Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King
Home / News & Blogs / Between the Lines

Google: Is Microhoo all that unnerving?

By | February 22, 2008, 4:20am PST

Google co-founder Sergey Brin finds that thought of a Microsoft-Yahoo combination “unnerving.” Welcome to the semi-subliminal part of Google’s ‘let’s annoy Microsoft and win over regulators’ campaign.

Here’s what Brin had to say in an AP report that sparked a little discussion:

“The Internet has evolved from open standards, having a diversity of companies. And when you start to have companies that control the operating system, control the browsers, they really tie up the top Web sites, and can be used to manipulate stuff in various ways. I think that’s unnerving.”

It’s all a bit comical. As if Google doesn’t control most of the search advertising out there. And it sure wouldn’t mind being the Web OS of the future.

These little comments are going to be flying fast and furious as Google tries to rally regulators to thwart Microhoo.

The bigger question here is whether Google has anything to really worry about. Let’s see:

  • Microsoft would take at least a year to integrate Yahoo;
  • Microsoft could take its eye off its core Office cash cow and give Google an opening;
  • And Google could take advantage to grow its market share in search and display ads with Doubleclick.

Add it up and Brin has little to be unnerved about.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

Topics

Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Sergey Brin, Regulations, Channel Management, Government, Marketing, Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

44
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Yahoo by Microsoft is coming..... Google Beware!
billy yang 26th Feb 2008
Yup,it's coming Sergey Boy. YahMic! is coming.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe, maybe not
dahowlett@... 22nd Feb 2008
There's an assumption that M$ would have its eye off the ball. Having seen what they
did with aQuantive, I'd be surprised if that's the case. They *could* get an online suite
out the door very quickly, using Y! as the mechanism. Sure, integration takes time but
it's not the only game in town. They could also use the time to show they're playing
the 'good guy'
0 Votes
+ -
Personnality of the Players is how these Giant post the "Big Accounts" !
rtirman37@... 22nd Feb 2008
Mr. Bren has some merit on how his view is to go right into the values here. None of this is a moniquer of expantion for all three of these companies interest. It's the employees who will suffer.
0 Votes
+ -
Intersting you mention that
GuidingLight 22nd Feb 2008
They could also use the time to show they're playing
the 'good guy'

I just read an article last night online labeled "Microsoft: 97% Less Evil", so it may be they really are working on that perception these days
0 Votes
+ -
Probably the biggest thing for MS, is that they want to convert all
DonnieBoy 22nd Feb 2008
Yahoo applications over to Silverlight. MS can afford to throw away 50B, if it will keep the cash cows running longer. And, if even 1% of the internet is not available without Windows, and another 1% does not work exactly right, that is a HUGE lock-in value - and people blame those problems on the alternative OSes / Browsers.
0 Votes
+ -
You called that one spot on!
GuidingLight 22nd Feb 2008
The part where Google is just sitting back and snickering wink

But I can understand Google's nervousness: The impact to their twin cash cows is an issue, but what kind of lock in are you talking about?
0 Votes
+ -
Behind closed doors, many at Google are snickering, but, of course they
DonnieBoy 22nd Feb 2008
will hold Microsoft's feet to the fire, and try to prevent them from leveraging the monopoly to gain market share at Google. Though, there are so many things wrong with the MS/Yahoo merger that it is questionable that even leveraging the monopoly will make it successful.
0 Votes
+ -
For what it's worth.....
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
My neighbor's son works for Google as an engineer and the talk and mood among the employees is one of true nervousness. Rumours of layoffs due to losing too much ad revenue abound at Google right now. And for good reason.


I don't see how anyone can be a Google apologist as they are on track to monopoly status quicker than any company in history on very questionable moves and techniques around the globe. So much so the "do no evil" slogan has become nothing more than a industry joke.


Until Google has more than it's one or two forms of income, they obviously have a reason to be unnerved.



This is based on the words of a Google engineer who will remain nameless, and sure it's anecdotal but it's true.
0 Votes
+ -
In what way are they in monopoly status?
B.O.F.H. 23rd Feb 2008
Do you mean by Internet search usage?
Do you mean in selling search appliances?

