In the form of a fewannouncements on Thursday, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT), Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO), and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) closed off one side of their complicated love triangle, leaving Microsoft and its money alone at the altar.
In a statement yesterday, Yahoo said it called off talks with Microsoft after the folks in Redmond made it clear they were no longer interested in acquiring the entire company. Soon after, Yahoo and Google unveiled a non-exclusive ad partnership whereby AdSense ads will run alongside Yahoo search results in the United States and Canada, still leaving the door open for Yahoo to display paid search listings across its sites.
We're now in the aftermath of what became a democratic primary-like battle for a coveted prize. What remains unclear is which company lost, which won, and which (if any) -- in all the blind madness of the fight -- ended up worse off than it started.
Mary Jo Foley, editor of ZDNet's All About
Microsoft blog, and author of the new book
Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft Plans to Stay Relevant in the
Post-Gates Era, blames Yahoo for the downfall of the original deal. "Yahoo got too greedy," she said in an interview with Internet Evolution today. "Because Yahoo's management is so dead-set against any kind of deal with
Microsoft, Yahoo has ended up burning its shareholders and its employees, who
are now leaving at an alarming rate."
Nevertheless, Foley says the deal was a bad idea to begin with because of the overlap between Microsoft's and Yahoo's online
businesses and the difficulty in syncing Microsoft's Windows-based infrastructure and
Yahoo's back-end data centers, which are open source.
While she doesn't foresee Microsoft making another play for Yahoo's heart, Foley suspects the company will stir up some antitrust troubles for the newly formed GooHoo. "Microsoft
has lots of lawyers and lobbyists it can use to fight the deal," she said. "It will help
Microsoft that a number of publishers are also against the Google-Yahoo tie-up,
as they want more -- not less -- competition in the online ad space in order to
keep their costs down."
So what does this all mean for Microsoft's online future? In an effort to compete, the company recently launched a Live Search initiative, essentially offering to pay people for using its search engine. But Foley doesn't see how Microsoft is going to successfully increase its search share. "If I were Microsoft, I'd be putting more eggs in
the paid-subscription basket than the online-ad-funded one, at this point," she said.
And as for YooGoo -- or whatever you crazy kids want to call it -- Foley is less than impressed: "I
think it was a move of desperation. Yahoo is helping Google, the No. 1 search
vendor, get stronger. To me, it would have made more sense for Yahoo to ally
itself with the No. 3 search vendor [Microsoft] to try to take on Google."
As the internet world begins to dissect and assimilate the Yahoo-Google deal announced late last week, opinions seem to be evenly divided on what this deal offers the internet community as a whole. But one thing that stood very clear in all this is that this deal has further exposed Google's 21st century plans for the internet.
Did Google offer Yahoo any deal prior to the Microsoft deal? If not why did they felt compelled to offer a deal just when Microsoft's deal came into the limelight? Well, with Google branding itself the 'no evil' and innocent 'goliath' on the internet, one wonders whether such action befit the image they want to portray. It's time for Lawmakers to wise-up, wake up and quell this monopolistic inferno which Google is bent on unleashing on the internet:
I'm not hoping for MS to die, some of their products are top notch and I've bought those. Other products they have just plain s**k.
I use Linux (Ubuntu) where its applicable, and Windows where it is best. My daughter has advised me that our multi os home network will have a Mac attached to it for her graphic arts studies. She told me, "once I go Mac, I'll never go back".
A tool is a tool. When framing, you use a framing hammer, when driving brads you use a much smaller hammer. You use what works, and sometimes only what you have.
But to credit MS for opening the pc to the world is going to far.
Dave
PS what are you doing up so early on a saturday morning?
I really don't defend Microsoft and thank you for the information.But I what I really wanted to say is that Google has similar strategy,don't you think so?
"but the company that made PC accessible to public deserved at least a little bit of respect. "
I choked on this part of your thread.
Microsoft has not opened up anything that it couldn't profit off of. It has a history of buying rights to products so it could kill them, if it couldn't do that they would give away a free product so that a competitor couldn't sell it's better product.
It forced manufacturers to bundle Microsoft products so users would be too stupid or lazy to load something else, even if it was better.
It created an EULA (end user license agreement) that the buyer of a new computer had to agree to or send the software back to the OEM for refund even though there was never a mechanism in place to get a refund. Have you ever tried to buy a computer with no operating system? Used to be you couldn't do it, you had to pay the Microsoft tax first. Then you could erase Windows and put something else on.
Yep, Microsoft has done a lot to earn respect, NOT!
