Google And Microsoft Cross Swords Over Yahoo!

watzinaneihm writes "In a blog post Google has called Yahoo/Microsoft merger bad for the future of the internet. It is worried about the number of email and IM accounts this merged entity would control. Microsoft has countered with the argument that Google is actually the big bully in this instance, with most of the search market already tied up. The New York Times, in the meantime, has accused Google of a Microsoft fixation."

Microsoft fixation?

[Loibisch (964797)]

The New York Times, in the meantime, has accused Google of a Microsoft fixation.

It's more like Ballmer has a Google fixation. Microsoft really can't stand being second to anybody in any field...

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[techpawn (969834)]

Not really sure it would be a fixation, maybe a kind of envy complex... When you see something and wonder why you don't have it too you develop a complex of envy to obtain it in one way or another... Right Sigmund?

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[dhavleak (912889)]

Microsoft has a google fixation? Or envy complex??

MS woke up late to the internet. Once they woke up, their attempts at gaining a foothold were more or less unsuccessful. The offer on Yahoo is just them realizing that their web strategy needs a course correction pronto. They've built a good search engine (live.com) and ad-platform, but they can't monetize it right now because nobody goes there. Acquiring Yahoo is one of they ways to solve that problem. Yahoo has other assets that will tie in well with a software+services strategy.

It's really that simple. MS realizes that its business model is under threat, and it's making adjustments before the pain is felt rather than after. No fixation, no envy -- just business as usual.

We know what Steve Ballmer thinks of Google:

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

"No fixation, no envy -- just business as usual." We know what Steve Ballmer thinks of Google: Ballmer Throws A Chair At "F*ing Google" [battellemedia.com].

Quotes:

At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." ....

Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay... A

Dead souls

[Serious Callers Only (1022605)]

MS woke up late to the internet. Once they woke up, their attempts at gaining a foothold were more or less unsuccessful.

Indeed. However this move is possibly their most bone-headed reaction yet. I have no doubt it's straight from the brain of Steve I'm going to fucking kill Google [smh.com.au] Ballmer. Acquiring Yahoo is another attempt to tame the internet and tie it to Windows services, and it will fail as dismally as the last few attempts, because the internet (and Yahoo) is the antithesis of Microsoft.

Users on the web don't like being 'monetized' unless there's something in it for them, and they'll resist attempts by MS to change that balance of power. Those attempts by MS to exploit users are inevitable because it's just not in Ballmer's (or Microsoft's) DNA to let users get something for nothing.

For Microsoft as a company, swallowing Yahoo whole is going to create many more problems than it solves. It will drive the good engineers to Google (very few of Yahoo's people could thrive under the entirely different MS culture), it'll give Microsoft lots of new properties which directly compete with their own offerings, it'll make all the MS Live employees very nervous and trigger more internal turf wars, and finally, it will land MS with servicing lots of disgruntled users on services like Flickr who will desert in droves at the first attempt to corral them into an MS only internet (as MS is prone to do - see ActiveX, IE, Silverlight, etc). Their business model (lock in the users and milk them for profits) isn't under threat, it's past its sell by date; you can't continually abuse your users forever and expect them never to walk away, particularly not if you're trying to operate as a web services company, and I have my doubts that Ballmer et al will ever learn this lesson. They've done too well in the past by applying it to abandon it now.

Still, if you don't work at Yahoo, and you're not keen on Microsoft dominating yet another market, this foolish move is heartening news. Google must be celebrating the beginning of the end of the dark ages of the internet. This will tie up MS for years.

Are you really that deluded?

[Asmor (775910)]

They, Microsoft, are still missing the cause. They are under threat because of who and what they are. Buying Yahoo will not fix things. It will make things even worse for them. If this happens, people will leave Yahoo services in droves because the big bully monopolist, aka Evil Empire, bought them out.

Are you really that deluded that you think the average person dislikes Microsoft on a moral level? Some people may be annoyed with Windows or other MS products, but most people wouldn't have any objection to using a Microsoft project based solely on the fact that it's a Microsoft product.