If you are implying that they will get into the same situation as Microsoft did (resulting in no less than 4 Anti-Trust/competition cases in no less than 4 markets), that may be a stretch.

Which building does this nameless engineer work in?

Be specific.
0 Votes
+ -
I didn't say they ARE a monopoly
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
but headed that way faster than, say, Microsft.

When did the EU first investigate a Microsoft move or actions?

Obviously Google has been in the EU radar for some time already. That's news, not my opinion.



And search/web advertising would be the main areas of concern for Google.


Why are you a defender of Google's practices?

I don't know what "building" he works in, all i know is he is in CA. My neighbor just moved in next door less than a year ago. We met on the front walks of our adjoining frontage sidewalks while shoveling out after a storm and it was the first time we'd talked at any length. I didn't grill him on it nor did i even ask any questions about Google, he offered it up while telling me about his family and children. He went as far as to say his Son and others there, whichever building on the main campus, have reason to be somewhat worried.
0 Votes
+ -
Ok, this is amusing...
B.O.F.H. 23rd Feb 2008
I didn't say they ARE a monopoly but headed that way faster than, say, Microsft.

So Google is becoming a monopoly faster than Microsoft (which was found to be in the EU, South Korea, Japan and the United States)? Did you miss the last decade?

And search/web advertising would be the main areas of concern for Google.

Ok, how? It is very easy to start a company doing web advertising. A woman in Washington state (I have mentioned tis several timed in these forums) started a venture several years ago (scraped by on $80,000 a month for a while)m several other sites have done this. As per Search Advertising, just by sheer usage stats, Google appears to be the way to go (and for Webmasters, Google and Yahoo appear to know what they are doing while Microsoft has been lagging for over 10 years, Ask also appears to know how to do this and they are in 5th place behind MSN and Live Search percentage wise, go figure).

Why are you a defender of Google's practices?

Which practices are you referring to?

I don't know what "building" he works in, all i know is he is in CA.

You could probably go as far as to say Mountain View, California (that is where the corporate offices are, slightly north of Yahoo and the Silicon Valley campus for Microsoft). There are several buildings on the main campus.
0 Votes
+ -
You really needed the word.....
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
"did"?


When i say they are heading toward monopoly faster than ms, i (obviously i thought) meant faster than ms did, but that's wrong as well, at least in the U.S. They were never convicted of being a monopoly. That would be impossible anyway since any definition of monopoly only includes words such as "exclusive ownership", "only provider", "100% ownership" and not ones such as "somewhere below exclusive ownership" or "pretty much full control of an industry, but not quite".



sheesh.


I said in CA, didn't I? Need i really be anymore specific cause he didn't actually say Mountain View, just CA. I suppose there should be no assumptions made. Maybe I'll call him up and get detail just for you.



Well, since the EU was looking at the double click deal, it would appear it was more than just SEARCH.
0 Votes
+ -
yes, converting to SIlverlight is dumb idea
killerbunny 22nd Feb 2008
Microsoft tries to own entire stack. Google is smarter in that it leverages existing ubiquitous internet infrastructure. Microsoft should build or acquire a Flex-based RIA suite before Google does, to leverage the widely-installed Adobe base.
0 Votes
+ -
I question Brin's intelligance?
OhTheHumanity 22nd Feb 2008
I am suprised to see a company like Google go after MS for controlling markets. So I guess Google is just fine with having 70% of the search market because if they go any higher they will be defending the same thing they are trying to go on the offensive about? I love the fear monguring, it really is comical, just like MS controlling the market so much that Google has thrived in it, how the hell did that happen, I thought MS had brain washed us all at this point. I want to see competition based on their products merits and not what some founder thinks is un-nerving to him because he is scared. The tech world is full of smart people that really never realized what the people really want and that is good products and less hoopla. Google search is the best, so why can't they play to their strengths and continue on? I guess really he is mostly nervous about a combo of the two.
0 Votes
+ -
yes, Brin is just fear mongering to the masses
killerbunny 22nd Feb 2008
meanwhile he and Google are quietly working on more goodies under the radar
0 Votes
+ -
What's good for the goose...
jasonp@... 22nd Feb 2008
you can finish the rest. Microsoft has just about perfected the concept of the FUD campaign. Now it's being used against them and some people don't like it. I see it as a real "what comes around goes around" moment. Next thing you know, Google will start funding their own studies showing how Google product X shows huge ROI advantage over a comparable Microsoft offering. It's like deja vu all over again.
0 Votes
+ -
I question yours!!!
techboy_z 22nd Feb 2008
GOOG hasn't gotten its dominance through shady dealing, OEM requirements and practices that induce lock-in! They have large share because they have long had better search algorithms. And since branching out, they've had *innovative* products - Maps, Earth, etc., the list goes on.

