Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

DanTan
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby DanTan » Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:20 pm UTC

Yea.... so Microsoft is trying to take another step at owning the web

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120186587368234937.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

I gotta wonder how Microsoft manages to shell out so much money each year and still report a positive revenue sometimes :-D

User avatar
Memo
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Memo » Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:34 pm UTC

I hope Yahoo accepts the offer.

xkcd_n00bz
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby xkcd_n00bz » Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:50 pm UTC

I wish I owned Yahoo stock. Up ~50% on the news today.

Anybody ever worked for a big company that had an unsolicited offer from another big company to buy them, and you found out by reading the news like everybody else?
I am +20 dB hot.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:40 pm UTC

Good, now instead of not using two major search engines I'll only have to not use one. :lol:

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby lorenith » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:04 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure Microsoft has tried to get a hold of Yahoo one way or another at least twice before (or maybe I just imagined it), so there's no real telling if they will actually manage to buy Yahoo.

I hope if they do though they don't drag down Yahoo, I stopped using MSN/hotmail for a reason, and that was mostly a lack of reliability at the time.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:00 am UTC

So yeah, apparently the hostile takeover is complete?
Endless Mike wrote:Good, now instead of not using two major search engines I'll only have to not use one. :lol:
I'm sorry, but Microsoft has a search engine? *uses google to search for a microsoft search engine*
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:04 am UTC

February 2nd, 2008... Skynet becomes self-aware.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:09 am UTC

MJ, your new avatar is disturbing. As is your knowledge of the future.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

XilDarkz
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:12 am UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby XilDarkz » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:17 am UTC

22/7 wrote:So yeah, apparently the hostile takeover is complete?
Endless Mike wrote:Good, now instead of not using two major search engines I'll only have to not use one. :lol:
I'm sorry, but Microsoft has a search engine? *uses google to search for a microsoft search engine*

http://msn.com/


lol.
krynd wrote:
Kleppner wrote:I...
....
love you.

I second that emotion!

User avatar
Ondore
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:38 pm UTC
Location: Chiron Beta Prime

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Ondore » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:30 am UTC

DanTan wrote:I gotta wonder how Microsoft manages to shell out so much money each year and still report a positive revenue sometimes :-D


Well, the Entertainment division turned a profit last quarter...

But the cultural differences between Yahoo and Microsoft are so huge that this is going to be an interesting trainwreck to observe. They see a 5+5=15 situation, but it might end up being 5+5=3.

User avatar
spi
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Outskirts of Camberville
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby spi » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:53 am UTC

If this does end up going through I really hope that MS doesn't mess up flickr and del.icio.us. It would be sad to see such awesome technologies as those go the way of the dodo.

Here is to hoping it will work out. It will be interesting to see if the bid goes hostile to get around the objections of senior management at yahoo.
"Pain is a wonderful emotion, scariest sea in a world of oceans" - Iris

trickster721
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:26 am UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby trickster721 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:38 am UTC

Endless Mike wrote:Good, now instead of not using two major search engines I'll only have to not use one. :lol:

I prefer to look at it as the death of Yahoo and an admission from Microsoft that their own web portal is terrible.

There was an "internet expert" on NPR talking about how this signaled the monopolization of the web, and the end of a brief fad of online democracy and grassroots innovation. He had to go on NPR to say that because on the web he would be democratically mocked to death in the comments.

User avatar
CookieMonster
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester, UK, Earth
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby CookieMonster » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:34 pm UTC

i'm not overly bothered about the takeover, as i use google anyway, and i think its good that microsoft finally has a bit of competition after dominating everything for so long.
Image
diavolomaestro wrote:Ever try to fuck coconuts? Short answer: don't.

http://www.fb-studios.com Join the forums!!

User avatar
LDJosh
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:07 pm UTC
Location: South Central, PA
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby LDJosh » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

No. it's not over...
and this was posted today.

Google blocks!

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7875&tag=nl.e622

Google has reportedly reached out to Yahoo to thwart Microsoft’s unsolicited $44.6 billion bid. And in case that doesn’t work Google has already started working policymakers.

