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!

Mark Cuban's Plan To Kill Google

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-that's-outside-the-box dept.

Google 773

rsmiller510 writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has a plan to kill Google by paying the top 1,000 sites a cool million each to leave the Google index and move to Microsoft. But could such a plan ever work, and would it be worth the risk to abandon Google?"

cancel ×

773 comments

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

Bribery (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117350)

I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.

Re:Bribery (5, Insightful)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117432)

I would be willing to happily accept $1M in cash to never use Google again. It may be a bribe but I would be willing to suffer your scorn.

Re:Bribery (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117444)

You lie [goatse.fr]

Re:Bribery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117460)

Cool, good to know! Now what's that have to do with the story?

Seriously, get a dictionary. This called a 'promotional offer,' or 'sales incentive.' Bribery is the giving of payment to induce a person to violate an ethical obligation.

Re:Bribery (5, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117488)

What the heck is that all about? Google generates much much more than a million dollars to the top 1000 e-commerce websites, and in a few days. This has to be a joke.

Seriously, the USERS decide which search engine is best, not the website owners. And why in the world would the top 1000 sites listen to an anonymous rich fool instead of Google which has provided a decent flow of clicks to their websites for ages....

Are we the 1st of April or anything?

Re:Bribery (2, Insightful)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117872)

I wouldn't focus too much on the number involved -- the principle is that everyone has their price.
Also, in theory those top websites stand to gain that much money from whichever search engine dominates. If Bing dominated the market as a result of this move, they would not lose much money, and the bribe could well make up the difference.

It's not bribery! (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117516)

It's bidness. You don't wanna interfere in bidness [sltrib.com] do ya? You some kinda socialist or somethin'?

Re:Bribery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117522)

I know bribery is accepted practice in the US but here in the EU it is still frowned upon.

We prefer the word "Congress" in this country.

Re:Bribery (1, Interesting)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117550)

If what Cuban is suggesting is brought up in the courts as bribery I should be legally allowed to sue our legislature and executive branch any time the put an earmark in the Federal budget. The backlash from basically eliminating kick backs would bring down a lot of kings of the mountain, IMHO, not a moment too soon.

Re:Bribery (1, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117656)

HAHAHAHAHA, you make me laugh. Bribery is as much a problem in the EU as it is in the US. I've had cops and gov't officials here in Germany not so subtly tell me that if I paid them then they wouldn't subject me to the pointless bureaucratic hell that is the EU. They like the bribes over income because they don't have to pay the 50% tax on them.

Re:Bribery (2, Insightful)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117704)

I know it's cool to bash the US on Slashdot, but that's unbelievably far from true.

Contrast that to the Middle East, where it IS accepted practice and few people see anything wrong with it.

So, the question is... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117354)

Is it worth $1 million to leave Google? I'm guessing most of the sites would say no, that's incredibly short sighted.

Re:So, the question is... (1)

etinin (1144011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117382)

Give me 1/10 of that and I'm out of Google forever and ever.

Re:So, the question is... (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117416)

Be sure you understand the consequences [theonion.com] before you opt out of Google forever.

Re:So, the question is... (5, Insightful)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117396)

Yeah if you're one of the top sites on Google a million probably doesn't mean nearly as much as Mark Cuban thinks it does.

Re:So, the question is... (5, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117862)

Unless the top 1,000 sites happen to be, by odd math, shady viagra sales, knockoff Rolex retailers, and spammers.

In which case, go right ahead, Mark! We're behind you all the way!

Re:So, the question is... (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117724)

The real question is, who would be stupid enough to listen to a man who made almost all of his money soley on the chance decision of buying the domain name "Broadcast.com" and convincing Yahoo! that it was work ~$6 billion dollars to buy out.

Re:So, the question is... (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117780)

P.S. In case anyone thinks that his $6 billion jackpot somehow displayed hidden skill or insight, I also point out that he's currently worth a little over $2 billion. That's right, he's lost $4 billion in networth since being bought out by Yahoo!

wow, a whole million? (4, Interesting)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117358)

I'll give the top 1000 folks on slashdot who eat bread a nickel never to eat it again.

Re:wow, a whole million? (3, Insightful)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117486)

Exactly. What's $1M to Facebook compared to the benefits of Google's hits?

Re:wow, a whole million? (4, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117688)

Yeah these numbers just don't add up. First off, I'm going to assume that this is a million dollars a year (or somesuch), otherwise it's ridiculous on the face of it. No high-profile web company is going to sign a perpetual contract like that. Now, the top 1,000 sites depend on internet traffic. No doubt their advertising budgets are more than a million dollars. Telling them that they can get one million dollars if they give up a huge chunk of their internet visibility is ridiculous. It's worth much more than that to them.

Conversely, this whole plan would cost 1 billion dollars to pull off. Sure, Microsoft could afford that, and would pay that much to destroy Google. But this is a poor plan. If Google no longer listed the top 1,000 sites (which is a big if, since many of those sites have no particular love of Microsoft...), then would Google crash and burn? Or would the sites currently ranked 1,0001-2000 suddenly see a huge upsurge in their traffic and profitability?

Lastly, how would this work on a technical level? Sure, you can configure your server to reject all requests from googlebot, preventing them from indexing sub-pages, but you can't technically (or legally) prevent Google from returning a link to "wsj.com" when someone searches for "Wall Street Journal". So any "de-indexing" wouldn't be complete.

This "plan" fails on so many levels. I'm sure Google is not too concerned about this. Any companies that participated would be signing their own death sentence: their web visibility would drop, public opinion of the company would drop, they might open themselves to legal attacks... and all for a "cool million".

Re:wow, a whole million? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117886)

But besides the actual points, this would be a really fun thing to see!

Re:wow, a whole million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117770)

Where do I enter my bank account number for that nickle?

I don't understand what the surprise is about. Hasn't MS already shown it will do anything it can think of to win, in any area they can?

It does seem like Mark Cuban (Chabenisky) might have some undisclosed financial interest, however.

Re:wow, a whole million? (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117912)

Does that count tortillas and pita too? Because if not... I'M IN!

Windows 7 not fail enough for them? (-1, Flamebait)

FragInc (931710) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117360)

Has Micro$oft hit a new low?!

Re:Windows 7 not fail enough for them? (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117504)

Yes, someone really should have a stern talking to of the CEO of Microsoft, Mark Cuban. ~

In all seriousness, can you please abandon your Slashdot ID and not post here again? And also, please leave the internet.

Thanks.

What about Google? (4, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117386)

They are surely a top-1000 site. Will they get the cash to de-list themselves?

P.S. The guy is an idiot. People go to Google not to get stuff from a top-1000 site, but to find stuff that is not found in the search bars of the top-1000 sites.

Re:What about Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117584)

That's not the point. The top 1000 sites probably generate 50% of the ad revenue.

Re:What about Google? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117760)

They are surely a top-1000 site. Will they get the cash to de-list themselves?

If the barber shaves all those who does not shave themselves, who shaves the barber?

Re:What about Google? (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117834)

Easy, another barber.

Re:What about Google? (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117810)

People go to Google not to get stuff from a top-1000 site, but to find stuff that is not found in the search bars of the top-1000 sites.

You sure on that?

From my experience, it's usually quicker to search Google and tack on the name of the site in your search string than it is to search Amazon, IMDB, Wikipedia, or what have you and filter through their results. Obviously, if Google wasn't an option I could still search on their own sites, but Google tends to work better than most of their built-in search engines.

Re:What about Google? (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117864)

If you read Cuban's original blog post he suggests giving money to the top 100,000 sites ($1m each to the top 1000, and a further billion or so split between the next 99,000 sites), and that Microsoft or Yahoo promise to drive as much traffic their way as they'd lose by pulling out of Google. His idea is that if you can persuade the top 100,000 sites on the net to leave then Google is screwed. It wasn't a serious suggestion, just a sort of whimsical "Google could be killed you know" musing.

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/ [blogmaverick.com]

Motivation? (5, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117390)

What TFA is short on is any sense of motivation on Mark Cuban's part. Why does he want to do this? Did Google frighten him when he was a baby?

Re:Motivation? (4, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117698)

They don't block the search for Mavericks suck [google.com] ?

Re:Motivation? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117798)

They don't block the search for "Mavericks suck"? [quotes added]

And Microsoft does? Did he pay MS to do this? That would be bad PR for Bing if so. He he he, I smell fun.
     

