Like everyone else in the search industry, I have my $0.02 I'm just dying to give on the MS/Yahoo! deal. First off, I think we need to decide officially whether the new moniker will be Micrahoo! or Yahrosoft. Next, we should probably take a short walk through the timeline of events so everyone's on the same page.
Danny Sullivan did a good job covering all this, but here's a quick look back:
- In February of 2004, Yahoo!, which had acquired a lot of search properties over the past few years (Inktomi -which served results to Hotbot, and the Overture company - including AlltheWeb & AltaVista), rolled out its own search technology. Prior to 2004, Yahoo! search was actually powered by Google.
- In July of 2004, Microsoft search, which had been powered by Inktomi (who was bought by Yahoo! the previous year), started testing their new search technology.
- On January 31st, 2005, Microsoft drops the Yahoo! powered search and rolls out their own engine to power MSN portals and Live Search.
- In September 2006, Microsoft rebrands MSN Search as "Live Search," the brand that has persisted until now.
Yahoo! once used Google, Microsoft was once powered by Yahoo!, and by 2005, all of them had their own independent platforms. Let's take a quick look at market share to help get a grasp on the history:
|
Dec. 2004 |
Dec. 2005 |
July 2006 |
August 2007 |
Dec. 2007 |
|
|
Google* |
43.1% |
48.8% |
49.2% |
53.6% |
56.3% |
|
Yahoo! |
21.7% |
21.4% |
23.8% |
19.9% |
17.7% |
|
MSN/Live |
14.0% |
10.9% |
9.6% |
12.9% |
13.8% |
All numbers come from Nielsen's NetRatings Service.
* Google's numbers do not include share from searches conducted at AOL.
I think Google's share today is actually much closer to 70% (like Rich) and Hitwise's data showed that for technology-focused sites, it's at least that high, if not higher. Google's dominating web search - they have the most relevant engine (by a few hairs over Yahoo!), the best results (on average) and, most importantly, the best brand association. When humans the world over think search, they think Google (unless they're Chinese, Russian, Japanese, or Korean - in which case it's Baidu, Yandex, Yahoo!, and Naver, respectively).
However, Yahoo! and Microsoft are considerably more competitive with Google in another landscape - online display advertising. When it comes to banners, rich media, and more "branding" focused ads, Microsoft, with the acquisition of aQuantive in August of 2007, and Yahoo!, with the properties it controls and partnerships, would handily take the #1 position in market share (and probably leverage that to reach an even larger audience)source.
Now that we've got an idea of the past, let's see if we can sort out what happened in the last few days:
- At precisely butt-o'clock in the morning on Friday, February 1, Microsoft sends over their formal offer to buy Yahoo! for a combined cash/stock deal valuing Yahoo! at $44.6 billion ($31/share). This is a 62% premium on Yahoo!'s current share price.
- Yahoo! says they'll think about it.
- SELand does an interview with Yusuf Mehdi from Microsoft about the deal, where he basically says that he either can't or won't answer many questions with specifics, but he does focus more on the search side of the business than I would expect (though perhaps that's because the interview is with Danny).
- Cue blogosphere going insane.
- Google complains that the deal makes the web less open (insert something about kettle and a pot here), Microsoft retorts - no surprises.
- Google offers to help Yahoo! in other ways (ways that benefit them instead of Microsoft - shock! shock!), News Corp considers and (maybe) rejects a bid, as does Time Warner, AT&T, AOL, and Comcast.
- Microsoft and Yahoo! both send out emails to their employees to help "rally the troops."
And that pretty much brings us to where we are today.
In addition to all these wonderful news, there's also been some terrific comments made across the web about this potential deal. I'll highlight some of my favorites, then get to my opinions on the subject.