Remember, what is a self-evident truth to you is not to everyone. The anti-Microsoft sentiment is almost exclusive to the geek crowd, which is a teeny tiny minority, and it's hardly universal among even us.

Re:

[thedlw (1007823)]

Amen to that. What would happen if linux replaced windows as the dominant desktop platform? Microsoft would start sueing anyone or go buy up ubuntu just to stamp microsoft on it.

Re:

[Loibisch (964797)]

The day they're buying Ubuntu (and make a *nix based system part of their supported portfolio) would be the day that marks their end. Microsoft would be losing their most prized possession: their locked-in market.

Re:

[rcamera (517595)]

you mean like in the '80s [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[Stormwatch (703920)]

The day they're buying Ubuntu (and make a *nix based system part of their supported portfolio) would be the day that marks their end.

They had one before. Ever heard of Xenix?

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

. However this was a long time ago and they did not really have the market dominance they have today.

You kids! Haven't you ever heard of MS-DOS [wikipedia.org]? MS-DOS was the dominant operating system for PCs in the 1980s. Contrary to popular belief among people who are either too young to remember or were too computer illiterate in the 1980s to remember, Microsoft did not build its monopoly on Windows. The Microsoft juggernaut built its multi-billion dollar empire not on Windows, but on MS-DOS. Now you kids get off my lawn!

Re:

[BeanThere (28381)]

There is nothing subjective about it at all - the technical facets of the architecture of different systems are facts held in stone, and can, broadly speaking, scientifically and reliably even be tested by various measures. You can reliably test speed of fundamental OS X system calls (e.g. slower than the corresponding Linux calls, as I recall one benchmark showed a while back), for example, or reliably see how Windows Memory Management behaves under certain conditions (point of fact, horrible under any nor

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[somersault (912633)]

Maybe they just have nice people at Google who have noticed that Microsoft is ruining the world of computing and that we could do with competition and/or replacement in several areas.

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[jez9999 (618189)]

Mods: what is funny about the parent comment?

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[somersault (912633)]

I wondered that too. Even better is that you've been modded as funny. I reckon someone's riding the ganja train

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[antek9 (305362)]

I guess Ballmer just got mod points at the right time.

Re:Microsoft fixation?

[elrous0 (869638)]

It's funny because it presumes that Google is any less a greedy, sleazy corporation than MS. May I remind you that this is the same Google that scours its Chinese search engine of naughty terms like "democracy" just so it can make a few extra bucks?

The only "do no evil" that Google cares about is "do no evil to the stockholders and profits."

In fear of getting utterly cut up...

[AdamReyher (862525)]

...I'm actually going to have to side with Microsoft on this one. On rather, I'm going to side with no one. The idea that this would make Microsoft a bigger "monopoly" is unfounded because neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has anywhere close to the highest marketshare of online searches or advertising. If we're so concerned about monopolies, competition in the field can only be a good thing. And at the rate it was going, unless something like this happened, no one would ever be able to stop Google.

Re:

[dattaway (3088)]

So if I understand you correctly, the way for a monopoly to be stopped is to have a competing monopoly buy its nearest competitor?

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

So if I understand you correctly, the way for a monopoly to be stopped is to have a competing monopoly buy its nearest competitor?

Monopoly. As in one. This means there can only be one at a time. EVAR. Get some education, boi.

Re:In fear of getting utterly cut up...

[name*censored* (884880)]

What has goggle done outside search and context sensitive advertising that's innovative?

The goggles, they do NOTHING!

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

I'm not so sure anyone has a fear of monopolies, as long as they do a decent job. The thing is that when someone/something lacks any competition they tend to lose their drive to better themselves, or maybe just don't realise how much potential they have to better themselves, and the direction to proceed in.

Re:In fear of getting utterly cut up...

[jez9999 (618189)]

Screw whether anyone has a monopoly in the search market; Google frankly deserve that monopoly (not exactly at Windows levels, though; only 75%) because they're THE BEST SEARCH ENGINE.

