×

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!

AOL Jumps Into the Ring with Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google

Zonk posted about 6 years ago | from the now-we-have-a-real-fight dept.

Yahoo! 109

mikkl666 writes "Even just since this morning, there's much to report in the ongoing fight between Microsoft and Yahoo!. After Yahoo! announced yesterday that they are testing Google AdSense, Microsoft reacted with a comment pointing out that 'any definitive agreement between Yahoo! and Google would consolidate over 90% of the search advertising market in Google's hands.' Ironically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.' Both companies try to team up with strong partners, as well. Yahoo! and AOL are now closing in on a deal to combine their Internet operations. And of course, this morning's news was that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is apparently in talks for a joint bid for Yahoo!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

109 comments

This morning's new (5, Funny)

muellerr1 (868578) | about 6 years ago | (#23028398)

Yahoo! and AOL are are now closing in on a deal to combine their Internet operations.Microsoft. And of course, this morning's new was that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is apparently in talks for a joint bid for Yahoo!
Microsoft completely monopolized that sentence.

Re:This morning's new (4, Funny)

CogDissident (951207) | about 6 years ago | (#23028418)

The great slashdot editors apparently thought that Microsoft deserved an entire sentence all to itself.

LOL. No articles, adjectives, verbs, adverbs reqd. (4, Funny)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 years ago | (#23028922)

An entire sentence from the Slashdot story, on 2008-04-10 at 12:53 PDT:

Microsoft.

The parent comment: "The great slashdot editors apparently thought that Microsoft deserved an entire sentence all to itself."

LOL. It amazes me how little Slashdot editors have learned over the years. Let that be a lesson to anyone who spends time playing video games. You need all your time learning how the world works. There is no time to spend being an angry button-presser.

Or, theory 2, maybe stories about Microsoft only need one proper noun. Articles, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are understood. No need to repeat words like "evil", "Ballmer", "chair", "monopoly", "Chief of Grief", or "Software's Dr. Death".

That's an idea for a story submission. The entire Slashdot story could be just one word, "Microsoft". I'm sure there would be hundreds of comments. I know I'd post my usual comment: "The problem with Vista is that buyers are becoming technically knowledgeable enough that they don't want to be beta testers of a very unfinished product that requires them to buy more powerful hardware. Remember that Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released only 3 years ago. Before that was 3 years during which every Windows XP customer was a beta tester of a very unfinished product that didn't even handle USB very well."

Re:1 word story, hundreds on comments... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 6 years ago | (#23030996)


So not spending extra words citing your idea means you can bring the copyright angle in as well?

Re:This morning's new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23028430)

Beowulf clusters, robotic overloads, does it run on Linux, and I must be new here!

Re:This morning's new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23034498)

3. ???

Re:This morning's new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23034570)

4. Microsoft.

DEFENSE! (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 years ago | (#23028438)

Can you say Yea! Defense!

C'mon. Yahoo is pluckings now. Default to Google, if no Microsoft buy.

Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confirm. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 6 years ago | (#23028544)

> Yahoo is pluckings now.

Yup, Yahoo! is now officially dead and the buzzards are just fighting to see who gets to rip off the more choice hunks of meat from the bones.

Sad, but everybody should have seen this coming for at least five years so it is hard to be shocked or anything.

Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 years ago | (#23028590)

`Two Men Drowning'

``The AOL-Yahoo thing reminds me of two men drowning, both grabbing on to each other,'' said Mike Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion at Holland & Co. in New York, including Microsoft shares. ``It usually doesn't end in a pretty way or a smart way or an effective way.''

Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | about 6 years ago | (#23029644)

AOL is just the wimpy kid who gets picked last in gym. Sort of like the wart on my big toe that never goes away, but isn't big enough for me to really notice it. Yahoo! Is more of the skanky whore who sleeps with everyone (except for the kid who gets picked last in gym). Everyone makes a pass at her, most get some attention, but you'll probably end up with something unwanted that you need to get meds to treat. The funniest thing to me is that all of my Microsoft friends (and I have a few working in Redmond), not involved in Live are just chomping at the bit to get a 'decent' search engine attached to their product.

Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 6 years ago | (#23029338)

I like their email service; nearly everybody I know has yahoo mail accounts. But I agree that most of their offerings are completely pointless.

Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (3, Informative)

falconwolf (725481) | about 6 years ago | (#23030270)

Yup, Yahoo! is now officially dead and the buzzards are just fighting to see who gets to rip off the more choice hunks of meat from the bones.

Wow, $4 billions in profits [google.com] is dead?

Falcon

Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 years ago | (#23033142)

What makes the thought that Yahoo is dead even sillier, is where the hell does that leave MSN and all the money ballmer blew on creating the go no where 'Live' brand. The reality is Yahoo is the leading portal. Where you compare time spent at the site, Yahoo is ahead of google, who just wins on numbers of short visits admittedly you tube picks up some extra time for google but most of it is indirect while people are actually at other sites and often even at the Yahoo portal.

The AOl, Newscorp stuff, is just business as usual, a means by which to force up M$ bid, to bleed it of more cash, don't forget both AOl and Newscorp are likely to have some sort of investment in Yahoo, so forcing M$ to substantially increase it's bid is a double plus bonus.

Newscorp is shifting further into being a web portal and AOL is starting to recover, Yahoo is reality is ahead of Google in being a portal and the one being left behind, the one consistently losing money, the one the parent company sees as a dead loss, is MSN or is it 'Live' or should that be 'Dead'.

Re:This morning's new (1)

mikkl666 (1264656) | about 6 years ago | (#23028856)

I can only apologize for what was done to my original submission...

Post your original submission here. (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 years ago | (#23028994)

mikkl666, are you saying that you submitted good English, but the Slashdot editors ruined your story?

Re:Post your original submission here. (4, Interesting)

mikkl666 (1264656) | about 6 years ago | (#23029130)

Well, it was not exactly poetry, but it was better than the mess we're looking at. But judge for yourself [slashdot.org].

Re:Post your original submission here. (1)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#23031520)

That use of a colon should have been a semicolon.

Do I win the prize for the most anally retentive grammarnazi on Slashdot?

Monopolies (1)

EmotionToilet (1083453) | about 6 years ago | (#23029942)

A Google & Yahoo combination would consolidate 90% of the search and advertising business on the internet, and MS says it like it's a bad thing, but MS Windows has approximately 91.5% of the desktop OS market share, and seems to have no problem with that.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

The good news is that OSX is slowly gaining momentum. I see nothing wrong with Google providing Yahoo's ad service. If Google can do it better and bring in more money, then let them do what they do best.

Re:This morning's new (1)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | about 6 years ago | (#23030708)

I missed it at first, but now that I see it I can't stop laughing. That's wonderful.

Ooooh... *sighs* I had something to say but I can't remember it now. Microsoft. LAWL.

Ironically? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 6 years ago | (#23028450)

"Ironically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.'"

Ironically? I would have said "Cynically", even if for once Microsoft has a valid point!

.

Re:Ironically? (2, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 6 years ago | (#23028658)

Surprisingly, the OP referred to irony in a correct fashion. The fact that this is called into question just shows how far popular culture has become out of touch with grammar.

Re:Ironically? (2, Informative)

Xiph1980 (944189) | about 6 years ago | (#23028820)

How much I sometimes might cringe at the sight of teens typing, on their defence I have to say that language is dynamic. If it's not, it's dead.
The meaning of most words has always changed over time. Learn to live with it, or grow to be a grumpy old man.

Re:Ironically? (3, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 6 years ago | (#23029348)

I don't take issue with word meaning and grammar changing -- it happens all the time. I take issue with the word meaning NOT changing, but words being used in a cliche that is then misused, to the point where the word itself no longer has any actual meaning in the sentence, other than that someone thought it sounded good.

Another example is "a tough row to hoe" (talking about potato farming) turning into "a tough road to hoe" (which makes no sense). The word "road" has not changed meaning, neither has the word "row" -- but people misuse it in a way that makes the word use and the sentence use cease to have any meaningful contribution to the conversation other than to make the speaker/writer sound more knowledgeable to those who don't know what they are actually trying to say.