Let's see.... backend..... middleware..... hummmm what would they need to complete this global erector set ?????
A nice front end search engine with all those users may not do it but it would definitely add a tier with none of the antitrust ramifications Google and Microsoft face.
If the Samurai's company unsheaths it's blade, there may be no way Yahoo can avoid a decapitation...
A little bit of humanity girl in this boyish IT talks.For two decades Microsoft was marked as a common enemy among IT crowd.To blame Microsoft in all sins was а matter of good form and we still can find it, even in some Internet evolution discussions.I don't say that was without the reason, but the company that made PC accessible to public deserved at least a little bit of respect.
I think that what Google is doing right now, reminds politics of Microsoft very much.And it is extremely wierd that Yahoo! instead of finding of alliance with somebody else, made a deal with its direct competitor.Was really finanially reasonable or was it ideologically defined.They say, Microsoft is an evil,so we don't want to have anything common with them?
I am afraid,that Yahoo! made the biggest mistake in their history!we will see,anyway.
It's interesting enough just to see who can come up with the most creative name for the Google+Yahoo ad partnership... already we have here GooHoo, YooGoo, YaooGle & YaHoGoo. I guess I can add one more: Go$Ya$ ...
Anyway, I think the battle is far from over. Now that Microsoft has bravely dumped Yahoo leaving a scar on their relationship, it signals the begining of the battle, which Microsoft takes on both Google and Yahoo. So it'd be very interesting to see what's gonna be Microsoft's next move. Soon Microsoft would realize that trying to beat Google at its own game is probably a bad idea.
Google's dominance is really strengthened by this alliance as it will be preserved from the fierce competition that could result from a Microsoft-Yahoo alliance. On the other hand Yahoo could have a short term relief and profit from this alliance as it will stay focussed in the regions where it is strong. But in long term, Yahoo risks being absorbed by Google because Yahoo will have "to abandon its own search advertising system, which generates significantly less ad revenue for each consumer search, and use ads from Google in return for a majority share of revenue" said Danny Sullivan in his article Can Google Save Yahoo By Taking Over Search?.
If Yahoo has "to dump its own ad and search technologies" to stay viable, its future as an independent entity is not guaranteed.
I'm intrigued with the question/concept of not knowing yet who won and who lost. I think all three lost.
(Okay, so I typed that to provoke but consider.....)
I remember, back in the day (or at least back in my Sprint strategy days), where we clung to a "Go it Alone" model and mindset. It seems Yahoo is doing that, and I think "Go it Alone" leads to "Home Alone."
Even if Google later wanted to aquire Yahoo (and, really, rather than in an in-your-face to Microsoft, why?), Yahoo will never get what Microsoft offered.
Microsoft is left to build its MSN brand. That's what this is about--brand, more so than capabilities. More people simply visit Yahoo than MSN. That's not going to change, at least for the foreseeable future.
And, mabye it's a stretch to say Google lost. They picked up some business. But Google hardly won, other than the fact Google can be smug in that arch-rival Microsoft was blocked out. But Yahoo's gains, if any, could come at the expense of Google more so than MSN, so this deal isn't necessarily good news for Google, either. A stronger number 2 doesn't help number 1. Competitively, Google would have been better providing services to MSN rather than Yahoo.
What a somber Father's Day Weekend Yahoo has given the Internet Community!!! With the YaooGle deal which has been anounced barley 24 hours ago rippling through the internet world, the weekend is indeed a welcome respite for people to re-organize their thoughts, digest the YaooGle saga and most importantly insinuate which direction this deal wll drag the internet. Of course there are already tons of such analysis scattered all across the internet right now but let's have a break, cool down our nerves, freshen up with a solid Father's day Banquet and then come to unravel this latest internet "encryption" called YaHoGoo!!!
My first indiscretional take on this is why delay the inevitable could have been Yahoo's question in coming to such a sporadic quick fix with Google. Most pundits believe that a MicroHoo still does only have a marginal chance of competing with mighty Google. So why continue to be in the ring draping with blood when your adversary shows no sign of letting you off the hook?
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
In another step toward becoming socially acceptable, Google today unveiled "Google Buzz" -- a method for social sharing from inside Gmail. Naturally, some ever-creative types are already dubbing this release as a "Twitter-killer" and a "Facebook-killer." Because, we just can't get enough of that kind of language.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
Now that Bing has struck a deal with Twitter, its search service will have to process a tsunami of Tweets, many of which are worthless junk. Stefan Weitz, director with Bing Search, explains to Michael Singer how his service will make sense of the Twitter mayhem to provide relevant results to end users and enterprises.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
