The Digital Home

Although I wasn't planning on writing this column for at least a few months, it looks like the recent developments in the Microsoft-Yahoo merger have precipitated my need to do just that.

Allow me to say with total and utter certainty that Microsoft never wanted this deal with Yahoo and was using it to gain important information about the company before it was forced to drop billions of dollars on an acquisition that almost everyone knew was tenuous, at best.

But unfortunately for Microsoft, its plan backfired and now it's left with nothing to show for it.

Of course, the real goal all along was to initiate the acquisition phase of the deal, perform due diligence tests to see what sort of technology Yahoo employs and what it has in store for the future and once the Department of Justice found problems in the deal, back out.

Don't believe me? Look no further than Microsoft's attempted deal with Intuit for all the proof you need.

Over the past few years, Blockbuster has been a victim to a changing environment in the movie rental industry that has seen a mass of people leave brick-and-mortars in favor of online services like Netflix.

No better evidence of this is shown than the comparison between the net income Netflix enjoyed in 2006 ($49 million) and the net loss Blockbuster incurred -- $588 million. Just one year later, Blockbuster was able to turn things around slightly and enjoyed a net income of $54 million, but in 2007, the company didn't have such great luck. According to its most recent filing (September 2007), Blockbuster incurred a loss of $35 million in just one quarter.

So what's really going on at this company? Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anything good. After examining Blockbuster's 10-Q filed in September and evaluating prior year annual reports to estimate the impact on its upcoming annual report sometime next month, it not only looks like this company is in dire straits, I would venture to say that all of its brick-and-mortars will soon be closed. In fact, I give it about five years.

What? You didn't know that already? I thought I was telling you something you already knew.

In case you missed it, Ad Scheepbouwer, the CEO of a Dutch telecom known as KPN told the Financial Times yesterday that "[He] had [an iPhone] and thought it was a pretty useless phone, to be quite honest. The battery ran out in no time. I didn't like the touch screen."

Of course, the company's CEO still didn't want to leave Steve Jobs and company out in the cold just in case it decides to start selling the iPhone to the Netherlands. Scheepbouwer said that his company would "be more than happy to sell it." After all, he pointed out, his company has "half the market in the Netherlands and hopes it will will be the party of choice."

Even better, this clown has allegedly been wining and dining Steve Jobs at every chance he gets in an attempt to win the deal. Am I missing something? Didn't he say that the product is 'useless'? And didn't he say that the battery runs 'out in no time'? If he believes that, why would Apple want to strike a deal with his company and why would his company want to sell such a junker?

If nothing else, this just goes to show us all how crazy these carriers really are.

Even though Linus Torvalds has always been known as a deity-like figure in the world of Linux, lately he has been quite outspoken about where he thinks his operating system is going and what its competitors are doing wrong.

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald, Torvalds had quite a few complaints to bring against both Mac OS X Leopard and Windows Vista.

"I don't think they're equally [updated to fix word] flawed - I think Leopard is a much better system," Torvalds said. But then he added: "OS X is in some ways actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."

"I think [Mac] OS X is nicer than Windows in many ways," he continued. "But neither can hold a candle to my own [Linux]. It's a race for second."

And while you would expect this kind of propaganda from the operating system's founder, does he even speak to (or for) the Linux community anymore? If you ask me, he's just another wolf howling in the night hoping someone will agree.

Every few years, a different organization makes some progress in the tech industry and for one reason or another, the vast majority of the people following the business simply don't like it.

And while some people's distaste for organizations isn't warranted, the RIAA is not one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that distaste for this organization is not only warranted, it's probably the most sound response anyone can have.

Why you ask? It's simple. Under the veil of "holding the artists' best interests in mind", the RIAA has single-handedly destroyed the music industry and created an environment where the artists are left out in the cold.

Let's examine a bit further.

Is Metal Gear Solid the best?

(Credit: Gamespot)

Gamespot recently posted an interesting story about the upcoming release of Metal Gear Solid: The Essential Collection for the PlayStation 2.

According to the report, "The Essential Collection will compile the original PlayStation edition of Metal Gear Solid along with Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance and Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence, both "director's cut" versions of the PS2 games. The compilation will sell for $29.99, and will feature commemorative packaging designed by series artist Yoji Shinkawa."

And as a fan of the Metal Gear series (and others, like Final Fantasy), I thought it would be a good time to ask you all a simple question, "what's the best video game series of all time?"

After Microsoft made a $44.6 billion bid for Yahoo last week, everyone was waiting on bated breath to see what Google would have to say about it.

And in typical industry fashion, the company currently on the wrong side of a major deal has come out in protest.

In a statement on the company's website, Google's Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond indicated that his company is not all pleased with Microsoft's bid.

"Microsoft's hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another," he wrote. "It's about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation."

Please. By trying to take the "high road", Google sounded petty and made itself look foolish. And if the company really wanted to do something about it, it should stop complaining and make a bid for Yahoo.

In a move that came as a surprise to no one expect those living under a rock, Microsoft bid $44.6 billion for Yahoo.

According to Steve Ballmer, "Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a credible alternative for consumers, advertisers, and publishers."

And while Ballmer stopped short of mentioning Google by name, this one statement highlights an important element of Microsoft's strategy. As I've mentioned before, Ballmer and company are focused on Google more than any other company and this deal with Yahoo may finally give it the leverage the company needs to capture greater influence online.

But I digress. Today, the real story surrounding the possible Yahoo acquisition has nothing to do with Google at all. Instead, today's announcement surrounds the absolute need for Yahoo to accept this acquisition to save itself.

Of course, the only problem is, nobody knows if it will.