×

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 and News Corp in Yahoo Bid Talks

samzenpus posted about 6 years ago | from the you-will-be-assimilated dept.

Yahoo! 91

KingAlanI writes "The New York Times website is reporting that Microsoft is trying another angle in its bid for Yahoo: joining up with another behemoth, Murdoch's News Corporation. This is still very much in the preliminary stage, if anything, but an important development to consider. The idea of Yahoo working with fellow Web giant Google, in a plan to counteract Microsoft's takeover plan, is also discussed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

91 comments

I have a feeling.. (1, Insightful)

NickCatal (865805) | about 6 years ago | (#23022756)

Why do I have a feeling MSFT is going to come out ahead with this deal

As for if this will stand in the EU... that is another question all-together.

Re:I have a feeling.. (4, Insightful)

mfh (56) | about 6 years ago | (#23023004)

MSFT wouldn't enter the deal if it would hurt them.

Re:I have a feeling.. (3, Interesting)

imstanny (722685) | about 6 years ago | (#23023048)

Why do I have a feeling MSFT is going to come out ahead with this deal As for if this will stand in the EU... that is another question all-together.
Actually, if you take the history of all buy-outs, the Net benefit for the firm doing the buying is roughly 0%. Though it's a historical average, where some companies may deviate, the company buying the firm tends to have no benefits in the long run. Even in the recent tech world AMD/ATI, TimeWarner/AOL, EBAY/SKYPE come to mind...

Re:I have a feeling.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023448)

why don't you get off slashdot and go back to sucking other men's cocks.

well, this will be great for MS if allowed (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#23023578)

it is designed to kill Google, not compete. They are going to use their monopoly to control the web by forcing all MSIE users to become 'live'. Once done, their search engine will be integrated with their desktop. Of course, Google will sue in court later on, MS will be found guilty, and MS will simply pay. Not a bad deal for MS.

But I am guessing that W would allow it (MS paid a lot of money to his campaign), but EU, China, Russia, and japan will nix it. And yes, those countries do have a say. After all, they can simply shut down all Windows sales, which would push Linux to the forefront. And from their POV, that would mean new business opportunities.

Re:well, this will be great for MS if allowed (2, Insightful)

dfiguero (324827) | about 6 years ago | (#23024126)

After all, they can simply shut down all Windows sales, which would push Linux to the forefront. And from their POV, that would mean new business opportunities.
I wonder if they really can? If they have such power why haven't they done it already? Would they only push for Linux if MS was integrating yet another thing to their desktop?

I think the only thing that would happen is MS would have to pay another fine like in US/EU and everything would be business as usual.

Re:well, this will be great for MS if allowed (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#23024506)

EU threatened for far less to shut down MS sales. If EU suggests it, I suspect that others including Japan, china, russia, and even India would follow the lead. Is this likely to happen? Slim to no chance. I am guessing that MS will blink LONG before it get to that. But while America is willing to overlook this, I do not think that the rest of world will. Google has a natural monopoly, but it is defeatable. MS is not. If they control the web, then no country will be able to take MS on.

As to pushing Linux, no, that will not happen. But computer sales will happen. And I think that most non-usa companies would persue Linux as being the right way to go. As it is, Linux is now dominating the low-end sub notebooks. Those will become popular over time. And if MS is not allowed to control the web, then they will see Linux chew them up from below (a space that Apple can not occupy).

just the facts, man (1)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23024922)

Actually, if you take the history of all buy-outs, the Net benefit for the firm doing the buying is roughly 0%.

and your source for this stat is to found where, exactly?

That's the fact. Here's a link. (3, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 years ago | (#23026340)

"... if you take the history of all buy-outs, the Net benefit for the firm doing the buying is roughly 0%."

Source: Wikipedia article about Mergers and Acquisitions [wikipedia.org]. Quote: "Historically, mergers have often failed (Straub, 2007) to add significantly to the value of the acquiring firm's shares (King, et al., 2004)."

That idea is well-known, but I was unable to find another link quickly. (It's only a Slashdot comment, not the result of a research project.) For example, the merger of Time-Warner and AOL is the worst business decision of human history, and lowered the value of Time-Warner so much that employees lost much of their invested savings.

