Yahoo! and AOL are are now closing in on a deal to combine their Internet operations.Microsoft. And of course, this morning's new was that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is apparently in talks for a joint bid for Yahoo!
An entire sentence from the Slashdot story, on 2008-04-10 at 12:53 PDT:
Microsoft.
The parent comment: "The great slashdot editors apparently thought that Microsoft deserved an entire sentence all to itself."
LOL. It amazes me how little Slashdot editors have learned over the years. Let that be a lesson to anyone who spends time playing video games. You need all your time learning how the world works. There is no time to spend being an angry button-presser.
Or, theory 2, maybe stories about Microsoft only need one proper noun. Articles, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are understood. No need to repeat words like "evil", "Ballmer", "chair", "monopoly", "Chief of Grief", or "Software's Dr. Death".
That's an idea for a story submission. The entire Slashdot story could be just one word, "Microsoft". I'm sure there would be hundreds of comments. I know I'd post my usual comment: "The problem with Vista is that buyers are becoming technically knowledgeable enough that they don't want to be beta testers of a very unfinished product that requires them to buy more powerful hardware. Remember that Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released only 3 years ago. Before that was 3 years during which every Windows XP customer was a beta tester of a very unfinished product that didn't even handle USB very well."
``The AOL-Yahoo thing reminds me of two men drowning, both grabbing on to each other,'' said Mike Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion at Holland & Co. in New York, including Microsoft shares. ``It usually doesn't end in a pretty way or a smart way or an effective way.''
Surprisingly, the OP referred to irony in a correct fashion. The fact that this is called into question just shows how far popular culture has become out of touch with grammar.
How much I sometimes might cringe at the sight of teens typing, on their defence I have to say that language is dynamic. If it's not, it's dead.
The meaning of most words has always changed over time. Learn to live with it, or grow to be a grumpy old man.
I don't take issue with word meaning and grammar changing -- it happens all the time. I take issue with the word meaning NOT changing, but words being used in a cliche that is then misused, to the point where the word itself no longer has any actual meaning in the sentence, other than that someone thought it sounded good.
Another example is "a tough row to hoe" (talking about potato farming) turning into "a tough road to hoe" (which makes no sense). The word "road" has not changed meaning, neither has the word "row" -- but people misuse it in a way that makes the word use and the sentence use cease to have any meaningful contribution to the conversation other than to make the speaker/writer sound more knowledgeable to those who don't know what they are actually trying to say.
For an example of a word that has undergone a myriad of transformations over the years, look at the word "nice". For a simpler example in recent history, there's "gay". For a different kind of transformation where the activity referenced has stayed the same but the connotations have changed, look at the word "jazz".
Proper use of the term irony is more a function of vocabulary and syntax than it is grammar. Grammar is merely structure whereas vocabulary and syntax cover meaning.
At least with AOL+Yahoo you know that the email servers won't be swapped out just to use MS SW. And none of the Yahoo supported OSS software will be turf'd (ie. that Exchange server alternative)
Yea like the end user really cares what the servers are running off of. I really don't care what OS their servers are running off of just as long as their service is fast and reliable to me.
The real issue of a MS Monopily in the search market is that they will leverage IE 7+ and Windows to get all the features leving Macs and Linux user using a Sub Par version of the web site.
Why is MS Scared to death of google? It is because they are offering for Free off the web High Quality application that really don't care on what OS or office suite or browser you use. Grandted google docs is a bit clunky but it has potentional for greatness. And like Microsoft sucesss it just needs a competive advantage not be the best product.
Microsoft is afraid of moving apps off the desktop. In a world where computers boot a simple OS, then open a web browser to get all work (email, documents, spreadsheets, everything else) done scares the hell out of microsoft. That is not the business model that microsoft has been using. I don't think microsoft could switch to that kind of business model any time soon.
And none of the Yahoo supported OSS software will be turf'd (ie. that Exchange server alternative)
There are huge swaths of Open Source beyond the Exchange Server Alturnative, such as a large number of Web services and various Webby 2.0-ish type projects. Check it out here: http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]. The code snips are extreamly valuble tutorials. All this material will either be flushed or monitized onder Microsoft...
My favorite part is the period in time when they got "AOL" pasted across some major motion pictures. It was bad enough when every piece of mail or box you opened resulted in an AOL floppy disk....
News Corp reaches out and tags Microsoft. Microsoft picks up a chair (signature move) and BAM smacks YAHOO across the back! Yahoo stumbles over and tags AOL, who does a Flying forearm smash to the face...
Starting to feel like we need a claymation Deathmatch for this.
In the mean time, AltaVista is standing quietly in the corner nursing its drink, trying to muster up the courage to ask ChaCha for a dance. Awwwww:(
Do a search on Alta Vista some time, the results have Yahoo! stamped all over them. Whether that's because the results come from Yahoo! or Yahoo! provides any ads or something else I don't know.
If News Corp outbids Microsoft for Yahoo!, will I still be able to search for information about Democrats using their site, or will it be a fair and balanced search engine?
you will find all the Democratic information just fine, just with the good bits "edited" out. Just as all the Republican info will be on show, with the bad bits missing....