Now, if Google bought out Yahoo instead, that would be likely to lead a a lot of positive things:
- Some degree of maintenance of the Yahoo brand (MS would obliterate it)
- Promotion of backend opensource architecture (MS would enforce MS products)
- Less likelihood of services being charged for (MS would ruthlessly monetize all Yahoo services as much as possible)

Frankly, I just hate Microsoft's whole money-making diversity-killing business ethos, and you have to realise that a MS buyout of Yahoo would be a pretty terrible thing. :-(

Re:

[Aqualung812 (959532)]

Google frankly deserve that monopoly (not exactly at Windows levels, though; only 75%) because they're THE BEST SEARCH ENGINE.

Says jez9999. What if 75% of computer users said that Windows is the best OS? My guess is they might, if for no other reason that lack of trying other OSes. Does that make all of the MS monoploy talk invalid now? Or, does that at least mean that MS deserves their monopoly? Sounds like you think so.

Re:In fear of getting utterly cut up...

[BeanThere (28381)]

It's a thousand times easier to switch search engines than it is to switch OSs. Google grew very quickly (from nothing) BECAUSE it's such a fungible product and they were so much better. A better search engine could just as easily grab that share away again. (You can't argue 'but, but, value of Google brand' either because Google's brand only became valuable after their search engine became popular, people don't get locked into "brands". And in any case, MS and Yahoo both have well-known brands.)

In any case, Google's product isn't a search engine, it's online advertising. And also, in any case, it is pretty much hard to argue that Google gained their search monopoly by making the best mousetrap, and that Microsoft gained their Windows monopoly by strategy, lock-in, user ignorance and marketing. It doesn't invalidate anything, wtf!??!

Re:

[theskipper (461997)]

The idea that this would make Microsoft a bigger "monopoly" is unfounded because neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has anywhere close to the highest marketshare of online searches or advertising.

Well, ok, but isn't the true fear that they'll have the ammunition to slowly eat their way into another monopoly position?

Imagine in five years a world where Microsoft handles 60% of search traffic. The screws start turning from that point and there's no going back, just like Windows.

Re:

[ricebowl (999467)]

And at the rate it was going, unless something like this happened, no one would ever be able to stop Google.

Does Google need to be 'stopped'? Really? I thought the purpose of competition in the market was not to 'stop' a business but to spur innovation and development to the better-satisfaction of the consumer.

While, for online advertising, the consumer is not the customer (for Google at least the customers are the businesses purchasing ad-space), the consumer still has the power, through use or non-use,

Re:

[hey! (33014)]

The problem isn't monopoly per se. The problem is the use of a monopoly in one area to leverage competitors out of a different one. It's hardly a victory for competition if Microsoft integrates Yahoo services with Windows and forces every OEM to bundle them.

If Microsoft was offering to spin off MSN and merge it with Yahoo, I'd be all for it.

Re:In fear of getting utterly cut up...

[syzler (748241)]

The idea that this would make Microsoft a bigger "monopoly" is unfounded because neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has anywhere close to the highest marketshare of online searches or advertising.

While I agree that Google almost certainly has the lion's share of searches, the article specifically mentioned IM and e-mail. The majority of the non-techy people I know use either MSN, Yahoo!, or AIM for instant messaging and e-mail. The only people I know using Google Talk are my co-workers and one of my non-techy friends.

Microsoft will probably not be very willing to work with Google to integrate Google Talk with either MSN IM or Yahoo IM. This will effectively split IM into two camps. In one camp there will be MSN IM and Yahoo! IM. In the other camp you will have Google Talk, AIM, and .Mac. Somewhere between the two camps, probably closer to the the Google/AIM/.Mac camp, will be Jabber services.

Google is already working to integrate Google Talk with AIM: Time Warner's AOL and Google to Expand Strategic Alliance [google.com]. AIM and .Mac are already talking together: iChat [apple.com]. Since Jabber already works with Google Talk, I would not be surprised if the integration between Google Talk and AIM is done via a Jabber server to server interface which would allow Jabber servers to talk to the AIM network as well.

From Google's blog:

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?

I too am afraid that Microsoft will attempt to quash any attempts to provide inter operability between different IM providers and will likely succeed since it will control the lion's share of IM accounts. Although Google has the lion's share of the search market, they at least provide or try to provide inter operability with other companies and do not try to lock competitors out of a particular business model.

Re:

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

The concern isn't that Google has a lot of the search engine market, the concern is that Microsoft, who is an OS monopoly and a former (and still near) browser monopoly, will use their monopoly in adjacent markets to attack the the search engine market.

Having a monopoly is fine, abusing it isn't. Google (if you call 2/3rds a monopoly) hasn't been shown to abuse its position, while Microsoft has in the past and very well might again.

Competition

[caution live frogs (1196367)]

I love how Microsoft's take on the merger is that it will create more competition. Why is it that any time a big company swallows a smaller one, we're told that having fewer players in the field will increase competition? Do people actually buy that line of bull? Someone get these guys a dictionary.

Re:Competition

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

In this instance, it may not be accurate to say that a big company is swallowing a smaller one. In this case, it might be more accurate to say they are rescuing it. Obviously Yahoo wasn't going to vanish, but in terms of search engine usage, it's nowhere close to Google. This might boost that area and introduce a real rival to Google. In which case it really will increase competition.

Re:Competition

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Obviously Yahoo wasn't going to vanish, but in terms of search engine usage, it's nowhere close to Google.

Right, which is why a long time ago Yahoo began to diversify their offerings. They're not #1 in any field, but they are reasonably strong players in a dozen or so other fields.

Re:Competition

[Monx (742514)]

Most fields do not wind up dominated by a monopoly. Who has a monopoly in the tire industry? What about the stapler market? Nobody holds a monopoly in screen-ruler software.

Being foremost in your field does not make you a monopoly.

Both Ubuntu and Apple have real competitors. In order to be a monopoly you have to have no competitors of note. There's also nothing illegal about being a monopoly.

In order to be an illegal monopoly, you have to use your lack of competition in to prevent others from entering the market to compete with you (perhaps in another field). Remember when Microsoft effectively forced the OEMs not to sell Linux PCs? That's a monopoly at work. Neither Apple nor Ubuntu has that much power.

Erm... two entities fixated with each other...

[Aphrika (756248)]

...normally marry, don't they?

While it's obvious that MS has a certain fixation with Google - the new kids on the block - I'm also sure that it flows the other way too. Microsoft have developed core markets that Google is moving into, which I would wager is what got them rattled initially. However, with MS potentially buying Yahoo, the table does turn slightly and it becomes a case of MS parking their tanks on Google's lawn.

And there isn't anyone else out there big enough to do that to be honest... althou

Ain't no fair! We patented it.

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

MSFT countered the Google announcement that, "What Google is doing is throwing some FUD. Trying to scare people using monopoly, proprietary and other such terms. MSFT considers this tactic illegal, since we have innovated, invented and patented the FUD technique. We consider all forms of FUD dissemination to be an exclusive intellectual property right of MSFT and nobody else has any legitimate claim to it. We will add this to the tally to 293 patent violations against MSFT by Linux and its accomplice Google."

Here's Google Falling

[webword (82711)]

When GOOG starts crying about competition, for whatever reason, you know that Web 2.0 is facing some serious issues. They should actually *want* the competition because they know that competition keeps them pushing hard to innovate.

Look, GOOG owns both search and online advertising right now. Not, not 100% "owns" but the marketshare for both is well over 50%.

Oh, and take a look at GOOG's share price:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GOOG&t=5y [yahoo.com]

They've been sliding down since about middle of November. What r

Re:

[cbart387 (1192883)]

When GOOG starts crying about competition, for whatever reason, you know that Web 2.0 is facing some serious issues.