The basic point seems valid in this case, also. Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...

I'm guessing that Steve Ballmer is doing this because he wants an outlet for his anger. It's difficult to see how owning Yahoo can benefit Microsoft. One possibility is that Microsoft can try to get a partial monopoly over some kinds of internet traffic. Many people with little technical knowledge use whatever Microsoft pushes them towards.

Microsoft is NOT a successful company, in my opinion. If Microsoft didn't have one-time monopolies created during a time when people were ignorant about computers, it would not make much profit.

Also, the failure of Vista may indicate that Microsoft can no longer hire people intelligent enough to write working software.

Mergers are often CEO ego-tripping, or trickery. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 years ago | (#23026476)

Here's more about the Time-Warner merger: AOL/Time Warner Merger [pbs.org]. Quote: "AOL Time Warner announced Wednesday it was reporting a $45.5 billion quarterly loss to account for the declining value of its flagship America Online property -- bringing the company to post an annual loss of nearly $100 billion, the largest annual loss ever in corporate history. (1/30/03)"

Re:I have a feeling.. (1)

Hassman (320786) | about 6 years ago | (#23026854)

I don't think you could be further from the truth. It is true that some buyouts are not good in the long term, I would think the majority of them are good for the buying company.

I'm not a business major or anything of the sort, but applying the little I know and some common sense, I think there are many situations where a buyout would be good for both companies.

If history dictated that there is no net benefit, then it just wouldn't happen.

I also think it depends on what the end goal is. Not all buyouts occur for a financial gain, but to eliminate competition, improve public image, gain a brand name, force a publicly traded company private, gain a foothold in another industry, etc...

Historically two companies merge or one buys another in the same line of business so that way both revenue streams can be combined, but one set of management can be eliminated. This ultimately drops the bottom line and increases profits.

Perhaps someone with more experience in the area can provide concrete details, but this is just how I have understood it from the high level.

Re:I have a feeling.. (1)

imstanny (722685) | about 6 years ago | (#23028248)

I'm not a business major or anything of the sort, but applying the little I know and some common sense, I think there are many situations where a buyout would be good for both companies. If history dictated that there is no net benefit, then it just wouldn't happen.
You make a very good point. As I said before, Buyouts tend to do little in terms of Adding value to a company. However, you are correct in your observation that a merger and/or buyout would allow the company to sustain its own livelyhood, for instance. The benefit may simply be observed in the fact that the company continues to exist, though still, without adding more value for its underlying equity.

On the subject of MSFT, take a look at the following link http://www.ifa.com/Library/Support/Data/returnsandstandarddeviationsformodelportfolios.asp#bigchart20_dow [ifa.com] Go to chart #5. You'll see microsoft over its existance has turned a $1 investment into $140 (and that's year to date / post-'99 bubble).

Re:I have a feeling.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23028774)

If history dictated that there is no net benefit, then it just wouldn't happen.

That's what they said after the mortgage crisis, the .com bust, the savings and loan crisis and so on back to the dawn of time. Having an economic theory that will cure cancer and fart rainbows is nice and all, but it's less than useless if it insists that everyone act rationally all of the time.

And Russia, china, and even japan (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#23023462)

I am guessing that all of the countries will realize that MS is not trying to be a white knight.

Is this a poison pill strategy? (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | about 6 years ago | (#23022774)

It's been a long time since I had a business class. Isn't this what is called the poison pill? Either buying up things that make the company a poor purchase decision, or entering into contracts that do the same thing etc?

Re:Is this a poison pill strategy? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#23022914)

It's been a long time since I had a business class. Isn't this what is called the poison pill? Either buying up things that make the company a poor purchase decision, or entering into contracts that do the same thing etc?
No, I don't think so. I think Yahoo believes that a deal with Google might be more lucrative than its current course of action, which is to do all advertising in-house.

All in all, the goal seems to be to strengthen Yahoo in order to push up the stock price to avoid a hostile takeover. The poison pill approach is to make the company look so bad that nobody would want to buy it. I don't think that's what Yahoo's trying to do at all.