And there will be more Blonde Buxom babes on the search pages...(WooHoo more Asus beach babe pics!)
AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.
The bigger a company is, the more cultural inertia it has, the less willing it is to try something new. Would strapping AOL's "never change anything" mentality to any company make it better? At least Microsoft has occasionally given one of its subdivisions such free-reign that it's been able to innovate (Microsoft mice, xbox360's networking features). Still, MS is mostly extra baggage.
Yahoo by itself is already producing tons of different services [wikipedia.org], on the off-chance that a handful will be successful. Combining with someone larger will certainly slow that down. Would that slowdown be offset by making some more likely to be successful? I doubt it.
AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.
It does me. You see right now in some markets there is competition, but MS is one of the players and they are breaking antitrust law to artificially gain more market share. When they manage to have enough market, they intentionally break compatibility to undermine competition (illegally). Then they try to use that to move into the next market and gain share not by offering something better, but by tying it to something you already have to use because MS has monopolized it.
The little boys in Redmond (Ballmer no exception regardless of his girth) have always been a bit delusional. If 90% of a market is held by one company in one market and that is anti-competitive then 90% of a market held by one company in the OS market is obviously anti-competitive.
The Redmond boys need to stick to copying software ideas and stay out of the big boy markets where they obviously are limited in mental maturity.
The little boys in Redmond have always been a bit delusional. If 90% of a market is held by one company in one market and that is anti-competitive then 90% of a market held by one company in the OS market is obviously anti-competitive.
Not delusional. Pragmatic.
"IBM and the Seven Dwarfs." Intel and AMD. Microsoft and Apple. Photoshop and "?" The tech sector has never been known for its competitive balance.
But to control 90% of the search based add market has very large implications.
I'm inclined to agree with techdirt's analysis... this is an indication that the big players are taking their eyes off the ball. The more mergers/reshuffling/synergistic-focus-shifting that goes on among these companies, the more opportunity there is for an small, innovative and efficient company to step into the void.
Looking at Time Warner's annual report you can see that from FY05 to FY07, AOL revenues are down 36%. Conversely, operating income excluding one-time items is up 21%.
This implies that the AOL division has remained profitable primarily by cost cutting, not by natural growth in its business. For example, it took them $7.52 to generate $1 of operating income in 2005. That ratio (revenue/operating income) is now down to $3.89.
Yahoo's business, on the other hand, is the mirror image of AOL's. Revenues from 2005-2007 are up 32.55%, while operating income is down 66.61%. This is mainly due to operating costs increasing 67% in the same period.
So essentially, you have a business, AOL, who sucks at generating revenue but is good at cutting costs, being bought out by a business, Yahoo, that is good at generating revenues (we'll see whether that holds in a recessionary environment), but horrible at keeping costs under control. If the two managements can learn from each other, this combination might actually work out for shareholders.
Of course, for Yahoo employees, it means pack your desks up because heads are rolling if YahAOL is formed.
This morning's new (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This morning's new (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
LOL. No articles, adjectives, verbs, adverbs reqd. (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft.
The parent comment: "The great slashdot editors apparently thought that Microsoft deserved an entire sentence all to itself."
LOL. It amazes me how little Slashdot editors have learned over the years. Let that be a lesson to anyone who spends time playing video games. You need all your time learning how the world works. There is no time to spend being an angry button-presser.
Or, theory 2, maybe stories about Microsoft only need one proper noun. Articles, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are understood. No need to repeat words like "evil", "Ballmer", "chair", "monopoly", "Chief of Grief", or "Software's Dr. Death".
That's an idea for a story submission. The entire Slashdot story could be just one word, "Microsoft". I'm sure there would be hundreds of comments. I know I'd post my usual comment: "The problem with Vista is that buyers are becoming technically knowledgeable enough that they don't want to be beta testers of a very unfinished product that requires them to buy more powerful hardware. Remember that Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released only 3 years ago. Before that was 3 years during which every Windows XP customer was a beta tester of a very unfinished product that didn't even handle USB very well."
Parent
DEFENSE! (Score:3)
C'mon. Yahoo is pluckings now. Default to Google, if no Microsoft buy.
Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confirm. (Score:2)
Yup, Yahoo! is now officially dead and the buzzards are just fighting to see who gets to rip off the more choice hunks of meat from the bones.
Sad, but everybody should have seen this coming for at least five years so it is hard to be shocked or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
``The AOL-Yahoo thing reminds me of two men drowning, both grabbing on to each other,'' said Mike Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion at Holland & Co. in New York, including Microsoft shares. ``It usually doesn't end in a pretty way or a smart way or an effective way.''
Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, Yahoo! is now officially dead and the buzzards are just fighting to see who gets to rip off the more choice hunks of meat from the bones.
Wow, $4 billions in profits [google.com] is dead?
FalconParent
Re:Yahoo is dying, Netcraft doesn't need to confir (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This morning's new (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Post your original submission here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Post your original submission here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Ironically? (Score:2)
Ironically? I would have said "Cynically", even if for once Microsoft has a valid point!
.
Re: (Score:2)
Fsck Ironically, Cynically... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The meaning of most words has always changed over time. Learn to live with it, or grow to be a grumpy old man.