For an example of a word that has undergone a myriad of transformations over the years, look at the word "nice". For a simpler example in recent history, there's "gay". For a different kind of transformation where the activity referenced has stayed the same but the connotations have changed, look at the word "jazz".

Re:Ironically? (2, Funny)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 6 years ago | (#23031502)

Another example is "a tough row to hoe" (talking about potato farming) turning into "a tough road to hoe" (which makes no sense).

Maybe that's really "a tough road to ho", meaning, it's a difficult street for prostitutes to earn a living on?

Re:Ironically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23028990)

There is nothing ironic about Microsoft's complaint that a Google/Yahoo deal would create a virtual monopoly in search advertising. The potential Microsoft/Yahoo merger does not compare.

Re:Ironically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23032292)

Please take off your USA-only-blinders. Look at the market share for search and email in Asia, and then come back and tell me about how MS+Yahoo doesn't have any problems.

Re:Ironically? (2, Informative)

pressman (182919) | about 6 years ago | (#23029160)

Proper use of the term irony is more a function of vocabulary and syntax than it is grammar. Grammar is merely structure whereas vocabulary and syntax cover meaning.

True, bad grammar can mangle meaning though.

Re:Ironically? (1)

munkey_bwy (1174569) | about 6 years ago | (#23035018)

even more ironically,
Microsloth seem to think that someone having a larger market share in something that it is wrong. But they seem to have forgotten that they donimate the desk top operating system market with an even larger market share than the 90% they quote for a yahoo/google merger.
What is there to say..."big deal microsoft, if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen"
If microsloth or microsloth/newscorp buy yahoo my next action will be to close my accounts and never use a yahoo service again. i dont want my e-life watched over and controlled by two of the most domineering and anti competetive companies on the planet.

Viva la revolution.

IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 6 years ago | (#23028456)

At least with AOL+Yahoo you know that the email servers won't be swapped out just to use MS SW. And none of the Yahoo supported OSS software will be turf'd (ie. that Exchange server alternative)

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 years ago | (#23028572)

Yea like the end user really cares what the servers are running off of. I really don't care what OS their servers are running off of just as long as their service is fast and reliable to me.

The real issue of a MS Monopily in the search market is that they will leverage IE 7+ and Windows to get all the features leving Macs and Linux user using a Sub Par version of the web site.

Why is MS Scared to death of google? It is because they are offering for Free off the web High Quality application that really don't care on what OS or office suite or browser you use. Grandted google docs is a bit clunky but it has potentional for greatness. And like Microsoft sucesss it just needs a competive advantage not be the best product.

microsoft afraid of moving away from the desktop (2, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | about 6 years ago | (#23029040)

Microsoft is afraid of moving apps off the desktop. In a world where computers boot a simple OS, then open a web browser to get all work (email, documents, spreadsheets, everything else) done scares the hell out of microsoft. That is not the business model that microsoft has been using. I don't think microsoft could switch to that kind of business model any time soon.

Re:microsoft afraid of moving away from the deskto (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 6 years ago | (#23029392)

Microsoft is afraid of moving apps off the desktop. In a world where computers boot a simple OS, then open a web browser to get all work (email, documents, spreadsheets, everything else) done scares the hell out of microsoft. That is not the business model that microsoft has been using. I don't think microsoft could switch to that kind of business model any time soon.
Luckily for Microsoft, nor can the world. If the software world turns and now marches swiftly toward browser apps, I bet it would take ten years to get to the point where it would begin to be comparable with local apps in terms of both functionality and user base.

Microsoft is afraid of moving apps off the desktop (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 6 years ago | (#23030382)

In a world where computers boot a simple OS, then open a web browser to get all work (email, documents, spreadsheets, everything else) done scares the hell out of microsoft. That is not the business model that microsoft has been using.

Actually MS has been working on offering software as a service [pcworld.com] for some years. Just log into the website and there's your documents, much like Google Apps.

Falcon

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (2, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | about 6 years ago | (#23028574)

That's certainly better than Yahoo+Google merger that has EVIL written all over it.