Re:Is this a poison pill strategy? (3, Informative)

Ngarrang (1023425) | about 6 years ago | (#23022930)

The parent wrote, "It's been a long time since I had a business class. Isn't this what is called the poison pill? Either buying up things that make the company a poor purchase decision, or entering into contracts that do the same thing etc?"

I think it would qualify more as a poison pill strategy if Yahoo! gave up their own ad service completely and signed a binding long-term agreement with Google, the kind that survives mergers and buy-outs.

I would like to congratulate Microsoft (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23022780)

For singlehandledly making AOL relevant again. I think my collection of AOL disks just increased in value.

Better link (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 6 years ago | (#23022788)

This is a better link [iht.com] because it's reg-free.

The wrinkly photo of Murdoch (complete with disembodied hand) is just icing on the cake.

Re:Better link (2, Informative)

fondacio (835785) | about 6 years ago | (#23023074)

The NYT hasn't been required registration since last September, when it also dropped its "Times Select" strategy of paying for its columnists that didn't work out. The link from the summary still contains the "?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" bit, but even if you are not signed in you can access the article just as easily as on the website of the IHT (which, by the way, is fully owned by the NYT company).

Re:Better link (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 6 years ago | (#23023248)

The link from the summary still contains the "?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" bit, but even if you are not signed in you can access the article just as easily as on the website of the IHT

I tried: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/technology/10google.html [nytimes.com], but got redirected to a login page. Perhaps you're a subscriber? or my country isn't allowed to login automatically & yours is?

(which, by the way, is fully owned by the NYT company)

I don't give a crap where the article's from as long as I can read it.

Re:Better link (1)

polar red (215081) | about 6 years ago | (#23023532)

I don't give a crap where the article's from
I can imagine the financial elite beginning to dream with such statements. the source of an article is SO important!

Re:Better link (1)

fondacio (835785) | about 6 years ago | (#23023808)

I tried: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/technology/10google.html [nytimes.com] [nytimes.com], but got redirected to a login page. Perhaps you're a subscriber? or my country isn't allowed to login automatically & yours is?
Really? I clicked your link and it led to the article. I'm in the UK, but also at a university. I'll give it a try at home tonight (although I don't think you'll care much for the result).

Re:Better link (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 6 years ago | (#23031440)

Really? I clicked your link and it led to the article. I'm in the UK, but also at a university.

Interestingly enough, it works for me at my work too.

MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (2)

William Robinson (875390) | about 6 years ago | (#23022846)

troll -1

IMHO, I don't think Microsoft is going to gain anything by taking over Apple, Yahoo OR Google. They have acquired Hotmail earlier, and I personally know many friends switching from Hotmail to something else for pathetic services. I do not have a single contact with Hotmail address today.

MSFT is not known for quality, and, yes, it is loss to the world to have lost a good company to MSFT. But MSFT is not going to gain anything

/troll

Re:MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (1, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23023322)

I personally know many friends switching from Hotmail to something else for pathetic services. I do not have a single contact with Hotmail address today.

The geek would live a freer, happier, life if he could surrender the delusion that he counts for much in Microsoft's world:

Here are up-to-date numbers for a single country, Turkey:

Turkey has a population of about 75 million.
Of the 300 million MSN users worldwide, 25 million are Turkish.
Turkey ranks third in using MSN Messenger.
Turkey ranks first in the world in using video-chat and Windows Live services.
Turkey ranks fifth in the world with 19 million hotmail user accounts.

Half the users are below the age of 35, and 65 percent are men. Women users made up around 22 percent some time ago, but their share keeps getting larger. Three years ago the rate of users aged above 50 was almost nil, but now it was over 5 percent.

Clicking grannies clock an e-record [turkishdailynews.com.tr] [April 3, 2008]

Re:MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023694)

If 65% are men and 22% are women, what are the other 13%?

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023698)

By bringing turkey into the equation, are you trying to say that MS has targeted them, or that Turks are not that bright?

Re:MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (5, Insightful)

GauteL (29207) | about 6 years ago | (#23023874)

"Here are up-to-date numbers for a single country, Turkey:"

Those statistics being "single country" also makes them less valid on the world scale.