Calm down, y'all (4, Informative)

rilister (316428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117726)

TFA makes it pretty clear that this (on his personal blog) is a thought experiment, not an actual plan he has any intention to follow through. More, he is speculating about moves that Microsoft or others might take to bring Google down and what that would do to the market.

Frankly, it as much use as mine our your random musings on business: the only motivation for it making the Slashdot front page seems to be that this guy coincidentally happens to have a billion dollars.

Re:Motivation? (5, Informative)

jmyers (208878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117764)

Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/ [blogmaverick.com]

Not that it answers any of your questions, other than maybe he is a publicity hound.

Re:Motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117792)

I think it's obvious that he just wanted free attention, and that he got it.

Even Ballmer has a plan to 'fu...in' kill Google.. (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117394)

it involves a piece of furniture and some kinetic energy. As effective as spitting in the wind.

....What? (1)

Velorium (1068080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117402)

This is just stupid unless any of these sites are going downhill already. Opting out of Google would just ensure it.

Geez (2, Insightful)

moogied (1175879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117404)

The top 1000 clients of google likely piss away a million $ a day in coffee alone.

Re:Geez (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117876)

Literally?

Why? (4, Interesting)

cronco (1435465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117406)

Does the dude have stock at Microsoft? Or what's it to him?

1 million is peanuts (5, Insightful)

guyfawkes-11-5 (1583613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117410)

1 million is peanuts. Amazon, one of the top 100 sites, makes that during a coffee break.
Why opt out of free product placement (Amazon usually ranks high in google) worldwide, for a pittance?
Cuban's mojo has left the room.

Re:1 million is peanuts (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117842)

Indeed, there's a reason why this can't possibly work, however much money he cared to name. It's economics for idiots.

The only way any company would agree would be if he offered them more cash than they were earning from Google hits. In order to make a dent, he'd need to successfully persuade lots of companies (as he says, a thousand or so might do it- and a thousand or so top companies probably represent the lions share of e-commerce). So effectively, to make this plan work, he or someone would need to have the equivalent of most of the money generated through search engines for the entire e-commerce sector.

There is no-one that rich. Period.

Also, bribery is somewhat illegal. Ask Intel how a very similar "kickback" system worked out for them in the European courts.

Google for "top 1000 list" (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117412)

Problem solved. Or, just link to "top 1000 dunderheads who tried hiding" off the Google home page.

Proxy War (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117420)

At this point, I don't see what's in it for Mark Cuban except nearly half of his net worth, and probably more in legal fees once google sues. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

wow, a whole thousand? (2, Insightful)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117436)

Even if the "top 1000" sites accepted the bribe, that wouldn't make much of a dent. How small does this pilgrim think the internet is?

And what's to stop Google from re-indexing them?

why would the top 1000 sites WANT to leave google? (2, Insightful)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117440)

For the top 1000, a million bucks is not a lot of money. Why risk alienating the population for what is to them a drop in the bucket?

Can he even afford it? Do sites even care? (1, Insightful)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117456)

Sites like CNN would LAUGH at an offer of $1 million. What a total joke.
On the other hand, for loser websites ranked 987th, it might be interesting, but would them off Google make any difference? Hell no it won't. Nobody would ever notice, except maybe the webmaster.

This is doomed to be an EPIC FAIL. ... Also, ironicly, giving every site the same amount no matter their worth, you know what that sounds like?
*echo effect*
KHOMMUNI$M !!!!!
*/echo effect*

illegal? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117466)

The phrase tortious interference comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)

Re:illegal? (5, Funny)

BabyDave (575083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117662)

Not to be confused with "Tortoise interference", which severely disrupted the 2009 hare-racing world championship.

Re:illegal? (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117754)

After reading the Wikipedia article I think you are definitely correct. There is a case to be made that this behavior would constitute tortious interference. The parent deserves to be modded up.

If your a CEO... (1)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117468)

you better make sure you have that million safely in your account before your company goes belly up.

Would this even work? (1)

PeterM from Berkeley (15510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117470)

Seems like Google could index the top 1000 sites whether they wanted Google to index them or not.

I don't see how they could possibly stop Google from indexing information that these sites put into public view.