From Fake Steve Jobs:
Imagine a circus act in which two enormous, clumsy, awkward elephants that don't really like each other are supposed to mate while riding on skateboards. Now imagine that it is your job, you lucky bastard, to be one of the little circus clowns standing alongside trying to make this extremely unnatural and unholy act take place. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of people will have their lives completely ruined and flipped upside down for the next two years because of this deal. They'll see even less of their kids. And those ski weekends? Forget about it. Ain't gonna happen. Meanwhile Google will keep pulling away.
From Fred Wilson:
There's another reason why I don't think a purchase of Yahoo! makes much sense for Microsoft. I suspect that many of Yahoo!'s best services will languish under Microsoft's ownership and that users will leave. It's happening already under Yahoo!'s ownership to services like Flickr and Delicious and MyBlogLog. It will be worse under Microsoft's ownership.
Web services don't get better under the ownership of big companies. They get worse.
Consolidation of ownership of web services is not a good thing for the Internet. If you think about the Internet, it's a huge distributed network of loosely connected services owned and operated by literally millions.
From Scoble:
Email is not where the money is. Google knows this. So, who cares that Microsoft and Yahoo have a monopoly there? There’s only one way to make money with the 600 million who are on either Microsoft’s Hotmail or Yahoo’s email: get them to join other services where there ARE ways to make money. Danny Sullivan told me that this deal is all about search. He’s right. But you gotta be able to get those 600 million people to not just use your email, but come over and use your search. Google is trying to slow down these teams from doing that. But Google knows that even if Microsoft and Yahoo join email and do a pretty decent job of integrating search into there that Google will still see more growth in both email and search than Microsoft and Yahoo together will see. Why? Have you compared Google’s offerings to the others? I have (I am a Hotmail user). Even though I am locked into Hotmail cause my email address is all over the Web I’d rather be on Gmail and Google’s offerings are better integrated and better designed.
So... What do I think of all this?
First off, I think the deal is likely to go through at this point. I could be wrong, but Microsoft clearly timed this offering very carefully and will probably fight hard to keep it. Yahoo! is in a weakened position due to Wall Street's lack of faith in Jerry Yang as CEO, which is sad to see. However, I think Yahoo! did themselves in when they couldn't make products like Flickr, Upcoming, Del.icio.us, and MyBlogLog into better, faster, stronger versions of themselves. So much wasted opportunity...
Second, I agree with the web's consensus that Yahoo! and Microsoft employees are not going to get along culturally. We've done some work with Microsoft & Yahoo! and I have a lot of friends at both companies. In fact, two of SEOmoz's most recent additions to our engineering team have backgrounds there. From middle management right down to the engineering level, Microsoft is based on a bureaucratic, institutionalized system. Despite pioneering the casual dress code and flexible work hours, they're the least "startup-like" company in the tech world and it shows in the people they retain and promote, vs. those who leave. Yahoo!'s culture doesn't match up well at all - they're a big company, but many of their divisions feel like a startup and virtually all of their people are in more of that mindset. Unless the transition is managed brilliantly, I'd expect years of ugliness and abandonment by people they need to compete before things settle down.
Third, everyone says this is all about search. I'll get to my opinion on that below, but first let's look at it. Obviously, Yahoo! Search is probably a year or two ahead of Microsoft in terms of relevancy and spam detection. They could (and should) go back to powering MSN Search. One search marketing division and ~30% of the market makes advertising on Micrahoo!/Yahrosoft a necessity for most serious marketers, and together they'd drive enough traffic to make it valuable for even small campaigns to invest. Microsoft also desperately needs a contextual ad program, which Yahoo! brings to the table. With more advertisers on the program due to an increase in share and adoption (by all their respective partners), that product may actually be competitive with AdSense. Combining the researchers and IR engineers from the two probably also improves the crawl, algorithm, spam detection, and quality of the search experience, but it might take 2-3 years before that synergy is actually realized.
Fourth - what if this isn't about search? Or, at least, what if it isn't ALL about search? What if Microsoft is actually thinking more about something else - the online display ad business, for example?