I thought I smelled a fish when your statistics seemed to indicate that 1/3 of all Turks are "MSN users". This also means that if this [wikipedia.org] and this [internetworldstats.com] is correct, there are more MSN users than Internet users in Turkey. So let us just assume that EVERY single Internet user in Turkey is also an MSN user.

Could this possibly be representative for the world?

The answer is pretty obviously "no".
If all your statistics are correct, Turkey accounts for approximately 8.3 % of the MSN users in the world, but less than 1.3% of the worlds internet users (based on 1.32 billion Internet users from here [wikipedia.org]).

Either your numbers are completely wrong, or MSN is over 6 times as popular in Turkey as the average for Internet users. Either way, they are completely useless as proof of total MSN usage in the world.

Re:MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (1)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23025950)

Either your numbers are completely wrong, or MSN is over 6 times as popular in Turkey as the average for Internet users. Either way, they are completely useless as proof of total MSN usage in the world.

Internet users aren't always to be found in the Cafe:

Cenk Serder, was very visible at the recent Mobile World Congress, spending a lot of time talking to the press about his company's approach to a host of services. On instant messaging, he was making the point that in Turkey, where there are millions of Windows Live Messenger users, there is little point in trying to start up a specific, mobile operator focused service.
"We're the pioneer of IM, and actually started with a PIM based approach back in early 2006, but we changed horses at the end of 2007, and the reason is that it brings more internet services into play." Serdar said. "It's hard to ride against the tide, and MSN usage in Turkey is the third largest in the world, with 23 million accounts. MSN is so widespread that it was very hard to start something else and that's what we saw over the last two years." And Turkcell is not alone in Turkey in targeting those 23 million MSN/ Windows Live users with a gateway product.
Neustar's biggest rival as a technology enabler of mobile instant messaging, Colibria, is providing its technology to Avea, the fastest growing mobile operator in Turkey, which has launched a Windows Live Messenger service to its ten million mobile subscribers.
Next generation messaging - Care of the community [mobileeurope.co.uk] [March 13, 2008]

These stats are somewhat dated but still suggestive:

comScore Networks...released the results of an analysis of instant messenger (IM) usage in various parts of the world. According to the study, eighty-two million people, or 49 percent of the European online population, used IM applications to communicate online in February. In comparison, sixty-nine million people in North America, or only 37 percent of the online population, used IM during the same timeframe. Interestingly, the analysis showed that IM is most heavily used in the Latin American region, with 64 percent of the online population using IM in February.
The MSN Messenger application has the strongest penetration worldwide, with 61 percent of worldwide IM users utilizing the application in February. MSN Messenger is also dominant in Latin America, reaching more than 90 percent of IM users, and in Europe and Asia Pacific, reaching more than 70 percent of IM users in each region. North America is the most competitive IM market, with MSN Messenger, AOL/Aim and Yahoo! Messenger each garnering between 27 percent and 37 percent of IM users in February.
Additional IM programs are gaining ground, especially outside of North America. Skype is now used by 14 percent of IM users worldwide, although this application is used by only 3 percent of the online population in North America. Skype appears most popular in Asia Pacific, reaching 26 percent of the region's IM user population.
Europe Surpasses North America In Instant Messenger Users [comscore.com] [April 10, 2006]

Re:MSFT, Hotmail and Yahoo (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | about 6 years ago | (#23023564)

MHO, I don't think Microsoft is going to gain anything by taking over Apple, Yahoo OR Google.
MS would for sure gain by buying out Apple or Google - Apple makes a better OS, and Google is a better online experience and makes better online products.

If MS could buy them out and squash them it would. That is also true for mos Linux distro's - If MS could buy out Canonical (ubuntu) and others it would - but for now they are just threatening lawsuits...

Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 6 years ago | (#23022882)

If Microsoft is trying to convince anyone that its hostile takeover of Yahoo isn't evil, it's going in exactly the wrong direction.

Re:Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 6 years ago | (#23029584)

If Microsoft is trying to convince anyone that its hostile takeover of Yahoo isn't evil, it's going in exactly the wrong direction.

Why would they want to convince anyone that its not evil? What, and lose any support they might have in corporate America? I don't think so!