-PM

Robots? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117674)

I'd imagine a robots.txt file would work nicely if they wished to commit search-engine sepuku in such a way.

But heck, killing off some of the "top 1000" sites might improve my google experience. With no eBay links every time my search possibly evaluates to a product, or "experience exchange" every time I google a semi-technical query, it would actually be an improvement for me.

Re:Would this even work? (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117710)

Easily done with a robots.txt tailored to exclude all google domains. Something like:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /google.com
Disallow: /gmail.com ...

Re:Would this even work? (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117784)

It's just a simple matter of updating the sites robots.txt files to tell Googlebot to go take a hike. Of course Google could just "break" Googlebot and crawl those sites anyway. But if you really want to boycott Google on your own:

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /

Won't Affect Me (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117494)

This won't affect me. I don't search for advertisers. In fact, getting rid of the paid cruft will make searching for true results even better. Besides, a billion dollars is starting to fade into the noise of google's net worth. It may hurt Google, but it won't kill Google.

How would that affect any legitimate search? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117498)

So basically google would be listing 1000 less pr0n sites?

Do the math... (2, Insightful)

Pollux (102520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117508)

...and I think the top 1,000 sites would easily calculate that their losses in ad revenue and web traffic would be worth more than $1,000,000.

Get this crap off slashdot (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117518)

This is simple, complete rubbish, spoken by a fool. One million dollars would be nowhere near enough for any profitable site to take itself off the world's biggest search engine, effectively killing future growth.

Also, assuming these sites aren't in competition with google directly, and most websites aren't, why would they care about trying to knock down Google, for a trivial sum?

That's it, today is the day I give up on slashdot. Bye.

Re:Get this crap off slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117660)

Agreed. Slashdot is worthless.

Chair? (1)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117542)

You mean, it doesn't involve chair throwing!?

Go Google (3, Insightful)

DiademBedfordshire (1662223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117546)

Wow what a testament to Google. Mark Cuban is basically saying that nobody has a product that could even hope of competing with Google and the only way to conceivably take them down is to bribe their clients with gobs of money.

Other People's Money (4, Insightful)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117548)

So, is he offering this out of his own pocket? (a billion dollars).

Or is this just a hare-brained idea that he is tossing out there to get some spin on his own name.

Let's see the Dallas Mavericks remove themselves from anything Google first. Oh, that's right, he must have already, never heard of the team before...

I couldn't help but think (1)

mattwrock (1630159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117552)

that some form Microsoft is telling Mark Cuban to "totally fucking kill" Google. Maybe Mark Cuban is chair averse...

Maybe ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117556)

Perhaps they could develop something better than Google, and attract customers that way. Just a thought.

1000x1000000=10^9 (2, Interesting)

mrjb (547783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117560)

Really? Spending one BILLION/MILLIARD dollars for what is essentially an advertising campaign? Sounds pretty risky to me. If you have that kind of money to gamble with, why not spend that money on actually building a better search engine?

lol (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117564)

Any site that considers it worth the moeny to leave Google isn't worth the ad revenue for MS and poses little threat to Google. It'll serve to slightly flatten out the income curve and distribute wealth from the people who came up with this horrible idea to those who were smart enough to benefit from that idea.

Re:lol (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117642)

Flattening the income curb on this level is like taking business from Bentley and giving it to Lamborghini.

I would see this a lot differently if it was some independent community business getting a draw from WalMart. Any way this plays out there isn't going to be much of a difference for the man on the street. At best it's an interesting academic question about how to bring a juggernaut to a dead stop as quickly as possible. Even then I don't think this is enough to make a difference in the long term. Google's stock might slip a couple of points but it would eventually level back up again.

If it's not enforcable, it's not viable. (1)

abucior (306728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117570)

I don't think there's any law out there that says you must not index a site if they ask you not to. It's more of a request then a requirement. If information is public, and legally available to Microsoft, it would, I believe also be legally available to Google (unless the indexing was licenced in some way, but I don't think there's been any precedent for that). So all Google has to do is ignore the 1000 sites and just index them anyways. Problem solved.

Poor plan (1)

Xeno man (1614779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117582)

How about taking that $1,000,000,000 and throw it at R&D or buy the hardware to offer a service people actually want instead of just trying to buy customers. If you need to pay your customers to use your services then your services don't offer anything of value.

