Panama and Apex failed. But if we give up, Yahoo is basically nothing, except for a bunch of perl scripts and html pages. The only chance that Yahoo had to capture some glory was to make a compelling ad system so that we could take some market share away from Google. Now, by feeding off the teat of Google, there is NO WAY that we will ever be competitive. It was truly making a deal with the devil, to increase short term revenues, and to make their earnings numbers better to save their own asses. Next is to go completely with Google ads, and then after that next after that is to drop search altogether. Why bother? Might as well go all the way, and lay everyone in MC2 off.

Jerry Yang has completely bungled this company, and will unfortunately go down in Silicon Valley history as the worst non-fraudulent CEO ever, that ruined his own company with his own ineptitude. He should have made the deal with Microsoft. You could even tell on the devel-random list how the tone changed. Even the most die-hard Yahoos now realize what a shell of a company Yahoo has become, and are just waiting around, playing foosball and surfing the web, while we all away the great Layoff of 2008.

Re:I work at Yahoo (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 6 years ago | (#25255995)

If you cede search and search advertising, you might as well ditch every sense of innovation and technology that the company has. And he did that. I mean, honestly, what else is there at Yahoo in terms of technology? Nothing, we become nothing more than AOL, a content provider.

I don't know where you've been, but Yahoo! has been primarily a content provider, a portal, for years now. You sound like you are still living in 1999.

Re:I work at Yahoo (2, Informative)

wdr1 (31310) | about 6 years ago | (#25261039)

No, he must be a recent hire. In 1999, Yahoo did not do search advertising; it didn't even do search. For a long time, the Yahoo model was exactly what he described. Yahoo focused on content & best of breed technology via 3rd parties. If Altavista was the best search, AV would be used. If it was Google, then that was the search engine. Likewise, maps & so on. The rationale was that the top dog would always be changing, and by partnering instead of competing, Yahoo could always use the "best."

(It was under this reasoning that Yahoo declined opportunities to buy Ebay (twice), Google, and others.)

It wasn't ~2002 that Yahoo got into the search engine biz itself and until ~2003, via the purchase of Overture/, search advertising.

BTW, Yahoo never used AdSense (Google's contextual advertising), but they did use AdWords (search advertising). While a lot of people don't know the difference, it's unlikely the poster knows much about online advertising if he doesn't.


Re:I work at Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256063)

I followed you along until the combined Yahoo!-Microsoft part. This has been debated over and over, and while this deal would had helped us end users(and the shareholders, that wanted to get rich over night), it would had not been a good thing(TM) for yahoo. Yahoo chose their poison, and it works just as advertised - slow and not very painful.

Re:I work at Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256077)

Well if the thinking is to feed off the teat of Google *until* your ads give better return than Google's, then I don't see a problem. You don't need to display your ads to work on the technology.

Re:I work at Yahoo (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 6 years ago | (#25256123)

I dunno about the rest of the world, but when I use Yahoo stuff, it's not because of the ads or search.

Stuff I use? Yahoo mail, and Yahoo Messenger.

YM is a lot more reliable than Microsoft's equivalent. Skype uses a lot more resources than I like, and often there are weird stalls when trying to send messages.

Skype isn't plaintext like the rest, but while better than nothing, I'm not convinced their crypto is worth the minuses of skype.

Lastly, both Microsoft and Yahoo's search services are actually OK. I'm sticking to google for now out of inertia and when on someone else's PC it's easier to type google ctrl+enter than ;).

Re:I work at Yahoo (3, Interesting)

g2devi (898503) | about 6 years ago | (#25256183)

Considering that the Yahoo-Google would never have happened if the Microsoft didn't try to buy up Yahoo, I don't see how Google can be blamed. Microsoft has a history of buying companies (E.g. Stak-r, Hotmail, etc) in order to rip out it's old technology, replace it with Microsoft technology, ultimately becoming Microsoft. Yahoo succeeded precisely because they were not Microsoft, so if Microsoft did absorb Yahoo, it would have destroyed it. Some speculate that it might have ultimately destroyed Microsoft too, since it would be a huge distraction away from their OS product line (which is the one that is actually making money).

Neither deal was good for Yahoo (or the general public), but the stupid "hostile takeover" rules in the US gave Yahoo no other choice than to pick the lesser of two evils.

Re:I work at Yahoo (1)

perlchild (582235) | about 6 years ago | (#25256359)

I thought their MS OFfice product line was the really profitable one... Especially with the vista fiasco

Re:I work at Yahoo (2, Insightful)

pikine (771084) | about 6 years ago | (#25256215)

Now, by feeding off the teat of Google, there is NO WAY that we will ever be competitive.

Think about it as an injured Olympics athlete on life support for the moment. It's up to you whether you want to take physical therapy and resume an athletic career, or stay on the wheel chair forever.

Re:I work at Yahoo (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 6 years ago | (#25256581)

And remember: the longer you sit there the harder it will be to get up.

