Google co-founder pushes for Yahoo ad deal
Google's co-founder Larry Page respects Yahoo's struggle to remain independent, and he says there's still a chance an advertising deal between the two companies can work.
Speaking at an event Thursday in Washington, D.C., Page said a deal could be structured to help Yahoo maintain its independence without violating antitrust laws. Page acknowledged that Google has a significant share of the advertising market, but he said "there are ways in which to structure a deal with Yahoo that would be reasonable." He added, that Yahoo's alternatives aren't great either.
Larry Page, Google co-founder and president of products.
(Credit: Google)"Yahoo wants to remain independent," he said. "We support that. On the other hand, they're in a difficult situation."
Google and Yahoo have been discussing and testing an advertising partnership. As part of this deal, Google would supply some text ads alongside Yahoo search results. The companies both seem satisfied with results from a two-week test. However, a partnership between the two companies has stalled due to antitrust concerns.
Meanwhile Yahoo has also just fended off a takeover bid from competitor Microsoft. Now the software giant is looking at ways to get a smaller stake in Yahoo. At the same time, Yahoo is dealing with pressure from activist Carl Icahn, who believes the company should have taken the Microsoft bid.
Google has been opposed to Microsoft's bid for Yahoo from the start. Page said that a combined Microsoft and Yahoo would control too much of the market, and as a result would stifle innovation and slow development of new products and services.
"You can't have one company control 90 percent of the market, especially one that has a history of doing bad stuff," he said.
He used instant messaging as an example. He said that unlike email, which allows people to send and receive messages from different e-mail providers, IM is still closed. (Microsoft's Live Messenger does interoperate with Yahoo Messenger, but it doesn't use an open protocol, such as Jabber.
"We think that's stupid," he said. "It doesn't foster competition. If you want good products you need some degree of openness."
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
First, Microsoft (even with Yahoo) wouldn't control 90% of "the market" as if online markets and services can be lumped together in a single category. Just because they would have a significant IM market share, doesn't mean they control "the market". This is just "FUD" at its best.
Second, the Microsoft IM network has been open for years, as are many of their Live services. I'd suggest a cursory glance of their many SDK's. They may not use Jabber, but that doesn't mean they aren't open or viable platforms. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Google Talk is technically or functionally comparable to Microsoft Live Messenger, AOL AIM, or the Yahoo IM networks. Instead of spreading "FUD", I'd suggest they improve their product to make it more competitive because in the end users don't care about the protocol, they care about functionality.
Third, isn't Google the dominant online/advertising player with a commanding and growing market share. It's as if the media and wallstreet have this love obsession with Google, but those obsessions inevitably fade (as did their love obsession with Microsoft) and soon the scrutiny of the public, media, and congress will replace it (if you're not extremely careful). Just ask Microsoft?
Fourth, many advertisers have already publicly repeatedly stated they fear Google's position, not Microsoft's position. They also support a Microsoft/Yahoo combination to counter weight Google's dominant advertising and search market position. Of course Google wouldn't want that, because that "potentially" threatens their dominant advertising and search market position.
For Google to portray themselves as a humble good samaritan who is only "trying to help Yahoo" out of the goodness of their hearts is pretty disingenuous. It's a self-serving, protection of their dominant market position in search and advertising, bordering on anti-competitive. It has nothing to do with doing "good". There is a very rational and logical reason Congress and the Justice Department, as well as the financial media, have expressed concerns about the Google/Yahoo ?partnership?
Sometimes the blinders of competition, fear, pride, and egotism can really make you look pretty foolish and cause you to do stupid and potentially anti-competitive things. Just ask Microsoft!
Google is walking a fine line here....At least that's my opinion... now I'll go back to using their products/services because I like them and think many of them are superior.
First, Microsoft (even with Yahoo) wouldn't control 90% of "the market" as if online markets and services can be lumped together in a single category. Just because they would have a significant IM market share, doesn't mean they control "the market". This is just "FUD" at its best.
Second, the Microsoft IM network has been open for years, as are many of their Live services. I'd suggest a cursory glance of their many SDK's. They may not use Jabber, but that doesn't mean they aren't open or viable platforms. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Google Talk is technically or functionally comparable to Microsoft Live Messenger, AOL AIM, or the Yahoo IM networks. Instead of spreading "FUD", I'd suggest they improve their product to make it more competitive because in the end users don't care about the protocol, they care about functionality.
Third, isn't Google the dominant online/advertising player with a commanding and growing market share. It's as if the media and wallstreet have this love obsession with Google, but those obsessions inevitably fade (as did their love obsession with Microsoft) and soon the scrutiny of the public, media, and congress will replace it (if you're not extremely careful). Just ask Microsoft?
Fourth, many advertisers have already publicly repeatedly stated they fear Google's position, not Microsoft's position. They also support a Microsoft/Yahoo combination to counter weight Google's dominant advertising and search market position. Of course Google wouldn't want that, because that "potentially" threatens their dominant advertising and search market position.
For Google to portray themselves as a humble good samaritan who is only "trying to help Yahoo" out of the goodness of their hearts is pretty disingenuous. It's a self-serving, protection of their dominant market position in search and advertising, bordering on anti-competitive. It has nothing to do with doing "good". There is a very rational and logical reason Congress and the Justice Department, as well as the financial media, have expressed concerns about the Google/Yahoo ?partnership?
Sometimes the blinders of competition, fear, pride, and egotism can really make you look pretty foolish and cause you to do stupid and potentially anti-competitive things. Just ask Microsoft!
Google is walking a fine line here....At least that's my opinion... now I'll go back to using their products/services because I like them and think many of them are superior.
Why can't Microsoft create their own search tech that will compete with Google?
In terms of the side effects of a Yahoo take over by Microsoft, I agree with Larry Page. Yahoo's services are so close to Microsoft's that the only way a combined company would produce a financial return is if Microsoft would have merged many of its services with Yahoo's. I doubt this would be taken lightly by the users of these services, and ultimately users would flee the services. A third party in any market is better than just two major players.
As far as the GoogleTalk goes, I for one use it a lot. When you have locked down computers, Sys Admin's flexing too much power, GoogleTalk has a flash plugin that keeps you connected. The only other web-IM interface I tried was the AIMExpress, and it is way behind GoogleTalk.
Some times, I think it is just sound business practice to acquire technology and talent, rather than try to build it. Too often companies spend shareholder's money trying to build something that is already there and never catch up. To me, if you can acquire the technology and talent instantly, and can afford to do so, I'd prefer that over wasting money due to stubborn pride.
When Oracle did it, it was brill
It is their own fault and another stunning display of incompetence.
If you had any clue about programming, you would realize that buying someone else's algorithm is going to be easy to integrate, or successful. Yahoo is behind a bit also.
- by benjaminstraight July 22, 2008 2:47 PM PDT
- Ok stop talking and do something, Google.
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)