Is the word 'web 2.0' anything more then a buzzword to make the internet 'cool again'? Can't we just call it 'same web, but with more pain-in-the-ass javascript functions for developers to write'? Anyways ...

It seems to me that innovation usually comes from the 'new kids on the block'. All these people are trying to predict the who's going to bring the newest idea. I don't think that's something you can predict. All the current players have done their trick and the 'newest innovation' will likely f

Convicted monoply abuser much?

[by Anonymous Coward]

So Google voice a legitimate worry about Microsoft, a company convicted of abusing its monopoly status in one market to dominate other markets, buying a company that would give them a large portion of a market and they are the bad guys in this? Lets be honest what Google is saying is the first thing that came to the minds of everyone in IT who are not on the Microsoft payroll. We all know how Microsoft works and we can all hazard a guess at what their aims are in attempting to purchase Yahoo. It is doubtful the good of the internet and consumers are particularly high on their list of priorities.

Google is Scared

[briggsb (217215)]

That's why they're exiting their Internet businesses [bbspot.com]. But seriously, you'd think Google would be encouraging the merger. They can concentrate on eliminating one flailing competitor instead of two.

Yahoogle

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

I, for one, welcome our new Yahoogle-powered Anti-Microsoft overlords.

Fixation?

[whisper_jeff (680366)]

Google has a Microsoft fixation? Ok, I'm not willing to argue that, but I think the fixation railroad runs both ways. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is more than a little pre-occupied with Google.

What Internet ?

[alexhs (877055)]

Google has called Yahoo/Microsoft merger bad for the future of the internet

Yeah, but who wants an Internet anyway ? Certainly not Microsoft, MPAA or RIAA...

Microsoft would prefer a controlled^Wsecured Microsoft(r) Inter-Network, let's call it MSN for short :P

Whatever...

[fearlezz (594718)]

in a few years Google is buying Microsoft anyway.

Its their chance to get "silverlight" out there

[Chrisq (894406)]

People can switch search-engines every day, but groups not so. How many groups or mailing lists do you belong to? How many of those are yahoo groups. I would be very surprised if anyone belonged to half a dozen groups or more without at least one being yahoo.

Moving a group is difficult, and it need the owner to want to. If you are a member you could set up a rival, but the chances are you would end up talking to yourself. Now suppose those groups switched to Silverlight (for a richer user experience) and required IE7 running on windows to access. This would be a big downer for any competitive desktops.

a fixation..

[crossmr (957846)]

if anyone in the computing industry doesn't have a Microsoft fixation, you should probably stay away from them. You never know what MS will do next and given their market share that isn't exactly something you want to be oblivious to.

Big bully?

[BeanThere (28381)]

Google's entire annual revenue fits into Microsoft's profit margin alone. Google is small compared to Microsoft. A little hard to be the 'big bully'. And unlike Microsoft's more diversified revenue stream, Google pretty much relies on one comparatively fragile market, online advertising, a market Microsoft wasn't even interested in until long after Google dmeonstrated it could be so lucrative.

If MS wants to beat Google at online marketing, they should offer better deals to affiliate sites and advertisers.

Google right, Microsoft wrong: and why -

[Catbeller (118204)]

Google is right to object -- and to block by helping Yahoo -- because Microsoft is an intensively abusive monopoly by culture and history and conviction. They're the neighborhood predator, and everyone living there knows it.

Google has become successful by being very good at what it does and does it without abusing its power. Microsoft, well, if the Gentle Reader can't recite a litany of even the most recent abuses, it's useless for me to list them. Go, Google.

Google Blocking Microsoft

[jetpack (22743)]

As I understand it, Microsoft intends to control Yahoo! by buying a majority share of Yahoo! stock. If that is the case, couldn't Google choose to buy just enough Yahoo! stock such that Microsoft would be incapable of purchasing a majority? Google would not then control Yahoo! but would prevent Microsoft from doing so.

Is this a possible outcome?

You are forgetting something.

[AltGrendel (175092)]

When it's Godzilla vs Godzilla, Tokyo gets trashed either way.