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 years ago | (#23029184)

That's certainly better than Yahoo+Google merger that has EVIL written all over it.

You gotta admit though, "Goohoo" just might be worth it for the name alone.

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 6 years ago | (#23029334)

Too much concentration of power.

I'd rather have 2 big players instead of one colossus Search company that if things go wrong, the whole planet suffers.

Think: backup Search company.

search monopolies? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 6 years ago | (#23030476)

I'd rather have 2 big players instead of one colossus Search company that if things go wrong, the whole planet suffers.

I don't think this is quite true. Unlike an OS or apps it's easy to switch your search engine. While I mostly use Google I also use About [about.com], Alta Vista [altavista.com], Ask.com [ask.com], and Mooter [mooter.com]. On the other hand, if you're using online apps then yes it can be hard to switch. However I'd rather have my apps running and my docs stored locally. At most I'd vpn into my home server while on the road.

Falcon

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (1)

Jack9 (11421) | about 6 years ago | (#23028634)

My biggest fear of MS+Yahoo is how it will affect the yahoo music player. I certainly don't use a legit copy of windows (media player).

Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 6 years ago | (#23028806)

And none of the Yahoo supported OSS software will be turf'd (ie. that Exchange server alternative)
There are huge swaths of Open Source beyond the Exchange Server Alturnative, such as a large number of Web services and various Webby 2.0-ish type projects. Check it out here: http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]. The code snips are extreamly valuble tutorials. All this material will either be flushed or monitized onder Microsoft...

AOL is so cute... (4, Funny)

Skynet (37427) | about 6 years ago | (#23028466)

It's like the bouncing yappy dog that won't go away. :)

Re:AOL is so cute... (3, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | about 6 years ago | (#23028620)

It's like the bouncing yappy dog that won't go away. :)
The one in the Windows XP File Search window?

Re:AOL is so cute... (1)

mtmra70 (964928) | about 6 years ago | (#23028852)

It's like the bouncing yappy dog that won't go away. :)

The one in the Windows XP File Search window?
No. That one was easily disabled.

This one keeps coming back and gets more annoying every time. Kind of like the Vista advertisements.

Re:AOL is so cute... (1)

Zebedeu (739988) | about 6 years ago | (#23034626)

I wouldn't call it easy.
The option is burried somewhere, and when you disable it (presumably because you already hate it), it still does all this animation of the dog leaving, blocking everything until the animation ends.

I can only presume that the person who designed this system is a cat lover.

Re:AOL is so cute... (1)

Himring (646324) | about 6 years ago | (#23028826)

My favorite part is the period in time when they got "AOL" pasted across some major motion pictures. It was bad enough when every piece of mail or box you opened resulted in an AOL floppy disk....

Did I have a point?

Re:AOL is so cute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23029252)

It was bad enough when every piece of mail or box you opened resulted in an AOL floppy disk....

No way. Thanks to AOL, I didn't have to spend a penny on blank floppies back in the day.

AOL could have generated a lot of good will for themselves if they mailed out their software on CD-RWs instead of CDs later on.

Re:AOL is so cute... (1)

orangesquid (79734) | about 6 years ago | (#23029658)

At one point, AOL disks were distributed in pairs---"give a copy to your friends!" I think they should've had an AOL CD and a blank CDR. They could've included an app that let you write your friends a letter about why they "should" switch to AOL and burn that plus a new installer on the blank. Of course, we all know the subtly-pro-power-user-friendly image the blank CDR would have generated.

Heh they should all merge (1)

niola (74324) | about 6 years ago | (#23028512)

and call themselves Brawndo

Re:Heh they should all merge (2, Funny)

Rev Saxon (666154) | about 6 years ago | (#23028764)

Brando, its what your browser craves. (Now with electrolites)

Re:Heh they should all merge (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 6 years ago | (#23029742)

Interestingly, after the first time I saw that movie I actually felt dumber. I wasn't sure if I thought that was an example of just how well made it was, or if I should be scared.

(For those that don't know, the parent's post is a reference to the movie Idiocracy. If you've never seen it, I highly suggest that you do.)

Late night Fights (4, Funny)

tonyreadsnews (1134939) | about 6 years ago | (#23028516)

News Corp reaches out and tags Microsoft. Microsoft picks up a chair (signature move) and BAM smacks YAHOO across the back!
Yahoo stumbles over and tags AOL, who does a Flying forearm smash to the face...

Starting to feel like we need a claymation Deathmatch for this.

Re:Late night Fights (1)

Fx.Dr (915071) | about 6 years ago | (#23028600)

In the mean time, AltaVista is standing quietly in the corner nursing its drink, trying to muster up the courage to ask ChaCha for a dance. Awwwww :(

Alta Vista (2, Interesting)

falconwolf (725481) | about 6 years ago | (#23030626)

In the mean time, AltaVista is standing quietly in the corner nursing its drink, trying to muster up the courage to ask ChaCha for a dance. Awwwww :(

Do a search on Alta Vista some time, the results have Yahoo! stamped all over them. Whether that's because the results come from Yahoo! or Yahoo! provides any ads or something else I don't know.

Falcon

Re:Alta Vista (1)

thejapanesegeek (1010005) | about 6 years ago | (#23032394)

Yahoo isn't just stamped on them, it is them. Do a search on yahoo and a search on Alta Vista. The results are carbon copies.

Re:Alta Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23035574)

By jove, you gentlemen are right. Just a quick look at the page source shows everything is being run through and hosted by Yahoo. Heh, I did not know that.

soap opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23028556)

Next, on the Young and the Restless: Search engine merger; murder?

Yahoo and AOL (3, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | about 6 years ago | (#23028636)

Combining their efforts, aye? Can't get much crappier than that...

Re:Yahoo and AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23033194)

The Power of Obsolescence meets the Power of Shit in a spectacular explosion of epic proportions!

News Corp. (5, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | about 6 years ago | (#23028734)

If News Corp outbids Microsoft for Yahoo!, will I still be able to search for information about Democrats using their site, or will it be a fair and balanced search engine?

Re:News Corp. (2, Insightful)

s0litaire (1205168) | about 6 years ago | (#23028916)

you will find all the Democratic information just fine, just with the good bits "edited" out. Just as all the Republican info will be on show, with the bad bits missing.... And there will be more Blonde Buxom babes on the search pages...(WooHoo more Asus beach babe pics!)

future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23028742)

this type of thing is happening regularly. the steady settling and coagulation of the tech markets signals the beginning of an ugly battle between the state and the market. there's plenty of room for debate over who is in the right, but there is no question that the quality of the services the industry provides suffers when big fiscal issues get in the way.
our only hope is that OSS can pick up a portion of the market. the great thing about free software is that it could grow to consume entire markets (sadly, only theoretically) and still provide for unlimited inter-project competition and cooperation. it's a win-win for those who want to see an organization combating monopolies by sidestepping the traditional free market and for those who wish to see the government out of software.

Would *any* be an improvement? (5, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | about 6 years ago | (#23028752)

AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.

The bigger a company is, the more cultural inertia it has, the less willing it is to try something new. Would strapping AOL's "never change anything" mentality to any company make it better? At least Microsoft has occasionally given one of its subdivisions such free-reign that it's been able to innovate (Microsoft mice, xbox360's networking features). Still, MS is mostly extra baggage.

Yahoo by itself is already producing tons of different services [wikipedia.org], on the off-chance that a handful will be successful. Combining with someone larger will certainly slow that down. Would that slowdown be offset by making some more likely to be successful? I doubt it.

Re:Would *any* be an improvement? (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 6 years ago | (#23032636)

AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.

It does me. You see right now in some markets there is competition, but MS is one of the players and they are breaking antitrust law to artificially gain more market share. When they manage to have enough market, they intentionally break compatibility to undermine competition (illegally). Then they try to use that to move into the next market and gain share not by offering something better, but by tying it to something you already have to use because MS has monopolized it.

Basically, anyone but MS, is a good company to merge with Yahoo. If it was AOL, at least we'd finally have broken the walled garden of instant messaging since AOL is committed to open protocols like Jabber/XMMP in open federation with anyone who wants to interoperate. It would pull all instant messaging except MS Messenger into using open protocols and would allow for limited interoperability with MSN.

Can you imagine a world where you could have a GTalk account or a Yahoo account or an AIM account or an ICQ account or just an account on your company's internal XMMP server and it would allow you to send chat messages directly to absolutely every other IM user on the planet... without having to register five different accounts? Can you imagine that then extending to voice and video chats via Jingle and the like? Can you imagine being able to run your own chat server at your own domain and having it be able to talk to anyone and be able to use end to end encryption? That alone makes me hope for a Google or AOL merger, rather than MS getting 50% of chat and keeping it locked into formats that intentionally won't talk to players using open protocols.

The bigger a company is, the more cultural inertia it has, the less willing it is to try something new. Would strapping AOL's "never change anything" mentality to any company make it better?

AOL is very schizophrenic, but I doubt they would break any of the Web services Yahoo has, especially since most were acquisitions in the first place. They might even save some of AOL's stagnant assets.

At least Microsoft has occasionally given one of its subdivisions such free-reign that it's been able to innovate (Microsoft mice, xbox360's networking features).

Sadly free reign does not exempt one from corporate oversight or reverse their culture of criminal abuses. Two of those three divisions you mention are undermining free trade via antitrust abuse.

Yahoo by itself is already producing tons of different services [wikipedia.org], on the off-chance that a handful will be successful.

Most of the popular ones were acquired. Slowly the home grown ones are merged with the acquisitions to capitalize upon their popularity. I'm not trying to dump on Yahoo here. I have friends there who are really bright guys. it is just that it looks like someone will acquire them and I can see benefit to either Google or AOL doing so (save the chat industry) whereas MS acquiring them would almost certainly lead to more leverage to undermine the free market.

Would that slowdown be offset by making some more likely to be successful? I doubt it.

I think Yahoo chat would be more successful if it could talk to everyone (including any new players) instead of limited ability to talk to MS Messenger users.

Well, crap... (2, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | about 6 years ago | (#23028862)

Well, at this rate I'd like to throw my hat in too, and announce that I'd like to buy Yahoo! as well.
Anyone else?

I'd also like to be taken into consideration as the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

Re:Well, crap... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | about 6 years ago | (#23029036)

I'd also like to be taken into consideration as the father of Anna Nicole's baby.
Nice try. This is /.

Creepy AOL+Yahoo merger image (5, Funny)

FleaPlus (6935) | about 6 years ago | (#23028900)

This news image [engadget.com] over on engadget has got to be one of the creepiest things I've seen in a while.

Re:Creepy AOL+Yahoo merger image (1)

snowful (1231472) | about 6 years ago | (#23029234)

Dayummmm....

AOL + Yahoo = Odontophilia.

I must admit I never saw that one cumi...er, coming.

I never thought I'd say this but.. (3, Insightful)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 6 years ago | (#23029010)

I would welcome an AOL-Yahoo merger, way over an MS-Yahoo destructo-fest.

Delusional boys in Redmond (2, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | about 6 years ago | (#23029114)

The little boys in Redmond (Ballmer no exception regardless of his girth) have always been a bit delusional. If 90% of a market is held by one company in one market and that is anti-competitive then 90% of a market held by one company in the OS market is obviously anti-competitive.

The Redmond boys need to stick to copying software ideas and stay out of the big boy markets where they obviously are limited in mental maturity.

Re:Delusional boys in Redmond (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23030224)

Way to miss the point!

Viceversa, if Microsoft was ruled a monopoly for its "dominant" position then Yahoo+Google is automatically a monopoly too and legislators must nerf it ab initio before it does any evil.

I'm sure you would have grasped it on your own if you hadn't been blindsided by your anti-Ballmer bias.

Re:Delusional boys in Redmond (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23030880)

The little boys in Redmond have always been a bit delusional. If 90% of a market is held by one company in one market and that is anti-competitive then 90% of a market held by one company in the OS market is obviously anti-competitive.

Not delusional. Pragmatic.

"IBM and the Seven Dwarfs." Intel and AMD. Microsoft and Apple. Photoshop and "?" The tech sector has never been known for its competitive balance.

But to control 90% of the search based add market has very large implications.

It would be as if one newspaper published every classified add, every display add, every edition of the Yellow Pages.

It would be as if that same newspaper controlled the placement of every broadcast and radio add, every billboard and poster - and placement means everything to an advertiser.

The Redmond boys need to stick to copying software ideas and stay out of the big boy markets where they obviously are limited in mental maturity.

Redmond has been playing with the big boys for thirty years.

To save face, Sun's StarOffice reappears as a free download from Google. The premium in a box of Cracker Jacks.

While MS Office continues to rake in 67 cents of every new dollar spend on software at retail.

Microsoft's revenues are growing 15% each quarter in the states. 20% in Europe. 30% in the emerging markets of Asia and Africa.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (3, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | about 6 years ago | (#23029352)

Yahoo + AOL = Good

Yahoo + AOL + Microsoft = Bad

Yahoo + AOL + News Corp = Ugly

Re:The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23029994)

Microsoft + Newscorp = Evil

Merging (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | about 6 years ago | (#23029368)

I'm inclined to agree with techdirt's analysis... this is an indication that the big players are taking their eyes off the ball. The more mergers/reshuffling/synergistic-focus-shifting that goes on among these companies, the more opportunity there is for an small, innovative and efficient company to step into the void.

Yahoo Shareholders Could Benefit from this. (2, Insightful)

OakLEE (91103) | about 6 years ago | (#23029808)

Ok lets look at the numbers on this.

Looking at Time Warner's annual report you can see that from FY05 to FY07, AOL revenues are down 36%. Conversely, operating income excluding one-time items is up 21%.

This implies that the AOL division has remained profitable primarily by cost cutting, not by natural growth in its business. For example, it took them $7.52 to generate $1 of operating income in 2005. That ratio (revenue/operating income) is now down to $3.89.

Yahoo's business, on the other hand, is the mirror image of AOL's. Revenues from 2005-2007 are up 32.55%, while operating income is down 66.61%. This is mainly due to operating costs increasing 67% in the same period.

So essentially, you have a business, AOL, who sucks at generating revenue but is good at cutting costs, being bought out by a business, Yahoo, that is good at generating revenues (we'll see whether that holds in a recessionary environment), but horrible at keeping costs under control. If the two managements can learn from each other, this combination might actually work out for shareholders.

Of course, for Yahoo employees, it means pack your desks up because heads are rolling if YahAOL is formed.

Oh my.. (1)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | about 6 years ago | (#23030030)

1) Yahoo uses Google for ads
2) AOL and Yahoo partner
3) Microsoft and News Corp partner
4) Microsoft/News Corp buy AOL/Yahoo
5) Aomicrogoonewshoo Corp is formed?!
6) ...
7) Profit!!

-SixD

Wrong word... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#23030458)

Ironically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.'

what the summary really meant was:

Hypocritically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.'

I'd rather have Microsoft than Murdock (1)

7Prime (871679) | about 6 years ago | (#23030464)

Okay, I'm willing to give way on my hatred for Microsoft if it's a battle between them and Rupert Murdock. He's one scary mother fucker.

AOL is relevant again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23031988)

AOL? When did AOL become relevant again? Apart from using old ad-disks in interesting and creative ways, does anyone still use AOL frequently?

Re:AOL is relevant again? (1)

westlake (615356) | about 6 years ago | (#23032924)

does anyone still use AOL frequently?

Broadband penetration in the US is under 50% of households. AOL's basic dial-up service is $10/mo. Your Mom & Pop ISP is probably not going to be able to beat that price.

Hahahahaha! (1)

sf_basilix (821795) | about 6 years ago | (#23036672)

my favorite line:

"Microsoft reacted with a comment pointing out that 'any definitive agreement between Yahoo! and Google would consolidate over 90% of the search advertising market in Google's hands.'"

...and that, my friends, is the pot calling the kettle black.... hey Microsoft - remember windows desktop monopoly? or does browser wars ring a bell????
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...