Simply put, the games have begun (Techmeme). Get ready for the FUD fest folks. As noted on Friday just a few hours after Microsoft went public with its Yahoo bid Google will play a big role in this saga (see blog focus).

For starters, Google is Yahoo’s best defense if it doesn’t want to be acquired by Microsoft. All Yahoo has to do is outsource its search to Google–a move that would be financially beneficial to CEO Jerry Yang and Co.–and it gives Microsoft second thoughts.

According to the Wall Street Journal and Reuters, Google CEO Eric Schmidt called Yahoo’s Yang to offer help to fend off Microsoft. The motives are obvious:

* Google would love to force Microsoft to pay more;
* Google wants to head Microsoft off at the pass since a combined Microsoft-Yahoo could be a search threat;
* Microsoft bitched and moaned about Google’s DoubleClick acquisition.

While it’s not likely that Google could get the regulators to swallow a Yahoo purchase the search giant can still raise a ruckus. Google could even bid for giggles–or help fund an effort to take Yahoo private.That latter point is important. What if Google helped fund a white-knight bidder? It would make total sense. And there would be a nice bonus–if Yahoo goes private the first thing the new owners would do is outsource search to Google.

For now it appears that Google is launching a two front war. First, Google wants to help Yahoo disrupt Microsoft. And if that effort fails Google is going to make damn sure regulators look closely at this deal.

The regulator spin has already begun as Google broke out the open Internet card. In a blog post Sunday, David Drummond, senior vice president and corporate legal offer said:

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

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies — and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.

Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft — despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses — to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions — and consumers deserve satisfying answers.

Talk about a game of Monopoly.

Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, didn’t mince words either.

The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.

Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe.

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals.

Add it up and you have a monopoly pissing match with Google and its search dominance in one corner and Microsoft and its Windows market share in the other. Pick your poison.
--------
~Lameduck Josh
ninjajosh.com

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:57 pm UTC

How can they equate Google's monopoly on advertising to Microsoft's sofware monopoly? Apparently having a better product is not a good reason for more people to use one thing than the other. Apparently anyone who has a majority share is equally evil. GRR that pissed me off.

Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:37 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!

Sure, but market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Vaniver » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:43 pm UTC

mosc wrote:How can they equate Google's monopoly on advertising to Microsoft's sofware monopoly? Apparently having a better product is not a good reason for more people to use one thing than the other. Apparently anyone who has a majority share is equally evil. GRR that pissed me off.

Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!
You realize it was the Google people who were claiming that this would cause a monopoly, right? The Microsoft man quoted didn't use the term.

Also, grr antitrust legislation.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:44 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:You realize it was the Google people who were claiming that this would cause a monopoly, right? The Microsoft man quoted didn't use the term.

Not directly; these people have good lawyers, after all. But the wording of their statement is crafted specifically to color Google as a monopoly—Google is dominant, they amass revenues rather than acquiring them or producing them, "alternative scenarios" (read: anything Google suggests) mean "less competition on the Internet" (read: monopoly! even though "search engine" != "the Internet").

It's not an unreasonable implication, though. Google carries a big stick; I dunno how softly they walk.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:
Vaniver wrote:You realize it was the Google people who were claiming that this would cause a monopoly, right? The Microsoft man quoted didn't use the term.

Not directly; these people have good lawyers, after all. But the wording of their statement is crafted specifically to color Google as a monopoly—Google is dominant, they amass revenues rather than acquiring them or producing them, "alternative scenarios" (read: anything Google suggests) mean "less competition on the Internet" (read: monopoly! even though "search engine" != "the Internet").

It's not an unreasonable implication, though. Google carries a big stick; I dunno how softly they walk.

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, hasn't Google diversified its territory? Gmail, google maps, etc.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:58 pm UTC

Oh, definitely. I'm a huge fan of Google and it doesn't seem, on the face of things, like they're trying to build a monopoly by force. They put out a consistently good product and are constantly innovating. They're the employer every programmer would love to work for. But it's made them very successful and it allows Microsoft to cynically imply that their success means they want everyone else to fail. I don't think that's particularly surprising given how Microsoft operates; if anything it seems kind of softball.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:42 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!

Sure, but market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.

No, it does not. I contest this. It inherently creates a motivation for a company to bend the laws and create a monopoly, but it does not directly create an impediment to competition.

70% of ppl choosing product A is not inherently a monopoly. It just means 70% of people are choosing it. It's a monopoly when product B is actively prevented from competing. If two products are sitting next to each other on a store shelf and 70% Pick A, then B is just a bad Product. When Product A is placed in ten different places in the store and product B is on the bottom shelf in the back at the end of some random Isle, it's not exactly a fair fight.

Microsoft bundling a browser in with the world's main OS and setting the default web page to MSN and STILL losing the search engine battle is not because the competition is a monopoly, it's because people don't like their product.

Google adds do not require you ONLY advertise with them or that you can ONLY use their adds on your site. THOSE would be anti-trust violations to me. Really though, google adds are so successful because they're designed to be non-obtrusive, cheap, and context driven. Two things that are very rare in mainstream web advertising.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!

Sure, but market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.

No, it does not. I contest this. It inherently creates a motivation for a company to bend the laws and create a monopoly, but it does not directly create an impediment to competition.

70% of ppl choosing product A is not inherently a monopoly. It just means 70% of people are choosing it. It's a monopoly when product B is actively prevented from competing. If two products are sitting next to each other on a store shelf and 70% Pick A, then B is just a bad Product. When Product A is placed in ten different places in the store and product B is on the bottom shelf in the back at the end of some random Isle, it's not exactly a fair fight.

Microsoft bundling a browser in with the world's main OS and setting the default web page to MSN and STILL losing the search engine battle is not because the competition is a monopoly, it's because people don't like their product.

Google adds do not require you ONLY advertise with them or that you can ONLY use their adds on your site. THOSE would be anti-trust violations to me. Really though, google adds are so successful because they're designed to be non-obtrusive, cheap, and context driven. Two things that are very rare in mainstream web advertising.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, because your reply isn't really in the same context, and doesn't really address the point I was trying to make. I agree with you about Google and Microsoft, and about the "fair fight" grocery store analogy. What we (apparently?) disagree about is whether or not market share is, in and of itself, an impediment to the competition. I would say that, beyond a certain point (not sure what that point is), it is. The reason I say that is that the company that holds that, say, 70 or 80% of the market is going to be well known, pretty much regardless of the customer. And the guy holding 10, 20, 30%? He's definitely an underdog. He's got less money to spend on development, he's got less to spend on advertising, packaging, he can't save money making the product in bulk like the guy with the 70+% market share. Probably more importantly, everybody knows the successful guy's name. So when I see software put out by big company, and basically the same by little company, I'm buying the stuff from the company I know more about (and of course I know more about them because they've got more to throw into advertising and good PR). The little guy is, by the nature of his position, at a disadvantage. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with it. I certainly don't consider it a monopoly. It's simply the reality of a larger (or more successful) company being challenged by a smaller (or less successful) company. That's my view on it, anyway.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

Yes, they have an advantage. No, it is not a monopolistic advantage. Having more money for advertising is not monopolistic. Telling the advertising company that if they let the smaller company advertise, they'll lose your advertising is a monopolistic advantage.

There are other fundamental advantages too like having a better product. Being trendy. Having better packaging (which you said), etc etc etc none of which necessarily have anything to do with market share.

The key words are unfair advantage, not just an advantage. After all, having a better product is arguably one of the biggest advantage and that's the whole POINT of competition.

This is not semantics. It's microsoft's whole argument. "Go look at google! They have huge market share too! Stop picking on us" is their whole point here and that's what I'm complaining about. They are saying "advantage" instead of "unfair advantage".
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Agaeki
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:04 pm UTC
Location: A galaxy far, far away
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Agaeki » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:57 pm UTC

As I see things in the Search Engine business, direct advertising and advertising budgets are a lot less important than other things.


Google has an 80%(ish) share of internet searches in Europe, and I have never once seen an official google advert. TV, Billboards, magazines/newspapers, even on the internet, there is nothing, and I never recall there being anything before or after Google's rise to power. Google spread into mindsets very very subtly, word of mouth, blogs, etc. but word spread nonetheless, and Google became the coolest kid on the block. Almost like fashion people use Google, and they have very successfully caught this wave and are riding it with no slowdown in sight.

Whilst they may have better search algorithms (as they are reputed, although i've never seen anything to solidly back that), Google has made themselves cool, the place to be. That is where Yahoo! and Microsoft are failing - people know about them, but they don't use them because they know that Google is better, Google is cooler.

That image, IMO, is a lot of the reason for Google's success, and I i foresee that image as being very difficult for Microhoo! to dislodge that and claw their way back towards the top of the pile.


Linking into the monopoly question; I think that the image thing constitutes a barrier to entry for a newly entering business, meaning Google has a monopoly over Internet Searching, regardless of (or as well as?) there market share.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Google does not have a monopoly over internet searching. They simply have the largest market share. For the 4th time, those are two very different things!
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:12 am UTC

First of all, I never said that they do have a monopoly on anything. You've said that it's been said a few times, but I haven't. My point was not that there was an unfair advantage, just that they have an advantage by being in the position of leading market share. If more people are using you to begin with, then there are more people out there telling their friends, "hey, check out this search engine," you've got more hits which will give you more money which can be reinvested, you're pretty much by definition the most well-known, which is extremely important when you actually have to come up with a website to put in your browser, etc. So what I'm saying is that being the company with the biggest market share is, in itself, an advantage. So I guess it's really down to what you want to call an "impediment to competition". I maintain that you could put that advantage into the category of "impediment to competition," but I would not call it monopolistic, as I don't believe that all such impediments constitute monopolies, especially not this particular one. Geography and current infrastructure could be considered impediments, but they certainly do not fall into the category of monopolistic. Does what I'm saying make any sense? It feels disjointed.

*EDIT:mosc, I realized just now that when I say "impediment to competition" I'm thinking of it in a more specific sense than I believe you are, namely impediment to that company's competitors, whereas I believe you are describing more generally an impediment to any competition whatsoever. Hopefully that clears some things up, but maybe not.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:06 pm UTC

well, I wasn't addressing you 22/7 in my last post I was addressing this comment I find very wrong:
Agaeki wrote:meaning Google has a monopoly over Internet Searching

On your point though, you seem to again be struggling with what I said above:
mosc wrote:The key words are unfair advantage, not just an advantage. After all, having a better product is arguably one of the biggest advantage and that's the whole POINT of competition.
Which I'm trying to say.

Market share is NOT, by definition, an unfair advantage. Your definition is largely irrelevant. What is and isn't an unfair advantage is laid out in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, other anti-trust laws, and case law from legal rulings on the subject.

In other words, you're making the same argument Microsoft is making and it's factually wrong and deceptive and it's exactly what I'm criticizing them for.
mosc wrote:This is not semantics. It's microsoft's whole argument. "Go look at google! They have huge market share too! Stop picking on us" is their whole point here and that's what I'm complaining about. They are saying "advantage" instead of "unfair advantage".

It's the key point. Market share = advantage. Bundling and putting contract restrictions in that edge out competition = UNFAIR advantage.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:13 pm UTC

I don't understand how you're trying to make us disagree on some point that I *STILL* have yet to make (and won't). I'm not saying they have an unfair advantage, and I'm not saying that they have a monopoly. No offense, but you're either not reading my posts or waiting for me to be done speaking so you can start again. If you read the edit at the end of my previous post, you'll note what I believe to be the genesis of our disagreement earlier in this thread, and every time I post something along the lines of "impediment to competition" you start talking about the difference between advantage and unfair advantage. It appears to me that we're in agreement here and yet you're somehow trying to put me in the same camp as Microsoft (which, again, I'm not) so that we can disagree.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:27 am UTC

I fail to see a single thing about two competitors that is not an "impediment to competition". Your definition is so friggin broad that even HAVING a competitor at all is by your definition an impediment to competition.

Is that what you mean to say? Competitors want to make more money than the other guy? If your customers actually have a choice, that's an impediment to your market share!
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:40 am UTC

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This has been so enlightening.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

DanTan
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby DanTan » Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:46 am UTC

since this is my post I figured I would update with more info on the deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/microsoft_ya ... iQMm_q188F

things look rather bleak for yahoo if that news report is correct. Who will win it? Microsoft? Google? a random mostly unheard of 3rd party?

Bored in the North
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:23 pm UTC
Location: The Runcorn Win-ness Bridge

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Bored in the North » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:22 am UTC

Hmm. What will this mean for my beloved Zimbra email and PIM? It's a web-based enterprise-grade email, calendaring, contacts system that was bought by Yahoo last year and has continued to be developed by them (a fancy new version appeared only last month). However, it's in direct competition with Outlook and Exchange, so I very much doubt that Microsoft would want to continue to develop it. I really hope it survives; I've tried so many email and syncing solutions over the years and this is the first one I've found that I actually enjoy using; it pushes mail to my mobile phone, syncs the calendar far more easily than Google, and has a lovely interface. Boo.

User avatar
creativename
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby creativename » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:29 am UTC

Somehow, I don't think any of this is going to matter. I would be highly surprised if Yahoo! actually accepted Microsoft's offer.
Image

User avatar
wery67564
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:23 pm UTC
Location: Joysey

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby wery67564 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:48 pm UTC

Hopefully the winner of this bid will win 700mhz as well, then they will own all the internets, and bradcast them over a wireless signal.

Pure awesomeness all up in the air.

But on the same note, monopolies are bad, not just early 20th century ones, ALL OF THEM!
To exist is to resist.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:22 pm UTC

Odd, I was listening to NPR when this first broke, and they had an analyst talking about the situation who seemed to think that a hostile takeover was a possibility. The article doesn't mention anything about that, however.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby Malice » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:30 pm UTC

I heard on the news today...

To paraphrase:

"Today in the economy: Microsoft is attempting to purchase Yahoo, for 44.6 billion dollars. ... Also, Exxon-Mobile announced that they'd broken earning records, earning 40 billion dollars this year, the most ever made annually by a single US company."

How could you resist that, if you were Yahoo? They could drive dump-trucks full of money up to your house. They could buy you a solid-gold hooker. Instant retirement!
Image

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby mosc » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:52 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This has been so enlightening.
Fine. Lets review:
22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!

Sure, but market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.

So you intergected to highlight, what? According to our later discussion, you were saying that any competition is an impediment to competition. So I guess you chose that moment to highlight that irrelevant of the subject at hand of MONOPOLIES, you wanted to point out that since there is competition going on, it's an impediment to competition. Wow, I'm so glad I understand the comment you were making originally now!
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Microsoft to buy Yahoo

Postby 22/7 » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:47 am UTC

mosc wrote:
22/7 wrote:Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This has been so enlightening.
Fine. Lets review:
22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition, not by their market share. God damn you Microsoft lawyers!

Sure, but market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.

So you intergected to highlight, what? According to our later discussion, you were saying that any competition is an impediment to competition. So I guess you chose that moment to highlight that irrelevant of the subject at hand of MONOPOLIES, you wanted to point out that since there is competition going on, it's an impediment to competition. Wow, I'm so glad I understand the comment you were making originally now!
*sigh* That was me dropping it. Apparently you don't have that line of code.
mosc wrote:Monopolies are defined by their impediment to competition

22/7 wrote:market share (especially a very large market share) is in and of itself an impediment to competition.

mosc wrote:I guess you chose that moment to highlight that irrelevant of the subject at hand of MONOPOLIES
Genius. I'm done with this discussion because of this kind of thing.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests