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!

Microsoft-Yahoo Search Deal Gets Go-Ahead From EU, US DoJ

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the will-it-blend? dept.

Yahoo! 113

CWmike writes "Microsoft and Yahoo announced Thursday morning that the US DOJ and the European Commission have approved an agreement between the two firms to have the Bing search engine power Yahoo's sites. The companies said that engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site 'in the coming days' and that they hope work is completed, at least the US, by the end of this year."

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

The formula: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195188)

  • Microsoft - third-rate, virus-ridden shitware from a company that is a load of stinky stagnant Indian-driven pants chili.
  • Yahoo! - the foremost playground for chat room trolls, 12 year olds, and the panty-sniffing Japs who follow them.

Here are the mathematical equations which describe their partnershitp:

Microsoft = Yahoo = shit = bad
shit + shit = 2 * shit

and since

2 * shit = 2 * bad

we find, counterintuitively and as a matter of public opinion, that

more shit is less than or equal to less shit

Q.E.D.

Type-R stickers and huge spoilers (-1, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195204)

I don't go to movies to learn stuff, but it is hard to come away from them without having learned something. In the Fast and the Furious, it was shown that you don't need to buy a Ferrari to have the fastest car on the street. In fact, with a little work, any Japanese sports coupe can be made exceptionally fast (and furious).

The key is to change out the engine for something better. The stock 1500cc 4 banger can be swapped out for a 3500cc turbo and the car's entire character changes. But the looks don't need to necessarily change.

Re:Type-R stickers and huge spoilers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195248)

All that work trying to live up to you handle, and comes these mods labeling you "troll"...

Re:Type-R stickers and huge spoilers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195326)

Also, don't insult the dominant male or else his manly dyke girlfriend will shit on your face. [collider.com]

She eats lots of mexican food, so you know it won't be pretty. To put it in a pizza analogy, it's like when a woman "sklitz-shits" on your pizza dough and you toss it only to have it splatter all over your floor and face when you fail to catch it. Oniony Viscous Mexican Shit.

ironic! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195212)

I just got some head from kathleen fent! ok, it's not actually ironic. but damn I do love fucking her throat!

I think... (4, Insightful)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195218)

I think I support this... I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...

Re:I think... (3, Funny)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195260)

Yahoo CEO Bartz in a statement. "Yahoo gets to do what we do best: combine our science and technology with compelling content to build personally relevant online experiences for our users and customers."

"Science"? I think Yahoo! took the "Google Labs" thing a little too literally

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195284)

Searching for porn is an important science.

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31197682)

BingHoo, all the ads, none of the annoying facts which might disturb and/or inform you.

Re:I think... (1)

pipboy9999 (1088005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198564)

Perhaps Yahoo! has built a large city destroying robot, or created some sort of Google employee targeting bio-weapon that they and are looking to get MS as a 50/50 partner in the upcoming mayhem and destruction.

Re:I think... (2, Informative)

algormortis (1422619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195296)

Yes, Google should have some competition, however do you really think that Microsoft really needs to get any bigger? We've been hearing about Apple and Google going at each other's throats for quite some time now. I'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own.

Re:I think... (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195884)

I'd like to see if Apple ever steps up with a search engine of their own.

Don't hold your breath. Apple sells hardware.

Re:I think... (2, Interesting)

algormortis (1422619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31197148)

There are only three companies that I'd expect to ever surprise me with the markets they might potentially invade in the future: Walmart, Microsoft, and Google. I frankly would not be surprised if Walmart set their sights on the internet, nor if Google came out with their own phone service (emphasis on the service, I know they already have the Nexus). I can definitely also see Microsoft coming out with their own "smartphone".

Re:I think... (1)

AVryhof (142320) | more than 4 years ago | (#31197562)

The XPhone 360

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31197630)

The XPhone 360

Will you answer your bloody phone! It's be red ringing all night!

Re:I think... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195316)

I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...

How will Yahoo or Microsoft help?

