Comments on: Google co-founder pushes for Yahoo ad deal

Larry Page says an advertising deal between the two companies could be structured so as to keep Yahoo independent without stirring up antitrust issues.

[Mr. Dee]

Sounds like a play from Larry Pages Google FUD book. At the same time you can sense that Microsoft might be keep Larry awake at night. I don't see how either Microsoft or Google are better alternatives. In fact, all Microsoft really wants from Yahoo! is the search technology not all of the Company with its overlapping services. If I were Yahoo! I would go with Microsoft just to satisfy the Company's interest and future plans and keep Icahn at bay while still remaining independent. Googles ultimate aim is to wipe out all competitors in Search and Online Advertising, then again the feelings mutual from Microsoft's mind set.

[BrianJStewart]

I like Google a lot, don't get me wrong, I use their products (i.e. Search, Google Talk, Gmail, AdSense) on a daily basis, but isn't this a bit too far? Do they really think we are that naive. His arguments are so fundamentally flawed and self serving.

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.

[BrianJStewart]

I like Google a lot, don't get me wrong, I use their products (i.e. Search, Google Talk, Gmail, AdSense) on a daily basis, but isn't this a bit too far? Do they really think we are that naive. His arguments are so fundamentally flawed and self serving.

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.

[The_Decider]

The existence of an SDK does not make it open. Is DirectX open? You are thinking about it in the opposite direction that you need to be.

[BrianJStewart]

Sorry for the duplicate post and formatting issue. I am not sure what went wrong.

[The_Decider]

@ Mr. Dee Dee Dee,

Why can't Microsoft create their own search tech that will compete with Google?

[dgiamanco]

I'm surprised by this article. I don't know if Larry Page was misquoted or if he really meant to lump multiple markets into one. The IM market is very, very different than the online advertising market, and this article did little justification to that.

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.

[Mr. Dee]

@ The_Decider, because they don't have the time, Google is 10 years ahead. Yahoo! is 14 years ahead, they have the infrastructure in place to compete. Microsoft cannot build that in time to catch up, then again Microsoft needs to improve the quality of its search text results. the algorithm is atrocious.

[BrianJStewart]

I completely agree with you. Why is there such a negative perception with acquiring technology companies? It happens all the time in other industries (i.e. bio-tech, pharamceutical, automobile, financial). I really would like to understand why the technology industry is any different?

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

[The_Decider]

MS is so far behind because they couldn't understand what the future was in 1998.

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.

[benjaminstraight]

Ok stop talking and do something, Google.