Pot, this is Kettle (4, Interesting)

Ngarrang (1023425) | about 6 years ago | (#23022906)

From the article...
"Microsoft immediately blasted the idea of a search advertising partnership between Yahoo and Google, saying it would be anticompetitive. âoeAny definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Googleâ(TM)s hands,â Microsoft said in a statement."

For some reason, this cry for justice rings empty. Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023076)

Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?


Yes, it's how psychopaths operate. The reality is that Microsoft can't even service their OS monopoly with a competitive product, watching them try to play in every single market is both amusing and frustrating. But let's not chastise them for it, the arrogance is already undoing them from the inside-out.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23026000)

The problem is, even if their plan is severely flawed, it might just work in the short-term--that is, they might be able to acquire Yahoo! in the end somehow. Only then will they fail and bring Yahoo! down with them.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (3, Insightful)

wellingj (1030460) | about 6 years ago | (#23023084)

True I don't have much sympathy but ad hominem is still a logically flawed argument.

What MS says is logically true, I just don't happen to give a rats ass about them saying it.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (1)

interiot (50685) | about 6 years ago | (#23024208)

It can be rephrased as a non-ad-hominem:

Microsoft demonstrated several times that US's antitrust measures have no teeth. It's ironic that the one company that's so clearly demonstrated that, now hopes the regulators will change their approach.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (1)

Jerry Beasters (783525) | about 6 years ago | (#23029412)

It wasn't ad-hominem in the first place. But he did a good job being someone who read about logical fallacies on a website and thinks he's an expert. It makes academics like me who deal with this stuff for a livng pretty angry to have logical fallacies trivialized like that.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (1)

wellingj (1030460) | about 6 years ago | (#23044644)

For some reason, this cry for justice rings empty. Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?
I think it's pretty evident that the above is ad hominem attack trying to dissuade us from the main point that:

Any definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands
Which, while exaggerated, is still a logical argument. The state of the desktop market plays no bearing in the statement that a Yahoo-Google partnership would form a rather large power block of internet advertising. So if you are so academic why don't you address the main point? Saying you are academic and being academic are two different things.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (1, Informative)

ThePromenader (878501) | about 6 years ago | (#23023134)

I couldn't care less who has the majority of the market - as long as they remain the best at what they do. Adobe for example, as far as media is concerned... but MS, with their crappy/bloated/condescending/virus-addled/insecure/monopolistic OS has no excuse - and can have no complaint in the matter. Google is an example to follow, not one to complain about.

Re:Pot, this is Kettle (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#23023770)

Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?
I believe the word that you wanted is egregious, but your spell checker changed to gregarious.
Would you by chance, be running Windows with MS's new context checking software?

egregious not gregarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23024052)

they're not quite anagrams yet.

"gregarious" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23025212)

Yep, Ballmer and co are a sociable lot who seek the company of other like-minded madmen. Gregarious, indeed.

Gregarious? Microsoft is outgoing? (1)

imyy4u1 (1222436) | about 6 years ago | (#23025578)

I didn't know Microsoft was so outgoing...

I think you meant egregious...as in bad, reprehensible, etc.

But the question is... (3, Interesting)

bhunachchicken (834243) | about 6 years ago | (#23022918)

Will this actually lure people away from Google? Right now the mentality is quite simply "Google It".

I'm not sure we'll be hearing "Yahoo! It" or "MSN It" any time soon.

It probably doesn't help that Google is the default search in Firefox either.

Re:But the question is... (3, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 6 years ago | (#23023810)

Will this actually lure people away from Google? Right now the mentality is quite simply "Google It".

I'm not sure we'll be hearing "Yahoo! It" or "MSN It" any time soon.

It probably doesn't help that Google is the default search in Firefox either.
There's probably some quote out there along the lines of much is forgiven of those who can deliver. People forgive Apple the smeck-headed egotism of Jobs and the acolytes because they still manage to deliver a solid product. People are worried about Google actually being evil but they turn out some really innovative products just dripping with ideas. Microsoft takes a lot of shit for being evil and the products they come out with are dull and uninspired.

You can talk about propaganda and public relations and brainwashing when people say they have warm-fuzzies when thinking about Apple and Google. At the end of the day, though, people have to use their products. You can say it's marketing but a lot of people really, really like Apple and Google products. They can't all be kool-aid drinkers. If Jobs acts like an insufferable twat with the overbearing egotism of someone who thinks he's always right, well damnit, he usually is. We probably wouldn't dislike him as much if he turned out a Vista every once in a while. The Mac Cube was lame but not lame enough.