There's nothing wrong with being dominant because you are the best and good at innovating. M$ has not been either in a very, very long time!
0 Votes
+ -
funny
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
"GOOG hasn't got it's dominance through shady dealings"

funny stuff man. I could post more links here, not to shady dealings, but outright crimes against humanity by GOOG. But i'm sure in some way, whether it's "Others do it too!!" or "they have to obey the law" (sure, the law, not their ethics, the law. I suppose a parnership with Al Quaida would mean they'd have to kill anyone living in a democracy, it's just business and following the law").


Give the MSFT is evil thing a break. That is dead and gone. GOOG has ridden on MS's coattails more than MSFT rode on IBM's. Proof being MSFT only needed IBM for a short time before taking it's OS and building it's own platform partners to world wide dominance. It has way less to do with IBM than GOOG has to do with and desperately needs MSFT/Windows. When GOOG no longer needs MSFT to entirely sustain itself, then you can come back and talk about doing in "on their own".


I wonder why they spend millions just on their legal team if they "do no evil". And it's not to "protect" them, but to snuff out every company that already had IP they want, and they usually succeed. Around the globe they do this and make no secret of it. But it's never in the headlines. If MSFT took a small business to court because they had a product called Kidztalk, it'd be all over the front pages of the blogs for a week. Google does that as part of their business plan. They've stated so themselves, so it's not an opinion piece.


please can we get by the MSFT is evil and all other for profit companies have played the benevolent and super ethical part in the industry. Sounds like something you might read your children at bedtime, ending in "they lived happily ever after".


It really dates everyone that does it. I still see some poor saps using M$ to this day. GOOG has yet to produce something that didn't already exist (search engine algorithms) to this day, so that sappy bit about that is pure fiction.


On the other hand, Microsoft has written an entirely new system including new kernel and it's building a huge marketshare with business uptake rising sharply starting in late '07. The "problems" with Vista are so inflated and not above those of Leopard or Linux in terms of apps and conficts and flaws, but party on dude. True objective professionals are watching, and laughing at you, not with you.
0 Votes
+ -
I question Brin's intelligance?
none none 22nd Feb 2008
One thing you can't deny is that GOOG came by its market share honestly, with quality products - not shenanigans.

I include myself in the 70 percent. Googles search is just superior. And if it falters I could decide in an instant never to use GOOG again. That makes it's market share even more impressive. GOOG has to earn it every day.

I want to see competition based on their products merits...

How else do you compete for online search? It's not like GOOG has a deal with my ISP to block other engines...






happy
0 Votes
+ -
It can very well be likened to....
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
Microsoft's rise on the IBM clones. Google has obviously needed a platform from which to find success. They don't have a "standalone" product like an OS(does need hardware but getting to that in a bit) and are completely dependent on Windows for their bread and butter.


The biggest difference is, love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft very early on was smart enough to break away from their reliance on IBM and built themselves an entirely new platform from which to lauch their product. This makes for a huge distinction in that for Google to claim the same autonomy, it would need to develop it's own partner's to host it's products and not continue to feed from the huge Windows ecosystem.

I'm not so sure you can call it a "product" anyway. Google's revenues are still mostly ad related as they receive very little revenue based on any product they've managed to sell or license. Google apps have found that the world is not quite ready and the list goes on. Nothing against Google, but you have to look at this in the right perspective.