The World Won't Miss You (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117592)

So you (a typical user) go looking for something, and the "top 1000 sites" don't happen to turn up in your searches. Of course somebody still highly relevant will still turn up, so you end up finding what you want.

What did you lose? Nothing. Well, nothing except for a web page where the publisher took money in exchange for not being found -- in other words, a page you couldn't trust anyway.

Do you care? Somehow, I think not.

I don't see how this kind of move "kills" Google. The only one it "kills" is the billion dollar ($1M x 1000) giver. They're paying a billion dollars to the top 1000 sites in order to improve sites 1001-2000 search rankings. Cuban loses and sites 1-2000 win to varying degrees adding up to $1B total.

Oblig (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117594)

Mark Cuban: Here's the plan. We get the top 1000 sites on our side and we hold google ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Number Two: Don't you think we should hand out *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. The top number 1 site, yahoo, alone makes almost 8 billion dollars a year!
Mark Cuban: Really? That's a lot of money.
[pause]
Mark Cuban: Okay then, we'll hold google ransom for...
Mark Cuban: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!

oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117614)

I search with Google. If a site is not in that index, Oh well....

Cry Wolf (5, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117616)

Re:Cry Wolf (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117836)

Holy domination-complex, Batman, are you sure he's not related to Murdoch?
   

Who would notice? (2, Informative)

TornCityVenz (1123185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117636)

If the top 1000 sites left google...would anyone notice? the answer is yes..the next 1000 that would replace them..and my guess is there are a couple that would stay in the top 1000 after getting the exposure even if the others came back.

Mark's Resume (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117638)

From wikipedia: "In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[13][14] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.

Cuban started a company, MicroSolutions, with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software. MicroSolutions was initially a system integrator and software reseller. The company was an early proponent of technologies such as Carbon Copy, Lotus Notes, and CompuServe.[15] One of the company's largest clients was Perot Systems.[16] In 1990, Cuban sold MicroSolutions to CompuServe--then a subsidiary of H&R Block--for $6 million.[17] He retained approximately $2 million after taxes on the deal.[18]

In 1995, Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started Audionet, combining their mutual interest in college basketball and webcasting. With a single server and ISDN line[19], Audionet became Broadcast.com in 1998. By 1999, Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and $13.5 million in revenue for the second quarter.[20] In 1999, during the Dot-com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock.[21]"

This man is not a business genius. He is a good self-promoter, and has leveraged this to making a lot of money. Re-read the last couple sentences. he had a business with 13.5 million in revenue in 3 months (not profit... with 330 employees, it was much, much lower). He then sold it for likely a 500+ P/E ratio.

The tech stock market bubble made this man. I don't disparage him for that. However, any business advice coming from this man is virtually worthless. Self-promotion... he's up there.

Take him seriously! (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117682)

If it works half as well as his quest to bring an NBA championship to Dallas, Google better watch out!

Top 1000 examples: (2, Informative)

ErroneousBee (611028) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117700)

That top 1000 [alexa.com] would include:

  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • wordpress
  • eBay
  • amazon
  • craigslist
  • youtube
  • google

All of whom would see an immediate drop in revenues if google stopped indexing them, and some of which are actually google owned.

Silly idea... (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117712)

... it takes most web sites more than $1m (development costs, advertising etc.) to enter the top-1000 and stay there. Also, for every web site that is successfully bribed out of the Google index, the value of staying there increases for the other web sites (while Google still has the current market share).

I'm sorry guys, better spend that $1b on copying Google's technology and then keep it running without Google's Achilles tendon: just say no to collecting personal information and you'll win in the long run.

mark cuban (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117716)

registered a domain name, snowed some clueless investors with a generic, vague pie in the sky technology idea that would never realize light of day, then timed it perfectly to leave with a pile of cash before the shit hit the fan

for doing that, he is laudable, in some fashion

he's a good businessman at best, a con artist at worst, but why whatever that man thinks should have any respect in this forum is beyond me. "News for Nerds" automatically excludes anything mark cuban thinks

What? (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117728)

Drop off Google, and you cease to exist as far as a very large percentage of the average Internet users are concerned.