Re:I work at Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25256611)

But if we give up, Yahoo is basically nothing, except for a bunch of perl scripts and html pages.

Wait, wait, wait...

Yahoo runs on perl scripts? *shudder* Well, at least that explains a lot.

Re:I work at Yahoo (0)

pcgabe (712924) | about 6 years ago | (#25258033)

Sorry, from here it sounds as if you don't know much about Yahoo or business.

Yahoo is a lot more than search and search advertising. That is such a tiny, tiny part of Yahoo, and you make it sound like the whole kit. I understand that, as an American, your view of Yahoo may be limited. Here in the US, Google is our lord and master, and Yahoo is the has-been. In Japan, Yahoo is our lord and master (much more so than Google is in America), and Google is mostly non-existent. Do a search for YahooBB (with your search engine of choice). Basically, every home in Japan that doesn't have FTTH has YahooBB. It is absolutely everywhere. You think that Mission College is the whole world. You are just unaware of the big picture.

Secondly, this is how business works. Yahoo can make MORE MONEY and STRENGTHEN THE COMPANY by using Google's advertising. That doesn't mean that Yahoo must give up its own research into search and advertising models. Quite the opposite, it will now have MORE money to spend on research and development. If they ever do develop better systems, they can switch. Of course, there's not necessarily any motivation to do that research, as the current situation is profitable, and that money can be spent elsewhere in the business.

So, sorry your personal slice of Yahoo pie was outsourced to Google and you were made redundant. It happens. But the rest of Yahoo is stronger for it, and so is Google. Try to get a job with them.

Or continue your uninformed ranting on the Internet. Whatever. I'm not the boss of you.

Re:I work at Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25260329)

I guess Jerry could have been generous enough to keep the Yahoo search staff employed continuing to invest resources in an inferior capability that he could replace with something better and less expensive.

Face it, they kicked your butt.

Weaken Yahoo? (1)

ZoneGray (168419) | about 6 years ago | (#25255867)

I can't imagine why Google and Yahoo would form a partnership in order to weaken Yahoo. That's the one thing that Yahoo management is good at.

Of course it weakens Yahoo (1)

pcause (209643) | about 6 years ago | (#25256021)

Why would an advertiser bother with going to Yahoo to buy search ads, when they can go to Google and buy ads for both Yahoo and Google. This severs the relationship between Yahoo and the ad buyer and makes the buyer only go to Google. Soon, Yahoo is out of the search ad business entirely and it all goes through Google. What if Google changes rates, doesn't send the highest yielding ads to Yahoo, etc. Eventually Yahoo is at the mercy of Google, who promises to do "no evil", but perhaps "no evil" really means anything that hurts Google's revenue stream!

This deal is an admission of failure by Yahoo and says that they can't compete. Google has 70% of the market and is a monopoly. If search were PC software or cars, the government would be suing GOogle.

Re:Of course it weakens Yahoo (1)

edumacator (910819) | about 6 years ago | (#25256273)

The way Yahoo uses Google ads is to place them on pages where there aren't many Yahoo ads available for the space. So advertising with Ad Sense won't ensure that you get your ads on Yahoo! pages. You would only have the chance of it.

So if you want to be sure your ads show up on Yahoo!, you must advertise with Yahoo, through their ad service.

Hmm. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 6 years ago | (#25256477)

I just decided to switch my default search engine to Yahoo for a while, but I don't see any ads on their search page.

I also work at Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25258049)

...and I don't see anything wrong in the Yahoo!-Google deal.

What people tend to forget in this emotional drama is that the primary purpose of Yahoo! is not to compete with Google. It is to make money. If they are not making money by being in the same ad space as Google, and they can make money using Google's services, then so be it.

To draw parallels with another of the Valley's famous pissing matches is easy. Remember Steve Jobs's infamous quote? "There were too many people at Apple playing the game of, for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. And it was clear that you didn't have to play that game because Apple wasn't going to beat Microsoft. Apple didn't have to beat Microsoft." Apple learned that lesson and went on to greater things.

Yahoo!'s biggest problem is that they have too much emotional investment in losing products. The cuts that they make to the workforce are global, when they should be severing off those divisions that do not make money nor are ever expected to make money even as loss leaders. That includes the supernumerary VPs and SVPs parasitizing off the corporate body. They also have to convince their investors that they will never ever experience the explosive growth Google did, and that they need not go into every market that Google enters. Google's growth is irreproducible by anyone this decade.

Google Doesn't Need Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25259647)

Yahoo needs Google, Google doesn't need Yahoo. Enough said.

An Open Source Company Bites the Dust (1)

freaklabs (1359341) | about 6 years ago | (#25259917)

Although I am a google fan, I think that this article has some relevancy. It talks about a "certain non-evil company" that offered to buy it out to prevent it from taking VC investment. After which it got cold feet, the deal fell through, and the company went under. []
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?