If people are going to claim Microsoft rose to power on the back of IBM, then it's clear Google has done the same on the back of Windows. In fact Google had the upperhand all along due to the anti trust trial. At every turn Microsoft has had to put Googles products at the fore front, even putting them above their very own in the list of search providers in their browser.


Just thought a little reality might be needed here. Google's rise has much to do with the Windows ecosystem and regulators (Microsoft being forced to make Google and any other search available w/o even the customer needing to build their own provider link. It's just there. Windows and regulators = Google's success so far.

In addition to a great seach engine but they are a dime a dozen now, it's just the Google has leveraged it's dominate revenues and ability to control a large majority of web providers to use it's ad products, based on it's near monopoly of search and it's series of legal matters where it's taken it's army of lawyers to defeat all comers who already had claims to: names, products, likenesses etc. and have publically stated much of their business model depends on their legal team to win more than lose, those kinds of things. In other words, it's been using it's muscle and the courts to spread it's name and everything remotely associated with it, worldwide, at the expense of many many little guys. That gets lost in the picture. Google has acted no better than how many believe MS had acted, in it's rise to dominance in search.



And of course it was nothing revolutionary nor a "new" product as search has been around since the earliest OSes.


I find live search to be entirely on par with Google now, but it's fighting against a near monopoly. It's OS gives it NO advantage as it's not allowed to highlight nor push just it's search. If it could, there would be no contest. (back to regulators + windows = Google success)

In fact, Live Search has a better interface and more functionality than Google which is the same old interface.


The biggest thing is Google's search results are bought and paid for and not the best match based on a good algorithm any longer. There are many many windows shops that use Google (most windows site owners are surely open to tools that do the best job and contrary to what abm sources want everyone to believe, they are full of machines loaded with Google desktop and Firefox.) but Google is betraying them, out of hatred?...not sure...but troubleshooting issues on a windows network is now very difficult with Google. Many if not most search phrases that contain "windows" and "troubleshooting", not JUST these terms as that would be shot down, are bringing up pages of alternatives rather than links to help with the problem entered in the search string.


Live has picked up ground and most reviews put in on par with Google in terms of functionality and algorithms, some put it's search as better, as do I.


So there you go. wink
0 Votes
+ -
about "controlling the browsers"
killerbunny 22nd Feb 2008
Google may not control the web browser, but it has set up relationships with internet players that help its search dominance. 1. Even though Mozilla is independent company, Google is a funder of Mozilla, shares engineers with Mozilla, and is default search engine in Firefox. You can change the default search engine in Firefox, but if you enter non-URLs in the address bar -- basically use the address bar as a search text box -- Firefox always sends the words to Google search, regardless of the default Firefox search engine. At least in IE, if you change the default search engine, normal searches and these address-bar searches use the selected search engine. 2. If you install or upgrade Adobe Reader or Adobe Flash player, there is an option to install Google Toolbar and that option is selected "yes" by default, so perhaps many millions of users of Adobe viewers/players install Google search bar by default.
0 Votes
+ -
So Larry Dignan has no clue what the antitrust trials were all about then?
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
Monopolies are dangerous to the markets, consumers,
choice and progress. Working, tough competition on
the other hand stimulates consumer choice and
progress in the markets.

So we all should fear anyone with an unhealthy amount
of control in their hands.

Don't be such a news-media ***** Larry!
Try som honesty instead, it could be refreshing!
0 Votes
+ -
Google = Too Big... but it at least uses open standards! - NT
raycote 22nd Feb 2008
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Google has already lost...
Mike Cox 22nd Feb 2008
The battle for the Internet has already been decided and Microsoft is the winner. With or without Yahoo, Microsoft's search technology is the best in the world. Around here, people don't "Google" for anything, they "Live Search" for information and "Hotmail" one another. I gave a class on proper etiquette and speech for IT operations. As an example, I had someone "volunteer" to say "I Googled something yesterday". Once he said it, I fired him.
0 Votes
+ -
Google has already lost...
dalenscott@... 22nd Feb 2008
So you canned a mail clerk or some other 'expendable' poor soul to make a point?
0 Votes
+ -
5.0
M.R. Kennedy 22nd Feb 2008
For such a lame posting (no mention of his Rep, Starbucks or scones, and no all-nighters for his MCSEs to completely lock Google out of his company's systems), I was going to award Mr. Cox a 3.0. However, since he managed to hook a new fish, he gets an extra couple of points.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
Mikael_z 22nd Feb 2008
Microsoft likely don't have a chance to win the search war.
Google has already won.
Surfers are not "searching" they are "googling", i.e. Google has become a concept,
synonymous with searching the internet. Yes, they are really that good and deserve to
be The King.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget......
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
Internet search, by itself, doesn't buy Google that much.