Re:I think... (1, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195860)

I mean, Yahoo and Microsoft of course both suck, but Google needs some legitimate competition in the search market...

How will Yahoo or Microsoft help?

I totally agree. I had a look at Bing to see what the content was like. Sorry, but it's laughable. It is more polarized to finding articles that support MS than it is to finding articles relative to the search. In my opinion, this won't help Microsoft, this will help Yahoo die quicker, which will then just help Google.

Re:I think... (1)

motek (179836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31199618)

No, it is not laughable. Unless, that is, your laughter trigger is so sensitive you burst out at the sight of a little girl dropping her ice cream cone...

Seriously, though. I made an experiment and switched to bing at one of my workstations. I found bing clearly inferior to current google, but only by that much. Its performance (and I mean relevance of results) is adequate. Not great, but adequate. It is clearly the number two, way above anything else but google.

Re:I think... (0, Troll)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31199770)

I'm beginning to think we should all boycott Google and use Bing. Between the Buzz mess and their outright lies on China (we'll shut off censorship, oh wait, maybe not) I feel like something needs to happen to get their heads out of their asses.

I wouldn't give up my Droid, Gmail, or Google Apps (the alternatives aren't even comparable) but I could live with Bing.

Re:I think... (2, Insightful)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195362)

They have plenty of competition, there are thousands of companies that sell advertisement. "Search" isn't a product, in exactly the same way that TV shows aren't products, the commercial slots between and during shows are. You view of reality is skewed.

Re:I think... (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195608)

"Search" isn't a product

Google makes lots of money selling sponsored links on search results.

Re:I think... (1)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195726)

Hmm, so what you are saying is that they sell advertisement, interesting. I never thought of it that way.

Re:I think... (2, Interesting)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195798)

I would say they sell "search advertisements" as well as "syndicated web advertisement", "on demand video advertisement" and several other products. One could contrast these markets to "billboard advertisements", "tv advertisements" and "syndicated print advertisements".

Like it or not advertising is huge, and as such it makes sense to pay attention to these (relatively) smaller segments of the entire market for advertising services; especially when making decisions about the health of the market.

Re:I think... (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195924)

Right, obviously they make the money through advertising. But you were trying to argue that "search" isn't a market, and that Google has thousands of competitors since thousands of people sell advertising. The point is that only a handful of people sell sponsored links in their searches; it is a distinct market.

Re:I think... (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196182)

What a particular market encompass is one of the main types of argument used in antitrust cases. Regulators usually try to narrow the market down to specific product categories, while companies defending usually try to widen the definition so that their market influence is relatively less from a bigger market. If you review antitrust cases, like those regarding Article 81 and 82 of the EC treaty, this is readily apparent.

Re:I think... (1)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31197250)

But you were trying to argue that "search" isn't a market, and that Google has thousands of competitors since thousands of people sell advertising. The point is that only a handful of people sell sponsored links in their searches; it is a distinct market.

I neither "tried" nor "argued" anything. I very successfully stated that "search" isn't a "product".

When was the last time you bought a search from Google? Answer, you never have. What version of Google search are you using? You have no idea. What is a product is the people who are searching. Just like billboard companies don't sell the billboards, they sell the number of eyes that will see the billboard. The search engine is just the carnival hawker getting people to come visit. Search is an effective way of generating traffic, so is a map service, free email hosting and free blogs. As long as it gets butts in pews as the saying goes.

Make no mistake, "search" isn't the product, and that is a fact.

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31197666)

Of course, search results are a product, and they're offered on a market. A product doesn't need to have a price to be one. When I choose to search via Google, I "buy" their product in much the same way I buy your product when I choose to read your opinion.

A mistake, by the way, that I'm unlikely to repeat.

Re:I think... (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202348)

Search is a service, not a product.
Searchers are customers, not products.

Re:I think... (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195768)

But search is a product, just like the Gillette Fusion I received in the mail or the X-Box under my TV. In all these cases it is a discounted or free product pitched so the parent company can market and sell a second product (in these cases ads, razor blades, and games/movies). TV shows are also products, producers make them and market them to TV networks. TV networks than wrap some metrics/demographics on it and market them to marketing and advertising agencies.

Google has no competition (2, Interesting)

too2late (958532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198098)

I run a small-medium sized web site that targets K-12 teachers. We started out small with very targeted ads, advertising on Google with a budget of $10/day and started making decent sales. We were doing so well that we decided to try Yahoo. We used the exact same ads and the exact same keywords as the ones for Google that were doing well. We put $100 in our Yahoo ads account to start with, and burned through the whole amount in 4 days without a single sale. Needless to say, we turned it off immediately and have never tried it again. Now we are making many more sales from our Google ads. I don't see how Yahoo's search marketing can be so inefficient and terrible. BTW, we also tried MSN/Live search and it's been active for about a year with a $20/day budget. The amount of money we give Microsoft every month is about $5. In other words, Microsoft search has absolutely no volume at all.

Re:I think... (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195598)

But this is less competition. Yahoo is no longer providing their own search results.

Google just lost a competitor.

Re:I think... (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195940)

YahBing will (presumably) catch more eyes than one or the other, which means they will sell more ads, which means they will be more competitive with google. Not as good for the consumer though, I suppose.

Myself, I haven't used anything but google since the launch. I don't particularly miss the dark ages.

Re:I think... (-1, Offtopic)

bronney (638318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195968)

mod parent up.

Re:I think... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31201292)

Sometimes fewer competitors leads to increased competition, if two or more small competitors merge to become one entity with sufficient resources to be able to actually compete effectively.

Re:I think... (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196848)

Google do need some competition on the technical merits of search, not from a convicted monopolist with years of abuse in their belt. Now that Yahoo is gone competition have disappeared, not increased.

The US did a major mistake when they denied Google helping Yahoo out. Google wants healthy competition, not the kind Microsoft brings.

Re:I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31201694)

This is part of a MS mission: Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

Who will suffer? (4, Insightful)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195254)

So will this make Yahoo suck like Bing, or Bing actually find pages (I'm interested in) just like Yahoo?

Every time I've used Bing, I've been disappointed.

Re:Who will suffer? (-1, Troll)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195342)

So will this make Yahoo suck like Bing, or Bing actually find pages (I'm interested in) just like Yahoo?

I refuse to RTFA, and the summary makes it sound like bing technology will power Yahoo, I think. So Yoohoo will suck even more than it does now, and I will never use it, instead of using it as a tool of last resort.

Re:Who will suffer? (4, Interesting)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195906)

I love that a posting that starts out "I refuse to read" is marked up as being "informative." Oh, Slashdot! You make me smile a little.

Re:Who will suffer? (1)

ellswrth666 (1748864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195760)

Well, Bing is licensing some of Yahoo's search algorithm technology, so hopefully this will improve Bing's results.

I really did try to use Bing (1)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195780)

I gave it a shot for a month and I found I just wasn't satisfied with it. It didn't have the simplicity Google offered in Search and many times I'd find myself going back to Google.

The biggest notable area I had to keep going back to Google was actually searching Technet and MSDN for articles. I was finding one or two keywords would into Google would give me the correct page I was looking for while Bing would give me completley useless results.

Re:I really did try to use Bing (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196982)

I went to their site once.

Re:Who will suffer? (1)

mayko (1630637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198850)

I just want Bing to actually index sites. I have a relatively new site (3 months) that has been submitted to Bing with a site map for a couple months.

The site is 100% english and is getting traffic from Yandex, and Baidu... but if I type the title of the site, or the URL into bing. It doesn't even show up.

Wait to go microsoft, an exclusively Chinese search engine is faster at indexing English websites.

Re:Who will suffer? (1)

geeper (883542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31201200)

Wait to go microsoft,
Perhaps I've found your problem.

Re:Who will suffer? (1)

mayko (1630637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202678)

Hahah. Woops, I was probably going between talking on the phone or reading something and screwed that up somehow. I'm a native English speaker, just a silly error.

Both? (2, Insightful)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195300)

Yahoo and Bing?

Now I can ignore both at the same time!

Re:Both? (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195786)

Binghoo! Yahbing!

Does anybody actually use Yahoo for anything ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31196110)

...besides throw-away e-mail accounts?

Seriously, the last time I used Yahoo search was in 1998. I remember because I had just started a new job and was trying to get the dumb bastards to remove ancient erroneous links in their directory (or whatever the fuck it was called) that were causing my new company big headaches. I did not succeed, but people stopped using that hideous thing and the problem went away.

Yahoo's motto at the time must have been "as dynamic as hard-set concrete".

I tried their search (powered by "Your Name Here") a few times and it sucked rocks. End of Yahoo for me. Even stale old Alta Vista was better. A few months later, Google arrived and I never looked back.

I did use the Swedish one, er .... oh, yeah, Alltheweb as a backup to Google for the first few Google years, but then Yahoo sucked Alltheweb (and others) it into its vacuum bag and turned them uniformly shitty.

IMO, association with Yahoo is the kiss of death for search engines. Lets hope it keeps its record intact. I think Google needs competition, but from someone innovative, not from the joint efforts of a couple of tired old whores.

Re:Does anybody actually use Yahoo for anything .. (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202170)

Yahoo Groups is very useful.

I hear they have a search product, but I haven't used it for years.

Re:Both? (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196404)

Now I can ignore both at the same time!

Because ignoring Microsoft has served the geek so well in the past.

Yahoo draws about 130 million visitors a month, who spend about 5% of the their time online there.

Slashcode bug (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195302)

SLASH failed again. Explanation: this story is tagged "search", and the link to the left of "read more" on this story entry as appeared in the front page shows up as "search.slashdot.org" which is the domain name part of the story's url, which is semantically wrong. (There's no /. section called "Search". That domain should have been hosting the search tool for /. or whatever, but has deformed into a monster of a search page and an index of stories tagged "search", unlike other sections e.g. apple.slashdot.org, which just shows a clean sub-index similar to the index page.)

And this is clearly yet another sign of /. being eaten up by kipples.

Re:Slashcode bug (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195332)

Maybe /. should outsource their search to Yahoo!

And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search (2, Informative)

wdconinc (704592) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195386)

That's ironic. Just today Firefox on Ubuntu (Lucid) was updated to default to Yahoo search...

Re:And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195506)

I'm pretty sure anyone using Firefox on Ubuntu will just change the default to search to whatever they want, as usual.

It seems a little bitchy of Firefox, who have their panties in a knot ever since Google lost patience with the pace and direction of FF development and released Chrome.

Took a while for Chrome to not completely suck on a mac, but it's finally arrived and I only fire up FF or Safari whenever I hit a site that's just plain Chrome unfriendly. Probably about once a week, with someone's POS "dynamic" site.

Are todays web programmers as bad as, oh, say, the US Congress? (ineffective whiney ponces who glom on the the latest fad in an effort to primarily make their own lives easier and provide a steady paycheck) You have to think about it...

Re:And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31197256)

It took some fiddling, but I got our company website rendering exactly like I wanted, on all major browsers, including IE6, all using validated strict XHTML + CSS, without java(script) or flash, or resorting to browser specific tricks. It all comes down to figuring out which tags and options are well supported across all browsers and operating systems, and implement the site using only those. When I need to make changes, the code is a joy to work with.

But then I'm a C programmer, not a web programmer....

Re:And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202444)

It's not really bitchy of Firefox to want to hedge their bets and lessen their overwhelming reliance on Google. Especially since in this case the default was probably set by Ubunutu, not Firefox.

Re:And Ubuntu transitions to Yahoo search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195536)

Even more ironic since I removed Yahoo as an option on FF.

Stupid (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195428)

Hope and change... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I can't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market. I lean heavily toward free market economics, but one area where the government *must* exercise control is in creating more competition, not less.

I think if I were king, I'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players, otherwise it's monopoly bustin' time.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195508)

then by your definition it is time to bust up google as currently there is only 1 strong player in search advertising and that is google, everyone else is insignificant at the moment, they either join up to compete or continue to fade into obscurity.

Re:Stupid (0)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195548)

then by your definition it is time to bust up google as currently there is only 1 strong player in search advertising and that is google, everyone else is insignificant at the moment, they either join up to compete or continue to fade into obscurity.

I wouldn't be quite ready yet to bust up Google, since I think it's at least possible for other search players to gain some marketshare, but a few more years of dominance, and I could see forcing Google to split into three identical search companies with the same technology (none of which would get the name "Google"), and then let them compete against each other.

Re:Stupid (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195878)

Noogle, Newgle and neugel?
I'd guess, like the baby bells, they would mostly rejoin in a few years anyways.

More choices? wtf? (4, Insightful)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195460)

FTA

"I believe that together, Microsoft and Yahoo will promote more choice, better value and greater innovation to our customers, as well as to advertisers and publishers."

Wait, Two companies combining forces, eliminating the better search engine(IMHO) and then we're told this will result in "more choice"?

I really don't understand how this could be, but I won't use Yahoo (a mediocre SE. at best) anymore. For me it means less choice.

Re:More choices? wtf? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31195576)

currently in online advertising there is ZERO choice, you go with google or you get only a fraction of the audience, by joining up with bing (the better search of yahoo and bing imho) they gain enough market share to be a viable choice, hence there is more choice.

also don't make the mistake that you are the customer here that is supposed to get more choice, you are googles/bings/yahoo's product, the customers/consumers are the advertisers and they are the ones getting more choice.

Re:More choices? wtf? (2, Funny)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195918)

the customers/consumers are the advertisers and they are the ones getting more choice.

God, I'm really trying to get excited about that. It's not working.

Re:More choices? wtf? (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196518)

Are you trying to get excited with the fusion of tho crappy search engines? Wow, I never found THAT at perversius.com...

Re:More choices? wtf? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202198)

Man, this reminds me of the Sperry Univac-Burroughs merger. Talk about tying two rocks together and expecting them to float.

One less.. (1)

Timewasted (1731254) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195498)

search engine to submit URLs for indexing?
*Does happy dance*

Why is it okay for Microsoft? (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195606)

Google wanted to infuse Yahoo with money to keep them afloat with a search deal. It was immediately killed as an anti-trust violation, and they threatened Google with the possibility of breaking them up if they attempted something like that again.

So Microsoft infuses Yahoo with money in a search deal and it is approved.

I know Google has a larger market share than Yahoo, but which of the two companies has been anti-competitive in their business practices?

Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198444)

Dude, sometimes the MSFT bashing just don't work. X360 and RROD? Bash away. MSFT and Intel loading the game against newcomers with the OEMs? Fell free to take aim. But we are talking about the web here, a completely different beast that MSFT has consistently gotten their asses handed to them over and over again.

Google taking over Yahoo would pretty much make Google the only game in town. MSFT taking over Yahoo at least leaves two, even though IMHO Yahoo had the better search and Bing, like every other attempt by MSFT to break into the web, really sucks. If they don't change the Yahoo layout (the more tab, the little blue button under the search box, is a must have for me) and they use the better Yahoo search algorithm, then I suppose it will be okay. If they make it "Yahoo Web 2.0 Live Search Optimized for Windows 7!" then like every other web property they have ever touched it will just smell really badly, like your old uncle's chili farts.

Either way the odds of MSFT being able to make Bing/Yahoo the only game in town is pretty much 0%. Even the little old ladies know what "Google it" means, but if the DOJ let Google have it MSFT would stand no chance at all and Google would be the only one left. So IMHO they made a good call. While MSFT may still control the desktop (and I still think they should have been broken into three pieces) the web is something the guys at Redmond just can't seem to get right. They just aren't a threat when it comes to the web, and if Bing is the best they can do it doesn't look like they will be a threat in the future either.

Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft? (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202328)

Either way the odds of MSFT being able to make Bing/Yahoo the only game in town is pretty much 0%

I wouldn't bet money on that. All Microsoft has to do is make Bing the default search on IE (which they will do, of course). Unless Bing is spectacularly bad, very few people will take the effort to switch, and that'll be it, for Google.

Even the little old ladies know what "Google it" means

True, but when you want to "xerox" a piece of paper, do you require a Xerox brand copier, or will any old copier do?

Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft? (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202594)

There are horizontal monoplies [wikipedia.org] and vertical monoplies [wikipedia.org]
Neither are good for you.

Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31201330)

Because in the search engine arena, Google is the 200lb gorilla. If it bought out Yahoo, that would essentially kill competition.

With MS and Yahoo teaming up, that creates a single search company that while still smaller than Google is in a much better position to compete with it than Bing would have been against Google/Yahoo.

That is why it's ok for MS, but not for Google.

Re:Why is it okay for Microsoft? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31201956)

Except they weren't going to buy out Yahoo.

Microsoft initially was going to fully buy out Yahoo, which would hurt competition. The DoJ was fine with it.

Google only stepped in at that point offering Yahoo a cash infusion to keep Yahoo afloat and prserve competition. The DoJ smacked it down.

Yahoo is no longer in the search business because of the DoJ's intervention.

Welcome to Google... (5, Funny)

iCantSpell (1162581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195730)

Yahoo users.

Not if you've got a fear of large corporations. (1)

zigfreed (1441541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31200424)

Lycos is the other small fish. Hotbot uses Windows Live search and Altavista uses Overture (heavily laden with Yahoo ads).

it's been good to know you Yahoo (3, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195816)

you've been a big part of the internet for many people but as many partnerships like this in the past, you just don't walk away from a deal with Microsoft. It's like that giant slug thing in Stormship Troopers where they suck out your brain thinking it'll make them smarter. It doesn't work but it does kill you. It's been good to know you Yahoo and I hope Mr Icahn is happy knowing he handed you to Microsoft.

LoB

Re:it's been good to know you Yahoo (3, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196006)

Whatever.

Yahoo faded from usefulness just as quickly (or slowly) as search engines became useful (rather than being a glorified text search, displayed in no particular order)). I've been around Teh Intarwebs long enough to remember a time when, if you wanted to find something. It was just a big, human-sorted list of sites. [archive.org] It didn't have everything, but it had a starting point for most stuff. There were lots of other lists in no time, but Yahoo's was the largest and broadest.

I remember the birth of Altavista, which was the first nail in Yahoo's coffin (there were other early players which contributed, but none of them sucked less than Altavista).

Ever since, it's just been getting worse for them. Indexes of websites are hardly useful these days. Yahoo tried to branch out, with chat, and news, and forums, and lots of other things... But, ultimately, it seems they're failing because their original focus and purpose has become all but useless, as the slug around the expensive weight of all the other stuff they've tried to do since. When I went there a second ago, I couldn't even find [yahoo.com] the index anymore in all the noise they have on their front page. (Does it even exist?)

Google's uncanny usefulness was one of the next nails in the coffin. Bing and other useful search engines, have driven the last spikes.

It's very interesting to me that, back in Google's infancy, long before adwords, or any ads at all within Google, their chief source of revenue was Yahoo, who used them as their search engine. That's right: Yahoo used to pay Google for search services. And now the two big search engines both want to pay Yahoo for the same thing.

Buh-bye, Yahoo.

Re:it's been good to know you Yahoo (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198576)

What you are looking for is this [yahoo.com] , the other is simply their web portal. And I know folks make fun of their "bloated" web portal all the time, but being in PC repair I can tell you the web portal was actually a brilliant idea. Why?

Because working on the PCs of the non tech over 30s I find that nearly all of them, down to the last man and woman, have their home page set to the Yahoo web portal. Either they have it set to Yahoo themselves, or through an affiliate like AT&T, but either way they DO have it set to Yahoo's web portal and will actually get pissed off if you dare touch it. In fact many of the older folks call it their "paper" and spend a huge amount of time there, reading the headlines, checking the weather, even checking their horoscopes for fun, before they use the Yahoo Search at the top to venture out onto the web. That is a whole lot of captive eyeballs for Yahoo and now MSFT. So I would say it is pretty damned smart.

And does anybody know if this will affect Yahoo Mail in any way? I have never read anything one way or another but I always thought search was a trojan horse for MSFT to get their hands on Yahoo Mail. Last I checked Yahoo Mail was the #1 Webmail, and Live Mail a very distant third, so getting a hold of Yahoo Mail would not only catapult them to #1 in webmail, but also give them mountains of data to mine and even more eyeballs hooked, as all the non techs also spend a crazy amount of time in Yahoo webmail. If MSFT ends up getting access to Yahoo webmail this could really be a smart move on their part, already just by taking over Yahoo search they will be the default engine for the portal and webmail users, and that is a hell of a lot of searches.

Re:it's been good to know you Yahoo (1)

mamer-retrogamer (556651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31199980)

Actually, that is their search engine. What the GP was talking about was Yahoo's directory, and can be found at http://dir.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] .

The sad part is that is that the directory page is now mostly "The Spark Blog" and advertising links, with the "real" directory occupying a tiny column on the left side.

I can remember a time when that directory was actually one of the few *useful* sites on the web. Now get off my lawn.

Re:it's been good to know you Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203910)

When I went there a second ago, I couldn't even find [yahoo.com] the index anymore in all the noise they have on their front page. (Does it even exist?)

http://dir.yahoo.com/

Ubuntu (1)

kregg (1619907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195882)

So Lucid users can look forward to using Bing as the default search engine.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195952)

Might be a bit presumptuous, but I assume if they can manage to get linux installed, they can change their FF homepage, too.

Re:Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31199266)

It is presumptuous because Ubuntu has made it ridiculously easy for people who have no idea what Linux is to not only install it, but use it with minimal effort on their part. Add to that companies like Dell are selling machines with Ubuntu preinstalled and you've got a recipe for ignorance [FAIL].

Wow (1, Insightful)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 4 years ago | (#31195934)

The haters without information are out tonight!

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196610)

The Moderators who mod up posts with no information, insight or interesting points are out tonight too!

padding (2, Interesting)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196104)

Seems like it will give MS more time to develop Bing by padding its' market share with Yahoo traffic.

One thing I'd really like to see is how many people who have switched from mostly using Google to mostly using Bing.

Re:padding (1)

Tromad (1741656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31197186)

Bing actually isn't that bad, but for actually searching things you aren't sure about google is superior. What is good about bing is that if you know what you are looking for, but don't know the website, it generally will filter out the junk and just show you what you are trying to look for. However for more esoteric searches bing will spew random information but google will actually show you what you are looking for, even if it is on the 8th link.

Bing maps is clearly superior to google maps though if you are navigating to unfamiliar locations. Bing maps on printed directions will give freeway names as they appear on freeway signs and locational markers while google maps is more technical but less useful. For instance from Ventura CA to LAX google maps lists San Diego freeway while the freeway signs and Bing maps and Mapquest all say Santa Monica. San Diego is the final destination but Santa Monica is more useful given the context towards a major international airport.

Re:padding (1)

hollywoodb (809541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31199634)

I haven't switched, but sometimes Bing's results genuinely are better. I still use Google for "interesting" searches, but when I just can't remember the URL to something or similar, Bing is typically better.

Experiment for the reader:
A very specific thing. I want the WikiBooks LaTeX guide, and I can never be bothered to remember the kinda-long URL.
Type "wikibooks latex" (no quotes) into both Bing and Google. Tell me which results are better.

Farewell Yahoo! (2, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196196)

Its sad to see yahoo going down like this. It really had some excellent services and i will miss many of them. With the Google agreement they would have had a chance of surviving and even grow but now i give them at most a couple of years. Icahn must have some reverse Midas touch where things he gets involved in turns to shit.

bing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31196262)

It is the Windows 95 equivalent of search engines..it looked good when it first came out, then people tried to use it. CRASH! You try to look up Winter Olympics, you get ticket prices, or "live" feeds that updated yesterday, not really what you are looking for. There are sometimes that you don't need "answers not links". I need links for sources, I don't want or need you Bing. I will stick to Google, or--God help me--ask.com if I must.

Re:bing. (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196470)

The anti-Microsoft base here has always been strong. I wonder, what pushes somebody to accept a search engine that promotes virus-bearing browser toolbars?

Ask.com was actually decent back when they were ask jeeves, since then it's just been a race for how horrible and stupid they can become.

Re:bing. (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196948)

Do you know what else is actually still not a bad search engine? The one that was my primary search engine before Google appeared: Alta Vista.

Of course, nothing compares to Google. Not Bing. Not Yahoo or Alta Vista or any of the others I used before Google appeared. I used different search engines for different things in the 90s. Then came Google, and even when it was still in beta, it was better at everything than all the other search engines.

Competition is good and I'd like to see more good search engines out there, but really, I don't know if it's possible to be so much better than Google that a large portion of people would choose another engine as their default. So far, no one has shown that it's possible to even be better than Google at all.

Re:bing. (1)

LinuxFreakus (613194) | more than 4 years ago | (#31201408)

FYI: AltaVista == Yahoo! They were aquired by Y! along with Overture.

Re:bing. (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31197800)

The anti-Microsoft base here has always been strong. I wonder, what pushes somebody to accept a search engine that promotes virus-bearing browser toolbars?

The desire to find what you're looking for. Every so often I decide to change my default search engine and give something else a go. Generally, I find they're not as good as Google. This might well be at least partly familiarity - I know how to concoct Google-friendly queries better than I know how to play Bing or AltaVista. But it's still a drop in efficiency for no real net benefit. Sure, there's the "I'm not using an evil company" feeling, (which you don't really get from Bing, Yahoo or A-V) but that doesn't really help when ten minutes later you've still not quite got across to the search engine what it is you're after, let alone found anything.

Re:bing. (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31200096)

"The desire to find what you're looking for."

The problem is that "what you're looking for" varies from person to person when using the same search terms.

these guys are dead (1)

orabidoo (9806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31196624)

from the article:

engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site "in the coming days" and that they hope work is completed, at least the United States, by the end of this year.

and:

After full implementation, which the companies expect will come about two years after regulatory approval...

with these kind of glacial speeds of development... and they wonder why the mighty Google is trouncing them?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31198076)

What about now Canonical? Will you change the default search engine of Lucid from Yahoo to something better?
Canonical now is also helping Microsoft. Great!
_http://lifehacker.com/5458113/ubuntus-default-search-engine-switching-to-yahoo

Two mediocre tastes that taste terrible together! (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31200302)

At least we know what search engine to use when you want to find useless shit that doesn't come anywhere close to your search query. Perhaps Google will partner with them to use them as a search result inverse filter -- anything Yahoobingstank returns can immediately be trimmed from the Google results. I better hurry up and patent that idea..

Oh great. (1)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31200654)

There's almost nothing available for download these days that doesn't try to package the Yahoo toolbar into the installer. I simply can't understand why so many companies are happy to have that that asinine, invasive, virus of a toolbar associated with their product. The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo might be hosting the download bandwidth for them.

And now this? My prediction: That damn toolbar will start showing up in MORE places, because now every Microsoft download will include it too.

google cares not (1)

pastababa (1747148) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202118)

Yahoo/Bing is not a threat for Google,as Google is so secure of its search market, such as the story that Bing has only 2% market share in Japan [slashdot.org] . Google is now putting its efforts and money in other areas such as killing the iphone, being an high speed fiber optic ISP, an energy provider...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?