Re:But the question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23027096)

Wow, I feel old now. I remember back when Yahoo! was the search engine of choice, and you DID say "Yahoo it".

On my personal opinion, I'm all for Google buying out Yahoo. Maybe they can fix the problems I have with Yahoo's blatant disregard for its user's IP and its privacy issues. Goggle has thus far proven better about such things.

Brands to Synonyms (1)

mutube (981006) | about 6 years ago | (#23027712)

I'm not sure we'll be hearing "Yahoo! It" or "MSN It" any time soon.

Probably not, but they might "'google it' on Yahoo!" much like people happily "hoover [wikipedia.org] with a Dyson [wikipedia.org]".

Could've been funnier (4, Funny)

faloi (738831) | about 6 years ago | (#23022962)

It could've said "Microsoft and Newscorp have banded together to make the proper sacrifices to Cthulhu to ensure their bid for Yahoo! is accepted." At least then the circle of evil would be complete.

Re:Could've been funnier (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 6 years ago | (#23022988)

One of the most common search items on MSN Search is "Google"

Re:Could've been funnier (1)

Missing_dc (1074809) | about 6 years ago | (#23023196)

Thats because most IE browsers are set to use MSN as their default search client, when someone gets on a new(to them) PC, or a PC with the history cleared and they type in google and hit , it goes to msn to look up the term they typed.
Thats a clear message to MSN that they lost the "mindspace" of internet search for consumers, and I'm sure it gets Ballmer's panties in a wad.

Re:Could've been funnier (1)

oldbamboo (936359) | about 6 years ago | (#23023396)

"I can assure you Lord Vader, this Microsoft Powered Website will be fully operation...oh...er...mouse doesn't seem to be moving..."

Yahoo is not the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23022986)

As previous posts said, you Google it, you don't Yahoo! it or whatever.

But the idea of Microsoft and News Corp joining together makes my blood run cold. Neither of them has a glowing reputation, do they?

I think we've just witnessed the first formings of the real world's Weyland-Yutani

Re:Yahoo is not the issue (1)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23023424)

As previous posts said, you Google it, you don't Yahoo! it or whatever.

When your carefully nurtured trademark enters popular usage as a generic term for your product or service you are in deep shit.

Re:Yahoo is not the issue (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 6 years ago | (#23024154)

When your carefully nurtured trademark enters popular usage as a generic term for your product or service you are in deep shit.


As long as its a term for your product or service, you are fine. When it enters popular usage as a generic term for products or services in your market (as happened with Xerox and Kleenex), you're screwed. While Google is often used as a verb for running internet searches, its not really clear to me that its used in a brand-generic sense (as "search on the internet") rather than a brand-specific but engine-generic sense (as "search on the applicable Google service"). Lots of people I know use "Google" as a verb, but they all use Google search engines as, if not their only, their primary engines for "generic" searches, so when they say "Google it" or "I Googled it", they really mean "search(ed) on Google", not "search(ed) on the internet".

Re:Yahoo is not the issue (1)

Xtravar (725372) | about 6 years ago | (#23025060)

You don't talk to enough old people.

"I'm old but hip. I Google the interweb for recipes on Martha's website."

Holy hell Microsoft, back off (1)

wobedraggled (549225) | about 6 years ago | (#23023010)

Yahoo doesn't want to be under you, get the hint.

Re:Holy hell Microsoft, back off (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | about 6 years ago | (#23023926)

Yahoo doesn't want to be under you, get the hint.
At this point, those at Microsoft do not care what would be preferred by those at Yahoo. The actions by Microsoft have an stench of inevitability.

However, Yahoo may have done an excellent job of driving up the asking price. By denying Microsoft, News Corp. is becoming involved, and supposedly Time Warner, and let's not forget the Google rumours.

Before, Yahoo had one option, an option that Microsoft felt Yahoo would eventually have to agree to. With the possibility of new potential buyers or investors, Microsoft may have to reconsider its original bargaining posture.