Ad revenue is their only real cash cow and Microsoft is starting to put a dent in that.

Also, it's important to remember that MSN.com is the 3rd most viewd site in the world. Google is at 5th with a far lower percentage. Sure most people use Google to search, but people are on MSN far more often than they are searching. Yahoo is above MSN, so if that deal can go through it is a HUGE advantage for Microsoft in terms of Ad based revenue.


That is quite obvious though isn't it?
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft and Yahoo who?
Mikael_z 24th Feb 2008
Google is the king with a 65% market share.
Yahoo trailing far far behind at a measly one third of that.
Microsoft's almost not in the game even at a microscopic one ninth of Google's
overwhelmingly big market share.

Google's market share grows and grows and grows....
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/googles-market-share-grows-and-
grows-and-grows/
0 Votes
+ -
You didn't understand.
xuniL_z 24th Feb 2008
Google is the 5th most visited site on the internet. That means people don't spend ALL of their time searching. In fact, only a small percentage of their time.

I'm not talking about search share, as i said search by itself doesn't buy Google anything, it's the ads they have tied to it.



Now, consider that msn.com and yahoo.com are 2 of the worlds most visted websites. Not for search, just popularity of web sites to get news, entertainment, politics, money...the list goes on.

Do you get the picture? These sites have great depth and breadth and yahoo.com becoming yet another huge ad revenue snag for Microsoft is a big catch in that ONE area alone. Google was on the phone the minute the deal happened and it was out of fear of losing more ad revenue. They know they have the search market locked up, for the time being, but that doesn't guarantee them a lock on the web's ad revenue, which they desperately need to survive, unless they can come up with some other ways to make serious cash. So far, they are just a huge advertising and entertainment pipeline and not much more. They have a great infrastructure and they are very very aggressive, not afraid to challenge companies in other countries, for example, to the rights of a name or image. If they think it will take any shine off the Google name, no matter how long a company may have had a service called g-mail for example, they go in both guns a blazin' and with their 1000 man legal team (I'm sure it's larger than that now, that was quite awhile back it was 1000) and their great wealth to snatch it away. If they can't buy it, they do as much legal wrangling and make as many "deals" with the locality, as necessary to win most times.
That is a huge part of Googles business model. Steamroll smaller companies that stand in their way. Sound familiar?

Anyone that feels Google should have more respect or seen as more ethical than, say, MSFT, needs to really re-examine why because they are fooling themselves.

MSFT + YHOO = great web revenue stream
0 Votes
+ -
Depends on your sources (pick one, I'll give you several)
B.O.F.H. 24th Feb 2008
Depends on your sources and what you are looking for. From [http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500]Alexa Web Search - Top 500[/url]:

1. Yahoo
2. YouTube
3. Windows Live
4. Googel
5. MSN
...


From: Most Visited Sites (Netcreaft, All Countries selected):

1. Google[/ur]
2. [url=https://www.google.com/]Google
3. Yahoo! Europe
4. Google (Deutscheland)
5. mail.google.com
6. www.google.co.uk
...

From: INternet tips; Most Visited sites (CuraLink.com):

1. Yahoo
2. Microsoft Network (msn)
3. Google
4. Passport
...

Alas, xunil_Z does not provide anything in the way of supporting links (or anything even remotely supportive to his opinions, I presume xunil_Z is a him), so you will have to take his work on it (or write him off as full of it).
0 Votes
+ -
No matter which links you choose.....
xuniL_z 24th Feb 2008
YHOO is a major pickup for Microsoft in ad revenue alone. That is my main point, now you can argue and get nit picky about which ones top the list, but i doubt anyone is going to say YHOO is not all that popular of a destination.