I doubt any company in Google's top 1000 is worth so little that its worth $1m cash to shut their business down.

That said, if Mark Cuban is reading this, I'll gladly remove my sites from Google for $1m.

Here's a bridge to jump off. You first. (2, Interesting)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117734)

$1M isn't peanuts to everybody. The regular public can't see Google's site rankings, but assuming they're similar to the Alexa rankings [alexa.com] , there are some sites that would probably jump at a million dollars. The porn sites, a lot of the bloggers, and some of the shakier social networking sites would probably take the money and run.

But there's something else odd about that list. Many of the top-ranked sites -- 3 of the first 20, for example -- are Microsoft. Again, that's not Google's ranking page, but MS sites are still findable via Google. If MS plans to 'kill' Google, shouldn't they start by taking their own sites off that search engine first?

Your kidding right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117738)

I am no lawyer or DA but it sounds to me like the Judges will be warming up the bench for this one.. Sounds like a whole slew of laws would be broken. The ethics of it alone are just bad and if Microsoft was involved in something like this it would be the preverbial straw that broke the camels back. If Digital Rights Mismanagement and Windows Genuine Disadvantage are not enough to bring this company down as it is, I can see this at the very least as a very good Linux magnet. People want choice, do not want to be controlled, and do not want to nor need to be shepherded like sheep. Google is where it is because it works and is easy and when you go to Google it is a simple web page with no insidious graphics, or java scripts or crap. It is just a simple box the indexes the information in the tubes. If the Internet were a truck that you dump something on then it would be more likely that Microsoft would prevail as they tend to dump things on us that we don't like regardless, but since it is a series of tubes Google is much better for tube searching.

LOL (1)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117756)

It's official, Cuban has lost it. Does he really think that $1M will persuade any of the big players? Heck, even Wikimedia (sixth in Alexa rankings [alexa.com] ) is not trying to make a profit, would only meet 12% of its operational expenses [wikimedia.org] with a free million. Does he really think Amazon or Ebay would let go one of their major revenue streams? That said, maybe Windows Live (5th in Alexa) wouldn't mind the extra million...

Major douchebag (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117804)

I'm puzzled by all the attention paid to that guy. From what I can see, the dude's a serial hustler who got lucky once (and big time) during dot-bomb bubble, and have been milking it ever since. At least other douches like Marc Andressen actually developed something of great signficance. What exactly has Cuban brought to the table?

Context (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117822)

The real Cuban article is in his blog [blogmaverick.com] . Is not like he did a legal proposal, listed the top 1k sites and offered them that money. Was doing a bit of math, and the rtfa took it out of context or proportion.

Annoying Popup On Linked Page (1)

Xesdeeni (308293) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117826)

Perhaps I'm just not running the right Firefox plugin (AdBlock, FlashBlock, etc.), but that in-your-face popup ad for a service I will actively avoid in retaliation for the ad itself is quite annoying. Does anyone know how to kill this thing?

As for the article, what does MC have against MS? I don't like MS, but I'm sure they'd have to do something to me personally before I'd be willing to spend $1 billion to prove it.

Xesdeeni

recursively or non-recursively? (2, Funny)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117830)

You know, because 10 minutes after they left the Google index, they're not top-1000 sites anymore.

Cuban is no visionary (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117852)

Being lucky one time at the top of the tech bubble may make you rich, but if you do nothing else like Cuban has you are nothing but a lucky blowhard.

Mark Cuban, own of the Dallas Mavericks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30117854)

I think the text of this article determined my Google ad on the main page: an upcoming interview with Sarah Palin.

Smoke and Mirrors (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117858)

I don't know what his motivation is, other than to generate controversy and be a twit, but he's obviously full of shit - he's not even doing it himself. Do a google search for "Mark Cuban" and the third result is his own blog. If he's not even willing to do it, why would anyone else, even for the paltry amount of $1 million? Smoke and mirrors. I'm just curious why.

Mark Who? (1)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117860)

Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest? Is this person well know in American technology circles?

Re:Mark Who? (2, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117894)

Umm, he owns HDNet AND he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo to become a billionaire.

You'd make $1m in Google ads (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30117900)

If you were one of the busiest 1000 sites on the net you'd pull in $1m in what - a week?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?