Microsoft's clown head eats the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023012)

If Microsoft buys Yahoo, and the DOJ clears it, it will just further cement my belief that Microsoft is above the law in the USA and there's no stopping them. They still have a clear monopoly on the desktop and they have involvement now with Linspire, XandrOS, Novell, and others, either through patent agreements or deals, how much money are they making or set to make on Linux sales? It is sick and the Linux users sit idly by and make jokes or ignore it while they rub their penis and play Halo on their Xbox with their dual boot Microsoft Windows partition for DirectX (yet another monopoly) gaming.

What will Microsoft NOT buy tomorrow? Let the clown head Gates talk begin shortly after his MS departure, I'm betting as soon as he starts talking he won't shut up until he's President or deeply woven into the fabric of American politics. Silverlight slithers in the distance, first LOC, tomorrow the world, another soon to be victory as a monopoly, as we lay our roses on the tombstone of Netscape.

Be sure to install your nsakey.exe Genuine Advantage before you use any application!

Two great evils together at last. (3, Funny)

killjoe (766577) | about 6 years ago | (#23023062)

Hey you've got right wing zealotry in my monopoly.

Hey you've got monopoly in my right right wing politics.

Ah two great evils that taste better together.

Re:Two great evils together at last. (1)

oldbamboo (936359) | about 6 years ago | (#23023298)

News Corp & Microsoft & Yahoo!

I keep trying to peer into my crystal ball to work out what it would be like to have these three monsters pawing each other while lurching towards my pocket, and it just sounds like a great big clusterfuck of 2nd grade mediocrity, failing to win any of my hard earned cash. This story is salutory in that it has more to do with the way all 3 (I'm including Yahoo!) companies perceive their daily grind, than it has to do with how good product is delivered to the masses, either in terms of software, media, or connectivity.

This will be them, now, and for the next year, dissolving into an orgy of well-lubed management meetings, focussed entirely on how to do business in the post Reagan world. I'm sorry guys, but aren't you all supposed to be DELIVERING services in a competitive marketplace Isn't THAT your raison d'etre? You see this is it, the three of them have proven they have nothing worth having, and this story, unless it involves somebody small, smart and scary (like google) is just a complete non-event for all of us. Although I think it would be interesting to stack up News Corps other online holdings against this deal. Haven't they already bought Myspace. Oh, yeah....

Yahoo's Google test means MS was right (5, Insightful)

pcause (209643) | about 6 years ago | (#23023354)

The recent announcement about Yahoo testing Adsense for search result advertising just proves that MS is right and that Yahoo is not a viable standalone entity. We need strong and serious competition for Google because the last thing the world needs is a monopoly on the source of revenue for ad properties. Yahoo has now admitted defeat and MS is willing to put up the challenge. Throw in Fox and we could have a real competitor for Google.

Of course, combining 3 "also rans"doesn't mean we get a winner, just that we'll at least likely have a fight!

Don't Feed the Lawyers (3, Insightful)

oldbamboo (936359) | about 6 years ago | (#23023456)

True enough, but, y'know, why spend all this money on lawyers just to make this thing happen just to have a bit of a limp struggle against the google-constrictor. What's the point? The three of them are screwed as an entity. They could no more pull a decent web presence out of this than I could pull a flaming, banjo-playing clown out of my ass.

Anyway, google as a monopoly for a few years sounds quite nice. I like monopolies. Aren't monopolies what gave us all that stuff that isn't MS, that has allowed MS to degenerate quietly into the laughable junk it is, you know, things like Linux, and google?

Nonsense (1)

mpapet (761907) | about 6 years ago | (#23024892)

In principal, I agree that viable competitors to Google is a common good. Looking at it from a business acquisition perspective, you would be wrong though.

-As a general rule, upwards of 80% of acquisitions fail to bring "synergies" that are referenced as justification for mergers public relations. Most of them are done to eliminate competition and grow a balance sheet to fund the next acquisition.

-The scale and managerial mediocrity of all companies in your post suggest that nothing viable would come out of a merger, regardless of the acquirer. (sp) Google has a goose that's laid maybe two golden eggs on which an empire has been built. (search and sensible adverts) Yahoo probably has a couple of golden eggs too. Like all of the companies mentioned, the managerial layer at Yahoo has more than likely declared the golden eggs non-viable products and stuck them on the shelf.

My own opinion is they should try to go private as employee financed/employee-owned. But that doesn't net the investment banks any service fees, so it will never see the light of day.

-

Re:Yahoo's Google test means MS was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23025260)

Pairing the owners of MySpace and Facebook is a good idea?

AOL Bailout (4, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | about 6 years ago | (#23023580)

From the article:

Yahoo, which wants to remain independent, has been in a desperate search for white knights, holding conversations with Time Warnerâ(TM)s AOL and News Corporation.
A Yahoo-AOL merger would make for one mediocre company. I don't think that will scare off giants like Microsoft and Google. In the end we will be left with just two companies, unless the SEC says otherwise.

Re:AOL Bailout (1)

OakLEE (91103) | about 6 years ago | (#23026954)

A Yahoo-AOL merger would make for one mediocre company.

I think that's the exact reasoning for making such a deal. Yahoo would get cash from Time Warner to buy back its stock (thwarting Microsoft), but it would also have to transfer AOL's operations onto its balance sheet, making it a less valuable company.

Time Warner loves this of course, since it's been trying to get the AOL albatross off its neck basically since right after the two companies merged. The 20% stake it'll get in Yahoo-AOL is just a bonus. Yahoo shareholders are arguably getting screwed though if this happens, since (1) Yahoo is diluting their control with the issuance of shares to Time Warner and (2) Yahoo is actively taking steps to destroy shareholder value buy taking on AOL (just look at TW's financial statements if you want proof of that).

Say what you want about Microsoft/News Corp. being evil, but at least their management and boards are not blatantly violating their fiduciary duty to their shareholders by wasting company assets.

Re:AOL Bailout (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | about 6 years ago | (#23027146)

You may be right about that. However, if they poison the company like that, wouldn't the share price go down significantly so Microsoft would be able to buy them cheap?

The AOL-Yahoo! merger might give the new company quite a bit of equity, but will the shareholders recognize that? or will they be blinded by the mismanagement?

Interesting argument from MS (2, Funny)

peipas (809350) | about 6 years ago | (#23023904)

Microsoft immediately blasted the idea of a search advertising partnership between Yahoo and Google, saying it would be anticompetitive. "Any definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands," Microsoft said in a statement.
*blinks*

Don't like either (1, Troll)

Ranger (1783) | about 6 years ago | (#23024004)

If either Micro$oft or News Corpse buys Yahoo! I'm canceling the email I have with them.

Re:Don't like either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23025290)

Wow I think you just swung the deal in a new direction. Microsoft's entire $40bn evaluation of Yahoo! was based on getting their hands on Ranger from Slashdot's email account. If that isn't gonna happen then the deal is off.

Where is Haliburton? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 6 years ago | (#23024178)

Ha-li-bur-ton!

Ha-li-bur-ton!

Ha-li-bur-ton!

Ha-li-bur-ton!

Where the Hell is Haliburton? We have Microsoft and Fox News, but without Haliburton the triumvirate of evil is not complete!

Foo (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23025960)

Two evil supervillains joining forces? Won't that pose a clash of egos? How are FOX and MSNBC going to feel about this?

this just seems like one of those boxes (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 6 years ago | (#23027190)

that you open and even though there is nothing tangible in it, "EEEEEEEEE-Villllllll!" is somehow heard....

And competition disappears (1)

JaQuinton (1194157) | about 6 years ago | (#23043902)

Microsoft is famous for its monopolies. If we allow them to buy Yahoo and take over the internet then there will be nothing stopping them. We seem to mistake Google for being the bad guy over Privacy concerns but what happens when Microsoft owns all of the market. MicroHoo (no matter how crappy it will be) may be too overwhelming to Google. There wont be much of a competition on this front unless Google somehow gains more of the Market.

First thoughts... (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 6 years ago | (#23051372)

My first thought upon reading this is that it was an indication of how hellbent Microsoft seems on getting Yahoo. Second thought - that it would be a perfect type of story to post to /. Yeah, I also screamed "irony" with the part with Microsoft complaining of Google's search-market dominance.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...