Let me wax poetical for a minute here - if this seems off-topic, just wait. Imagine a world, 12 years from now, where we, as a nation, watch television almost exclusively on demand. Instead of being monetized by advertising, TV becomes a pay-to-watch service like iTunes. Shows live or die based on how many people watch them each week and product placement is the only real advertising opportunity (apart from possibly an intro commercial like they do a the movies). In that world, big brand advertisers have no "mass media" because, don't forget, radio and newspapers are going the way of the Dodo, too. Thus, they're forced to turn to web-based media to reach the hearts and minds (or create the 7 brand mentions essential to giving those 20-something kids a brand association).
In this brave new world, digital display advertising is a major force - advertisers are fighting banner blindness, running viral, rich media campaigns and leveraging the power of the interactive medium for all it's worth. In that world, if it exists, Microsoft's play for Yahoo! will have seemed much less like an exclusively search-based play, and much more like a step towards staying relevant and competitive in online display ads.
That's not the only place Microsoft might be thinking, either. Being the clear #1 destination on the web has a lot of other great perks, including being able to reach more users than anyone else can faster than anyone else can. If Microsoft and Yahoo! combine, build something game-changing, and launch, they're almost certainly better off doing it together. Sadly, though, I don't give this theory much of a shot. Innovation in the web world doesn't, and hasn't, come from Microsoft and I don't think the current leadership is willing to make the kinds of changes necessary to bring back the explorative, enterpreneurial style necessary to create a Google killer (or an eBay, Craiglist, or Amazon, for that matter).
Hey! What About the Search Marketers?
I haven't forgotten you, don't worry. For SEO & SEM campaigns, a world with only two players is actually easier for most campaigns and efforts. Yahoo! is much closer to the relevancy systems Google uses, so SEOing for both at the same time will be fairly simple. For PPC, buying from two places instead of three reduces complexity and confusion and lets us all benefit from the need to be in "both" engines. Plenty of other folks have had smart things to say on this front - notably Loren Baker and Aaron Wall (these are both worth a read), and I don't have much more to add. I will be interested to see if the Yahoo! Media Group properties combine with the MSN Media properties (autos, news, finance, etc.) or if those sites remain segmented.
Thanks for the attention, and apologies for the long post. There's a lot to say here. I suspect the comments will bring lots of other great insights that I've glossed over.
I think that I may be the only person who thinks that this might turn out well.
The biggest problem which Google has is that it is utterly unable to properly grasp social communities. Yahoo!,for whatever reason, seem to have their finger firmly on that pulse and MSN has a massive user-base.
As a lot of search moves away from a 'search engine home page' model, it seems likely that whoever controls the larger social sites will control an increasing chunk of the search market.
Assuming that Microsoft do not take Yahoo! and wreck it (and since Google have managed not to ruin Youtube yet, I guess that it is certainly plausible) they should be on track to actually compete with Google in the search arena at some point.
I think that as soon as the deal goes through, google should buy microhoo.
That way you could have an even cooler moniker: Micr0g00h00
Sooo many ooooo's !
I had that once. Way too greasy.
Haha! This is hysterical! Micr0g00h00... or YahroGooSoft... That is going to be new generation of Web 2.0 (or Web 3.0?) brand names generation (mnsqwkejslfkfqw.Com domain will be hard to find and register)...
Call me old school or too ecommerce focused but I think this is mainly about selling software. Good old fashioned Windows baby!
Why? Because that's where the big money is at and Microsoft has proven it.
Microsoft needs to put the hurt on Google so Google can stop dipping it's toes in a million different projects and refocus on the area that isn't that painful to Microsoft--web search. But as long as Google has insane marketshare in web search they have plenty of time and resources to build things like competition to Microsoft Office, ways of making a web based email platform like Gmail so good that Outlook isn't really that necessary anymore. Building Google Talk to compete against MSN Messenger. Putting a big ole 'giddy up cowboy' on Mozilla's Firefox browser in the early days to give them a swift little bee line to eat away at Internet Explorer.
There is a rule in chess that I follow very, very, closely. When being attacked, don't retreat . . . attack back. You may just hurt them bad enough that it completely upsets what their original plans were and it may tip the scales in your favor.
Microsoft pulled their head out and realized that these math freaks at Google aren't just winning on web search anymore . . . they are attacking their core. Losing a rook or a bishop is one thing but when you start to go after a man's queen . . . the gloves come off.
That's my take on things . . . and frankly I hope it works. I am a big company guy. I love Google for search. I love Microsoft for software. Don't start crossing each other's turf boyz. Do one thing and do it well. In fact, do it better than anyone. google has plenty of room to improve on search and Microsoft has plenty of room to improve on Windows, Office, and its other software products.
Brent D. Payne
I think I broadly agree with this and I think that Microsoft will dominate the software market right up until the point where Google puts the software market out of business by offering everything web-based.
What do microsoft do at that point? That's the question.
Thanks. And I don't mean to undervalue web search or online marketing/advertising . . . I am just saying that Microsoft can have Google play in the web search arena and still survive but when they start branching out into areas that hurt their core . . . hello!! Time to do something!
Payne
I think that you are under-valuing web based applications.
I foresee almost no documents being produced on personal boxes in 2020. Not all of that will be pure web based stuff, corporations will have internal servers doing the same job, but the licensed office suite on the desktop box is becoming obsolete.
Yes it will be a slow process, but Microsoft, in buying Yahoo! are not just getting a portal, but also removing Zimbra as opposition.
That is not what this is all about, but it certainly is a bonus for Microsoft.
The way in which MS Office or Windows is delivered in the future is not the point. The point is that MSFT wants . . . NEEDS . . . to remain the near monopoly on OS and PC apps. Google is getting pretty damn aggressive in their desire to threaten that position. MSFT needs to put the hurt on them at their core.
Attack my queen . . . I'll attack yours!!
I'm not brushing aside the upside that MSFT has if they succeed in eating at GOOG's marketshare, but protecting their own turf is the higher priority. They WANT search but they NEED continued success in OS and applications.
Payne
If it's "old school" to suspect that Microsoft's goal here is to protect their turf, sell more software and keep Google in check, then I'm a fogey. Of course they want a bigger piece of search and online advertising, but software is their bread and butter.
I think Rand's vision of the future on demand is right on. And I think Microsoft TV wants to own it. Isn't this all movitated by Googlephobia? "I don't know what to do with it, and I don't even know why I want it, I just want to keep it away from you cause you're getting too big for your britches!"
Nice round-up Rand, and good to get your 2 cents worth. I think that you're right in that it's not JUST about search (all though that's got to play a big part of it).
I realise that it's hard to keep up with so many sources, but can I suggest that The Guardian has carried some pretty good analysis (including this one backing up your thoughts on the interconnected world of the future)
I do agree with Ciaran on the fact, that it might not be Just about the search. Microsoft knows very well how much the advertising is getting Google, and cannot let it go further, as a world leader in the computer industry.
Regarding your figures for Google market shares, I would believe it is more like 70%. For instance, here in France, Google has got almost 90% of the market shares for the search engines. It is maybe due to the fact, that when you install your Firefox software, you have the search box on the top right with a small G on it. Therefore, lots of people are starting their search with Google. Just like almost everyone used to use Explorer to go on the internet, as it was the default program, and that most of the users are not feeling confident to change anything on their machines.
So it comes back to our point of today, just like Explorer has been on every single PC sold in the world for the last 10 years, Microsoft wants to get their share : they drove people to surf on the internet, but they did not catch the money train as it came by, powered by Googl.
FTA: Microsoft and its competitors want to charge [companies] to host that data, but that is just one example of change. Computer programs are constantly evolving online, many becoming available free of charge. The implications for a company that licenses software are alarming. Buying Yahoo would give Microsoft access to the expertise needed to address these changes, and a culture of innovation that some claim it lacks.When you can use both Google Docs and OpenOffice (plus any number of other free on and offline programmes), the need for expensive software lessens. I bought a new computer the other day and didn't really bother with the pricey MS addons because I could get the same thing for free elsewhere.
I agree. Office is really a redundant product for most tasks. OpenOffice is more than enough for any student and most small to medium sized business. I actually never had to user Word in my work so I don't know what else people do with it but we run open source on our computers when we need to open Office documents. The only thing lacking is something to properly connect to an Exchange server.
But you're totally right. Open source software is starting to get really good where it's backed by the bigger companies like Google and Oracle or whoever is backing OpenOffice.
One problem in the battle against the expensive stuff is exposure. Your average student doesn't know that there are good alternatives to traditional products.
Which reminds me: I never got my hands on that new version of Photoshop I was promised... :P
I thought college kids could find anything for free on the internet? I think the parents are the ones that've never heard of OpenOffice and go buying the Microsoft suite for their kids when they ship off to school.
You'd think, although we were better at finding "fun" things, rather than practical things. Who wants to conduct a Facebook poll to figure out how many 18-22 year olds use Microsoft products as opposed to open source?
*Reminiscing about the good 'ole days of unlimited Napster downloads*
I think that we're in danger of assuming that we are normal when we say that Google Docs etc.. are fine for most businesses. I also think that the real money is with the big companies buying hundreds of licences and, as I explained in one of my first ever YouMoz posts, I simply don't see these companies trusting confidential documents to an service they have no control over.
I hear this argument a lot, but we are already seeing some companies migrate and, once on-line apps are commonly used outside of a corporate environment it will not take much to convincing to show that an internal server or licensed app is a lot more scalable than per-user licensing.
I am not suggesting that this will happen overnight, but an increase in mobile hardware must make for more server-located apps sooner or later.
Yooft! is the best name I've seen so far. It conveys how smoothly the integration will go.
I love FSJ's take on this, especially:
"It's like taking the two guys who finished second and third in a 100-yard dash and tying their legs together and asking for a rematch, believing that now they'll run faster."
Rand - I agree that they should use Yahoo's platform as the starting point. But lots of pretty well-informed people, like Aaron Wall, are saying scrap Yahoo & YSM. Microsoft will probably be thinking the same. That would set them back even farther.
I see this benefitting Google tremendously in most of the likely outcomes. Even if MSFT executes perfectly, it'll be years before they catch up. It will drag down Microsoft's earnings and be a PITA to manage.
I am almost physically sick at the thought of what monster of a name they are going to pull out of the bag for this one. Microsoft are SO BAD at naming their products it's unreal.
I mean when you have two conflicting brands for your search it's bad news. Also - give me some nice URLs once in a while Microsoft, it's doing my head in trying to bookmark my hotmail URL and having a url as long as the coast of zanzibar. But I digress (does zanzibar even have a coast?)
I think the problem with your vision of the future Rand is that it assumes that things work broadly like they do now. You said it yourself that Microsoft SUCK at innovation and the future is all about innovation. Personally I don't think it's about taking stuff we're doing now and doing it better it's all about how you handle NEW stuff.
Advertising on the heads up display on my contact lenses. Who's going to be best at doing that? Microsoft or Google? Microsoft will probably insist on still displaying me a banner ad somewhere while Google will already by reading my brainwaves.
A name like AOL Time Warner comes to mind.
At first Microsoft Yahoo sounds weird but both are powerful brands and people will take it in stride just like we got accustom to AOL Time Warner.
Payne
Your brother had the best idea in regards to a potential name "change!"
internet! internet!
I wonder who else thumbed up this post? You, me and... wait - does anyone else get that joke?!
No, I doubt it. Yes, I thumbed it up... the other random person was probably just impressed at your enthusiasm. Or was just a Critchlow fan and a Dr. Pete hater.
EDIT: The Critchlow fan hypothesis was correct.
Twas me. Yes, I understand that joke because you made me check your ridiculous facebook wall conversations to understand some lolcat joke...
I love the timeline. It pretty much pinpoints at when MSN really started sucking.
I agree with a huge chunk of this post. Microsoft will suffocate and kill Yahoo! like Lennie tending the rabbits. Think Y! didn't do enough with Flickr and MyBlogLog and del.icio.us and Upcoming? Wait 'til Microsoft drowns them and really sucks them up.
I think the only reason we're hearing so much squealing from Google is that they've been forgotten and the conversation isn't about them. why in the hell else would they say something like that?
I also heard it described as being like taking the second and third placed runners in a marathon and tying their legs together so that they can run as fast as the leader.
hard to spot any flaws in that plan...
"First off, I think we need to decide officially whether the new moniker will be Micrahoo! or Yahrosoft."
Actually, I'm kinda partial to "Microhoo?"
Plain old Microhoo for me.
I published a post on the subject, but Ian came along with a far better one, so I let him overwrite me ;)
YaSoft gets my vote.
Over 1/2 of the searches are by Google. I wonder if they count only IE bowser. If so may be a greater percent. Great summary post.
Thx 4 the info,
Catto
Why not just "Moo"?
Unless I'm missing something, Microsoft hasn't been much of an innovator in recent years. Having them control more of the web doesn't seem like a win for innovation and technology.
Everyone who focuses on search says that it's all about search.
Even Google is not about search. They're about advertising. Search is just the vehicle but the ads are what make money and no business stay's in business for long if they're just in it for the fun of it.
Good job in pointing out the huge advertising angle to this. I doubt that Microsoft would have bought Yahoo simply to gain their search engine.
In places like Japan, Yahoo is a leader in offering broadband. I don't know what they do in other places but this deal is clearly bigger than search and certainly not all about search.
I agree with you that they'll screw up many of the services but then again Yahoo hasn't done much in the past few years with them anyway. Having two big search engines could be good for the industry because at the moment, if Google has a fit with a site, there is not much hope for most sites. At least this way maybe we'll have the risk spread out a little bit better. If they don't completely screw this up, it could be a good thing for the search world.
Very well said thoughts by Steve Jobs(Fake ;))
I too had the same feeling.. Google will keep pulling on and others keep bragging.
well, the only reason why i would be against this deal is because of the fact that it'd be a two pony show from the current three, even if two of the ponies only account for 1/3 of the market share in search. i appreciate all three engines and their individual quirks. actually, i find GG much more fickle than the other two in results over the long term, ultimately if Y! and Live get together, as search marketers we'll have to embrace it.
what's interesting to me is the stink GG is making over it, at 70% share and a business model that noone has been able to compete against yet, what are they really worried about? is it just PR smoke or is there something, behind the scenes, we don't know?
I'm no Microsoft enthusiast. Their legacy of creating bad software and beta testing it on the general public has left a bad impression on many software users (myself included). I have a feeling that they will fall further behind Google in search while sorting out the merger.
Competition is a healthy market force and in that aspect I am hopeful that the deal will keep the cost of PPC advertising in check by applying pressure on Google, but the level of consolidation in all media outlets is a little bit scary. I'm not sure that a market with only two real competitors is really going to offer much consumer choice.
Well now that Microsoft and Yahoo have put the deal on ice (for now at least!) Microsoft have announced they're going to take on Google by themselves using display advertising.
Seems like a half-attempt to me. But I did read another SEO's opinion on the merger at https://searchstrategy.com.au/?p=22 and he seems to think that it will still go ahead.
He makes some valid points but it's hard to say.
Thanks Rand, great article. On the Search Engine side what they have to realize is that the power is on the users' hands. As long as internet users (majority) use Google as the main search engine and as long they find it useful, it is going to be hard to compete in that market. On other markets it could be easier, but on search they will have to me give (as a user) a lot of reasons to switch to Yahoo/Microsoft.
Great post! I was just about to research the entire subject further and was sure that sooner or later you'd do that for me...thanks! :-)
Seriously, hats off to you guys. After struggling to keep up with reading half a dozen websites covering seo news I am able to rely on your site for updates. Your work is much appreciated!
With the dual exclusion, I think this is all tied back to RipOffReportz... or not.
On a more serious note, have you seen how Microsoft's search data can be incorporated into Excel 2007? This is something that is quite remarkable for small businesses and people looking for search and marketing data. It plays to Microsoft's strength (software) and works to acquire more users who are tired of Google bars. Along with aQuantive (huge agency) and now the courting of Yahoo! (huge-demographically driven-destination) this definitely looks like a positive trend of Microsoft playing to strengths, courting webmasters and SEM advertisers.
It looks like in the near future Microsoft is going to go guns out at being as precise and high converting as possible when it comes to advertising.
All that said, they are a big-cover-your-butt bureaucracy (darn there goes my MS job openings) and could still screw this royally, but they do have some rays of light out there; and, if they use the strengths of Yahoo properly, could experience some near term positives.
So if the two engines did become one, do you think RoR would remain penalised, as is the case at Yahoo, or banned, as they are in Live?
:)
I think they'll form a bounty hunter group to get the $20,000 reward on Ed's head.
I love the elephant metaphor... - the best way to describe what is going on.
As an search marketer I am really curious to see how this all will unveil - therefore I am more inclined to want the merge to happen.
As a person, I am too worrying about the great Y! products and also I am afraid this change will be for the worse...
Edit: and yes, almost forgot to mention: that is actually why I voted yes - to see round-ups and insights like this one.
That's exactly how I'm seeing this too, Ann. As an SEO, I'm excited and curious about how this will all pan out and how it will change the industry. But as an internet user, I'm terrified of what will happen to my beloved Flickr and Del.icio.us with Microsoft at the helm.
I love the FSJ depiction of this deal. Excellent post Rand.
On your second point, how do you think, or is there anyone here who knows who typical acquisitions of this type go down in regards to who stays and who goes? Are the former employees offered severance packages or payouts if they choose not to participate?
It'd be interesting to see what percentage of the yahoo employees show interest in working for google too. As you pointed out Google was nervous at the thought of an unfair advantage, what better way to curb it than to take advantage of the situation and hire some of yahoo's best and brightest?
Microhoo! It rolls off better.
Ya, I don't think I like this merging of big companies like this. It does actually smell like what Google had to say about this deal. It may just ruin the internet. I'm sticking with google.
Framing is soo great; the way the google blog said "hostile bid" just sounds soo evil and microsoft-y.
In the history of black pots calling tea kettles black, google is one of the blacker ones thus far...
An MSN/Yahoo merger may ruin the internet? How about a minority competitor for Google? Options increase innovation. Competition increases value. Right now Google walks alone. If these 2 companies merge Google would have a real competitor in both search and contextual ads. That can only be good for the internet.
Great post Rand and a great perspective on the whole situation.
I think that you couldn't be more right about the upcoming culture clash. I think Google will help to disturb the culture with their attacks against a company that they claim will jeopardize the "openness and innovation" of the Internet.
I think Google is going to put up a big stink on this one as many are reporting that they are working on some type of partnership with Yahoo.
I definitely think that this deal is very important to Microsoft due to the changes in consumer advertising and media consumption that are beginning to take place and will change in the future as you point out very well. It will also to see how companies such as Apple (who drive this type of change) respond to the changes that are sure to come and the possibility of a new media conglomerate.
what about Mihoo !?
Yaah!! I vote for Mihoo.
Thanks for a great comment/article Rand. I think this was inevitable. It goes back to the theory or saying of if you can’t beat um…join um. I think Microsoft has always thought they would buy one of the two. I just think they wanted to take Google and are stuck with making a deal with Yahoo. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I would feel better about the potential merger if Microsoft had a history of doing things to innovate instead of the perception that all they want is to quote The Brain, “take over the world.” We will have to wait to see what type of cookies come from this recipe. Ok I apologize for the amount of puns, I was trying to be witty with my morning coffee.