Re:Ironically? (Score:4, Interesting)
Another example is "a tough row to hoe" (talking about potato farming) turning into "a tough road to hoe" (which makes no sense). The word "road" has not changed meaning, neither has the word "row" -- but people misuse it in a way that makes the word use and the sentence use cease to have any meaningful contribution to the conversation other than to make the speaker/writer sound more knowledgeable to those who don't know what they are actually trying to say.
For an example of a word that has undergone a myriad of transformations over the years, look at the word "nice". For a simpler example in recent history, there's "gay". For a different kind of transformation where the activity referenced has stayed the same but the connotations have changed, look at the word "jazz".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe that's really "a tough road to ho", meaning, it's a difficult street for prostitutes to earn a living on?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, bad grammar can mangle meaning though.
IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (Score:4, Insightful)
The real issue of a MS Monopily in the search market is that they will leverage IE 7+ and Windows to get all the features leving Macs and Linux user using a Sub Par version of the web site.
Why is MS Scared to death of google? It is because they are offering for Free off the web High Quality application that really don't care on what OS or office suite or browser you use. Grandted google docs is a bit clunky but it has potentional for greatness. And like Microsoft sucesss it just needs a competive advantage not be the best product.
Parent
microsoft afraid of moving away from the desktop (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IMO: AOL+Yahoo is better than MS+Yahoo (Score:5, Funny)
You gotta admit though, "Goohoo" just might be worth it for the name alone.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are huge swaths of Open Source beyond the Exchange Server Alturnative, such as a large number of Web services and various Webby 2.0-ish type projects. Check it out here: http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]. The code snips are extreamly valuble tutorials. All this material will either be flushed or monitized onder Microsoft...
AOL is so cute... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AOL is so cute... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Did I have a point?
Heh they should all merge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Late night Fights (Score:4, Funny)
Yahoo stumbles over and tags AOL, who does a Flying forearm smash to the face...
Starting to feel like we need a claymation Deathmatch for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Alta Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
In the mean time, AltaVista is standing quietly in the corner nursing its drink, trying to muster up the courage to ask ChaCha for a dance. Awwwww :(
Do a search on Alta Vista some time, the results have Yahoo! stamped all over them. Whether that's because the results come from Yahoo! or Yahoo! provides any ads or something else I don't know.
FalconYahoo and AOL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
News Corp. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would *any* be an improvement? (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.
The bigger a company is, the more cultural inertia it has, the less willing it is to try something new. Would strapping AOL's "never change anything" mentality to any company make it better? At least Microsoft has occasionally given one of its subdivisions such free-reign that it's been able to innovate (Microsoft mice, xbox360's networking features). Still, MS is mostly extra baggage.
Yahoo by itself is already producing tons of different services [wikipedia.org], on the off-chance that a handful will be successful. Combining with someone larger will certainly slow that down. Would that slowdown be offset by making some more likely to be successful? I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL+Yahoo doesn't strike me as being able to produce better services than Yahoo alone could. Or MS+Yahoo. Or any other combination.
It does me. You see right now in some markets there is competition, but MS is one of the players and they are breaking antitrust law to artificially gain more market share. When they manage to have enough market, they intentionally break compatibility to undermine competition (illegally). Then they try to use that to move into the next market and gain share not by offering something better, but by tying it to something you already have to use because MS has monopolized it.
Basically, anyone but MS, is a g
Well, crap... (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else?
I'd also like to be taken into consideration as the father of Anna Nicole's baby.
Creepy AOL+Yahoo merger image (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd say this but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Delusional boys in Redmond (Score:3, Insightful)
The Redmond boys need to stick to copying software ideas and stay out of the big boy markets where they obviously are limited in mental maturity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not delusional. Pragmatic.
"IBM and the Seven Dwarfs." Intel and AMD. Microsoft and Apple. Photoshop and "?" The tech sector has never been known for its competitive balance.
But to control 90% of the search based add market has very large implications.
It would be as if one
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Score:4, Funny)
Yahoo + AOL = Good
Yahoo + AOL + Microsoft = Bad
Yahoo + AOL + News Corp = Ugly
Merging (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo Shareholders Could Benefit from this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at Time Warner's annual report you can see that from FY05 to FY07, AOL revenues are down 36%. Conversely, operating income excluding one-time items is up 21%.
This implies that the AOL division has remained profitable primarily by cost cutting, not by natural growth in its business. For example, it took them $7.52 to generate $1 of operating income in 2005. That ratio (revenue/operating income) is now down to $3.89.
Yahoo's business, on the other hand, is the mirror image of AOL's. Revenues from 2005-2007 are up 32.55%, while operating income is down 66.61%. This is mainly due to operating costs increasing 67% in the same period.
So essentially, you have a business, AOL, who sucks at generating revenue but is good at cutting costs, being bought out by a business, Yahoo, that is good at generating revenues (we'll see whether that holds in a recessionary environment), but horrible at keeping costs under control. If the two managements can learn from each other, this combination might actually work out for shareholders.
Of course, for Yahoo employees, it means pack your desks up because heads are rolling if YahAOL is formed.