Another piece of this you have left out, with your stats, and i don't have them either, is the time spent on each site. I would venture a guess that MSN and YAHOO take the prize over GOOGLE in that area, but I could be wrong. I would be suspicious however that people really do spend that much time searching.


The BIGGEST piece of these stats(in terms of goog) you left out is that a large percentage of people, and I suspect this is the main reason GOOGLE is so high to begin with, use google regularlly to do nothing more than go to yahoo. Don't understand it myself but have read this is a very common activity by many users. NO, i don't have stats on that one either, but can you really argue any of this pointing to YHOO as major pickup for ad traffic alone?



Just do the right thing, admit it's the case, and move on.
0 Votes
+ -
Here are some time spent analytics.
B.O.F.H. 24th Feb 2008
What you are arguing (time spent analytics) is:
Time spent on MSN, Yahoo and Google (analytics)

In 2006, the leaders were: Myspace and Yahoo. Apparently there are even Neilson//NetRatings. From: Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time (1/25/2007), the top couple of sites were: MySpace, Yahoo, MSN, eBay and Google (in that order). This informationh really was not that hard to find.

In October, 2007, the leading sites (time killing) were as follows: pogo.com, manhunt.net, adam4adam.com, fanfiction.com and MySpace. These were above sites like MSN and Yahoo.

But these are using different objectives than a search engine (which is to direct you to "relevant" content). As per Ad revenues for these services, Google Adwords main Search Partners: AOL, Earthlink, AskJeeves. Google AdSense main Content Partners are: About.com, NYTimes, Lycos. Yahoo has as their main search partners: AltaVista, BET, Infospace, MTV, MSN, ESPN, CNN, Knight Ridder, etc. Yahoo has the following subsidiary search sites: Overture, AltaVista, Alltheweb.com. Microsoft (MSN) appears to have none in any category. This dats is gathered from: The Search Agency, you can read it for more specifics.

Google is a search engine, as is Live. Yahoo and MSN are portals that have search. Internet marketing is not about keeping people on your site (unless you are selling something like streaming porn or whatever is on YouTube or the social networks) but (from a marketing perspective) making a conversion from someone clicking on a link to spending at a site for some product or service.

moving on... (links and sources beat innuendo, supposition and theory)
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for proving me right.
xuniL_z 24th Feb 2008
Yahoo has major traffic no matter how you slice it.


Your "time" analysis was not what i was referring to. That just showed monthly visits over a period of time and any change thereof. MSN could have less visitors but more time spent browsing through it's many sections, articles etc etc.


I never said what was the strongest in terms of ad revenue, but rather yahoo is substantial in that endeavor, so you are saying that is wrong? Please be clear with this, are you saying that Yahoo adds nothing substantial, in terms of ad revenue, for Microsoft?

I'm not interested in your spin and personal attack methods. Just the bottom line.

Your last paragraph, was that your opinion, or something you copied or paraphrased from a definitive source? That needs to be cleared up as well.


I stand by original premise that yahoo will give MSFT a substantial boost in ad revenue. I guess since you disagree with this, or are making the appearance of such, your opinion is a site's popularity has nothing to do with how much ad revenue it can bring to it's provider.
0 Votes
+ -
Much less money in Yahoo and MSN
Mikael_z 24th Feb 2008
Combining Yahoo and Microsoft would certainly be good for Microsoft but I doubt
that Yahoo would win much on it, ad-money that is, and Yahoo answered with a
"NO".

Google's version is much more profitable, which was my point.
Especially Microsoft's revenue from search ads is small potatoes in comparison,
why I can imagine how tempting Yahoo must be for Microsoft.

No matter how you slice it, Google is the big winner, mostly because their
competitors' search suck in comparison.
0 Votes
+ -
In what way?
xuniL_z 24th Feb 2008
live search comes back with nearly the same and increasingly better results than Google for me. Do you use them both regularly? I do. I go to Google mostly out of habit but am having a harder time finding what i need when troubleshooting so i've turned to live search and getting somewhat better results in certain areas.

They are a coin toss at this point but Google has the marketshare and people don't like change. Isn't that something many say about Windows?
0 Votes
+ -
xuniL_z, Windows comes bundled when you buy a PC.
B.O.F.H. 24th Feb 2008
Mikael_z
points out that this is ad revenue (as I have, somewhere in this discussion) and you are going back to personal preference rather than looking at it from a business or statistical perspective. Basically, Yahoo has 3x the market of MSN and Live but is hurting (financially), Google has a larger percentage that all 3 sites combined and is thus better if you are marketing a product or service (consult a marketing person on this). Microsoft has no major partners as per advertising. To date, Yahoo has said that they were not interested, thus Microsoft is looking at a hostile takeover as an option.

You pointed out that "live search comes back with nearly the same and increasingly better results than Google for me." yet some 70+% of the global search using people do not agree with you, less than 3% agree with you (given last months usage stats). You go on with: "I go to Google mostly out of habit but am having a harder time finding what i need when troubleshooting so i've turned to live search and getting somewhat better results in certain areas." which may be true but then you may be holding a very minority perspective (along with 3% of the global market).

The question that would remain as per this merger (beyond the scope of this thread) is how many potential partners (and revenue sources) has Microsoft angered thus they will pull out from using Yahoo for marketing and go with Google. We already have one known company that has dropped (or pending) their affiliation with Yahoo due to this and that could be a sign that this deal is bad for both parties (and better for Google, ignoring your usage).
0 Votes
+ -
Ok, here's the deal.
xuniL_z 24th Feb 2008
Mikael_z
points out that this is ad revenue (as I have, somewhere in this discussion) and you are going back to personal preference rather than looking at it from a business or statistical perspective.


Apparently you are willing to overlook a statement such as "all competitors SUCK" and an emphasis on Yahoo saying "NO", when the blog is a "what if" basically, and i made the supposition there is a Microhoo as the context of my replies. That was ok with you? Let both of those slide because he appears to be basically with you, i get it.




Basically, Yahoo has 3x the market of MSN and Live but is hurting (financially), Google has a larger percentage that all 3 sites combined and is thus better if you are marketing a product or service (consult a marketing person on this). Microsoft has no major partners as per advertising. To date, Yahoo has said that they were not interested, thus Microsoft is looking at a hostile takeover as an option.


Again, there is the supposition of a Microhoo here and how that really would affect Google, so you both have now gotten off topic and out of context.

Microsoft has gained some exclusive advertising with companies, most recently snagging the WSJ and with it it's affiliates, Digg, Facebook. They have to start somewhere. The linux desktop looks bleak from a percentages standpoint, but i doubt anyone has given up on it.



You pointed out that "live search comes back with nearly the same and increasingly better results than Google for me." yet some 70+% of the global search using people do not agree with you, less than 3% agree with you (given last months usage stats). You go on with: "I go to Google mostly out of habit but am having a harder time finding what i need when troubleshooting so i've turned to live search and getting somewhat better results in certain areas." which may be true but then you may be holding a very minority perspective (along with 3% of the global market).



And knowing you are not a Microsoft fan, you hold an even smaller minority percentage when it comes to desktop OSes. This seems to be slightly sliding toward the quite tired and passe ABM rhetoric. What does any of this have to do with anything? Yes, i included a personal anecdote on my experience, was it lacking that much taste?

You stated in the subject that "windows comes bundled with every PC". And where would the world be w/o that constant statement. Actually it's stretch to say "every" considering you can get many PCs w/o windows loaded from a fairly wide varity of sources. The Mac is also a "PC" now, and you can't get windows pre-loaded there, however they have become a significant OEM for Microsoft and windows retail purchases.






The question that would remain as per this merger (beyond the scope of this thread) is how many potential partners (and revenue sources) has Microsoft angered thus they will pull out from using Yahoo for marketing and go with Google. We already have one known company that has dropped (or pending) their affiliation with Yahoo due to this and that could be a sign that this deal is bad for both parties (and better for Google, ignoring your usage).


Good question, I guess, as you said, it "could be" bad, but that is pure speculation. I wouldn't take one company, that you didn't name, as an indicator this is a bad deal. My only point was this would be a significant ad revenue pickup for Microsoft and I'm staying with that prediction. To say otherwise is nothing more than a prediction as well. All things being equal and all yahoo partners don't drop out as I'm sure you would be hoping, there is no way you can say, based on Microsoft's current ad revenue, this would not be a very good addition in terms of ad revenue alone. That was/is my point from the beginning. You've attempted to discredit me where you could, providing data that can not be any more verified than my original source that ranked yhoo #2, msn#3 and goog#5. I didn't include it since the point i was making was really obvious. Any additional analysis of that position requires too much speculation. My intent was that given yhoo's current portfolio, msft would have a huge addition to theirs.



Did you hear, OSX comes preloaded on every Apple PC? Did you hear that red hat and novell desktops don't include Windows as a choice?
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
itanalyst Updated - 22nd Feb 2008
0 Votes
+ -
He's busy today ....
fr0thy 22nd Feb 2008
.... in a meeting with top executives. The title of the meeting is "The future of computing - how we'll make them use our software by overwhelming the blogosphere with our agenda".

He's particularly interested in the speech this afternoon on "How to handle it when everybody can see right through your 'I am Microsoft only educated' horse-siht".
0 Votes
+ -
Can you explain
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
what your post is exactly? Is it something aimed to inform or put out other ideas than what someone else may have put out there. Thinking from a different angle?

It's not thinking at all.

Microsoft has been dead silent for years and in terms of what you are "accusing" here, you can replace ms with Google and it works even better in my opinion.

Of course you know that, but it's on with the ABM show, which is very poorly scripted and performed. F-
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
itanalyst Updated - 22nd Feb 2008
0 Votes
+ -
Promises, Promises from Microsoft. Again
Ole Man 23rd Feb 2008
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080221184924826

"Nobody is buying it. Well. Employees,
maybe. Microsoft is once again promising
interoperability and adherence to standards,
but its own version of each.
Interoperability that is safe only for
noncommercial software excludes Microsoft's
number one competitor, Linux. It is
noncommercial and commercial, depending on
who is using it. So, right there it tells
you that this is a promise to do nothing
that matters. Microsoft is currently being
investigated by the EU Commission regarding
the same two issues, interoperability and
its behavior pushing MSOOXML as
a "standard". This is a promise to remain
incompatible with the GPL, as far as I can
make out."

"There you are, Microsoft, 2008. For the
right fee you can interoperate. Otherwise
you can't. Nothing new about that. And as
best as I can figure, they are selling
patent licenses to patents Samba says it
didn't need. They could work around them.
And by the way, Novell is cited as a fine
example of Microsoft's efforts to be
interoperable. But Novell has yet to ship
any GPLv3 code. Because it can't, without
consequences. So how is that
interoperability?"

PASS THE HOGWASH, PLEASE! MORE SLOP, ANYONE?
0 Votes
+ -
Larry, this is VERY unnerving for Google....you missed the part
xuniL_z 23rd Feb 2008
where MSN and Yahoo together make up 2 of the top 3 most visited sites on the internet. Google is not even close to even MSN, let alone the two together.


Don't forget that people don't spend ALL of their time online searching. The spend the vast majority of it on sites and MSN/YAHOO represent a huge amount of the total.


This buyout would give Microsoft an advantage in Ad based revenue that GOOG doesn't want to see happen. When they were on the phone with Yahoo first thing after MSFT made their offer, that was not histrionics and "annoy MSFT", that was true fear. Where would GOOG be w/o it's current hold on web advertising revenues? Nowhere. This is HUGE!
0 Votes
+ -
Yahoo by Microsoft is coming..... Google Beware!
billy yang 26th Feb 2008
Yup,it's coming Sergey Boy. YahMic! is coming.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix