Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Yahoo! Businesses Social Networks The Internet

Yahoo! Expands Open Web Platform Plans 67

Posted by Soulskill
from the under-construction dept.
Ian Lamont writes "Yahoo has announced it is further opening its Web platform to developers and moving closer to a Facebook-style social networking concept. Yahoo CTO Ari Balogh made the announcement at the Web 2.0 Expo, and said that while Yahoo already has open APIs for some services, it will expand the open API concept to other areas and make it more consistent for developers, while boosting the 'social' aspect of its services for its members. Analysts don't expect this to increase Microsoft's interest in Yahoo!. In fact, recent comments from Steve Ballmer suggest that Microsoft will give up entirely."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo! Expands Open Web Platform Plans

Comments Filter:
  • This sounds similar to the recent story about Google, I'm not surprised though.
    • Re:Sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman@gma i l . c om> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @06:21PM (#23191616) Homepage Journal
      Correct. This smacks of being an entirely reactive maneuver to counter Google's new App Engine [google.com] feature.

      Not to say that Yahoo! doesn't have a real platform to offer. They've been working hard to keep up with Google, and even manage to surpass them in some areas. (Though sadly, we're primarily talking about areas that Google doesn't compete.) It would be an interesting task to do a side-by-side comparison of the two platforms. Sadly, I don't think anyone will take Yahoo! seriously even if it is superior, just because they seem to be chasing Google's tail. Until they start making the big announcements before Google, they're going to always be in second place.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Um... a reactive maneuver to *counter* Google?

        statement of intent [google.com]
        yahoo joins open social [yahoo.com]
        yahoo joins open social [google.com]

        This whole "open initiative" business shouldn't be news to anyone with any clue as to what's going on.

        Granted, I've got a bit more clue to what's going on with this, since I'm a tech lead on this project at Yahoo. That intent agreement isn't just corporate BS. We (that is, actual programmers, not just CxO's) are talking with them on a regular basis. This is very much a cooperative ini

    • by D4rkn1ght (800767)
      I miss the days when Yahoo had a silver background and not too many images. It was made with plain old HTML for faster loading and was more useful. Yahoo, like other so call Web 2.0 sites are a mess of excessive javascript and proprietary browser plugins like flash.

      I'm not 100% against AJAX or Flash, it's the over use of it on situations that it's not requiered.

      Yahoo need to keep their front and news page free of these requirements. If they want to change their look to myspace or facebook they should do
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew (866215)
        Then again, many Yahoo sites are designed to work in all browsers, and you won't see much ActiveX or ASP.

        That's part of why I thought it never made sense for Microsoft to buy them. Would Microsoft allow Microsoft owned web-services running on Apache, and coded in PHP? Would Microsoft demand that Yahoo re-write all their web services? Would they attempt to force the Yahoo user-base into Microsoft web services, and in turn just lose those users that they spent over $40 billion to acquire?
      • what your looking for is http://search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
        www.yahoo.com has changed into a portal for thier content, much like msn, fortunatly google, have left thier portal quite light. the main problem with msn/yahoo is that nobody bothers going to www.yahoo.com for anything other than search (which most people do from firefox or thier googlebar.

        What m$ needs to do is partner with yahoo, so that ie7 uses yahoo searches, that way it might get used instead of people having to install googlebar because live search su
        • Yahoo owns AltaVista. Has for a while, actually.

          `dig altavista.com` for more info.

          In the footer, it says "Overture Services, Inc."

          Overture was acquired by Yahoo back in 2003 (which makes it practically biblical in internet time.)

          • Overture was acquired by Yahoo back in 2003 (which makes it practically biblical in internet time.)


            Nonsense! The entire internet is only 3 years old.

            Don't tell me you're a wing nut that believes in the "old internet theory?"
  • The problem Yahoo! seems to be skirting is that Google has mass adoption already and they can't seem to find a way around it. Google gets this adoption b/c it has its fingers into every online ad outlet known to the Internet gods. Yahoo! needs to get its hands dirty and lay off the technology and fix its business penetration first...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by naoursla (99850)
      Microsoft has already proposed a solution to help Yahoo! fix its business penetration.
      • by zappepcs (820751)
        Not sure how MS is going to help them.

        Flying chairs do not normally penetrate the right objects/areas.

        And if a MS buyout of Yahoo! would help there is no explanation for the utter failure of Microsoft's online businesses thus far.
      • Death by extinction? Remember everyone, suicide is not the answer.
        • by naoursla (99850)
          Does a catepillar commit suicide when it spins a cocoon to transform into a butterfly?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SashaMan (263632)

      Google gets this adoption b/c it has its fingers into every online ad outlet known to the Internet gods.
      Wrong - Google gets this adoption because it has the best search technology. I don't care how many ad outlets Google has - if it didn't have the best search technology no one would use it.
    • You've got a few things backwards there.

      Google doesn't have their fingers into every online ad outlet. They just have the widest search market share. Search ads are the most valuable because they are the most targeted and acted-upon: 1) We know what you want right now (because you entered it in the search box), and 2) You're planning on clicking something very soon.

      Yahoo has much greater mass adoption than google in every other area in which they compete. Yahoo Mail is the single largest email provid

  • Except that Yahoo is joining the networking crowd and Microsoft is well... NOT being joined by anybody. I think it is a good move by Yahoo. So many companies stagnate the market by resisting change even as their product begins to slip. Yahoo choosing to solve the problem before it gets out of hand says something for their business model. Whether or not it works is another story.
  • Balmer again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by splict (1024037) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @07:12PM (#23192200)

    What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary. Maybe some of this is out of context, but Ballmer just amazes me with the things he gets away with saying while still keeping his job.

    Ballmer again repeated that acquiring Yahoo is essential for enabling Microsoft to succeed in the online advertising business, where both companies have been chasing Google.

    Yet just the paragraph before that, the article states:

    At a conference in Milan on Wednesday, CEO Steve Ballmer said Microsoft is "prepared to move forward without merging with Yahoo," according to a transcript provided by the company.

    Ummm... Yeah... That's good for your stockholders (which incidentally through a gift I happen to be one of). I realize this is preparation in case they don't get Yahoo and of course they would move on without them. However, is it really smart to keep clamoring on about how essential they are for you to be competitive yet at the same time making it clear that you now have doubts if you can even do it?

    Maybe I'm just being too hard on him or reading too much into it, but I did just finish rewatching "Pirates of Silicon Valley" last weekend and, well, it's just good fun. ;)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Enderandrew (866215)
      Balmer terrifies me.

      I seriously wonder if he'd be the type of person to eat a baby if he thought it would give him a competetive edge. Perhaps he'd eat four babies just to be sure.
      • by maxume (22995)
        What other advantages that come from eating babies do you use to throw slurs at people?

        Balmer's probably a dick, but that doesn't justify witch hunt style tactics.
        • It's called a joke. I don't believe anyone seriously thinks he eats babies.

          And clearly you don't understand the term "witch hunt style tactics".
          • by maxume (22995)
            Often, jokes are funny.

            And I'm pretty sure that shouting something outrageous and scandalous about someone you don't like or disagree with is exactly a witch hunt style tactic, especially when it is done out of the view of the subject.
      • It's the crazy eyes. He always looks like somebody's tugging at his scalp to keep them so wide open. Also, he's just such a Pollyanna. Nothing Microsoft does is ever admitted as a "mistake" until it gets to WinME proportions.

        Since gaining a competitive edge from eating babies is obviously absurd, I didn't have any trouble telling that your remark was ironic. To start a witch hunt would require an allegation that is horrifying, but plausible. "He acquired a taste for dog meat on a trip to [very poor countr
    • by indiejade (850391)

      What I find more interesting than the "main story" is the article at the last link in the summary.

      Microsoft could walk away from Yahoo deal [itworld.com] Precisely. If investors had wanted to entrust their dollars with Microsoft management, they would have invested in Microsoft stock, not Yahoo! stock.

      Of all the web companies, Yahoo! is actually in one of the best positions to capitalize on changing standards, even moreso than Google, I think; the key word in the previous sentence being "capitalize". Perhaps one of the reasons Microsoft was/is so eager to get its hands on Yahoo is the intangible and intellectua

  • by owlnation (858981) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @07:45PM (#23192496)
    So basically, this is yet another grasping at straws attempt to hold of the wolf at the door, by copying someone else's idea and further diluting their portfolio, and diversifying away from their core business.

    When was the last time Yahoo innovated? In fact, have they ever?

    And there folks is the reason why Yahoo is not long for this World. They've been very lucky to have lasted this long, they really should have gone under with the dotcom bubble.

    Borrowed. Time.
    • Their new web mail system. Mind you Google kicked them into high-gear, but you can drag and drop messages into folders and other nifty-ness like that.
    • Why not judge them on the quality of their products instead of who thought of it first?

      Given msn & yahoos dominance of the IM & webmail markets, i wouldnt write them off yet. If they start integrated these apps into the instant messaging side of thing they could generate much more revenue than googles offerings. Personally i just wish they would do something to stop google from coasting, like actually get good search results and maybe buy a browser?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by owlnation (858981)

        Why not judge them on the quality of their products instead of who thought of it first?

        I very much do. This being another reason why I'm certain they've been living on borrowed time. I agree that Google's dominance of the search market isn't a good thing for anyone, including Google. But Yahoo -- as also Google are now doing -- are resting on their laurels. Search hasn't advanced much for years. Yahoo could do that, but they don't. There's little revenue from IM, and their mail system is a broken spamfest

        • by owlnation (858981)
          If you want further proof of Yahoo's impending demise... this story's been on the front page for about 14 hours. This is the 38th comment.

          No-one cares about Yahoo. No-one. They've no fanbois, they've no apologists, no-one even really even hates them enough to come here and post flamebait libel.

          I bet you even money Yahoo is owned by someone else by the year's end.
        • You use gmail, I use gmail, we all use gmail, and we all know why.

          actually i use yahoo, not by choice or anything, but for webmail i cant be botherd to go around changing regularly, there may be migration in webmail but its going to be slow because nobody cares enough to go through the hastel of changing for very little benefit. The interface isn't that bad, most people want a heavy interface instead of a light one, the load times are reasonable on any connection. As for spam, the spam filter removes all actual spam, all the rubbish in my inbox is because I signed up to

    • I'll tell you where they have the opportunity to innovate in this area: Fantasy Sports. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen any web services available for developers to build fantasy sports applications. If they open up their statistics and games for outside developers to build on, that would be huge.
  • On the one hand, perhaps Ballmer and co. have been listening to all the contempt among well informed techies that the merger is an incredibly stupid idea, and so perhaps we should have kept our mouths shut, and let them accelerate their destruction.

    On the other hand, I'm not sure that would be worth the price of sacrificing Yahoo, warts and all.

    I'm really feeling like Google will be the next tech company to hate. They're not not evil, folks, and the sooner you get used to the idea the better. Th
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Enderandrew (866215)
      Every internet company that does business in China abides by China's laws. Google was the only one to publicly struggle with the concept, and fight it for a while. So that makes them the bad guys.

      Yahoo is the company that VOLUNTEERED data to hand over journalists who wrote about democracy.
  • I used to work at VeriSign and Balogh would regularly make all kinds of meaningless corporate noises that were impossible to parse. But somehow he is considered one of the best CTOs out there -- go figure.

    This Yahoo fiction is a bit better, but the notion that there is a coherent platform there that can be "opened" is laughable. Balogh is just spinning a pleasant new fantasy to slot him up for a nice position of money and power when Microsoft owns the store.

  • by PocketPick (798123) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:56PM (#23194200)
    Call me a fool, but am I the only one who is wondering why we need *MORE* Social Networking? What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content? Informative opinions from knowledgeable sources?

    We're somehow losing sight of this, in favor of "social networking", which really just amounts to cheap content creation that generates large advertising dollars.

    The internet is quickly becoming just one big complaint line - And who will deny that when everyone shouts, no one listens.
    • What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?
      I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.
      • What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?

        I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.

        I can't tell if you're serious or if you just wanted to slip that amusing little grammernazism in. But don't be fooled by this ignorant argument -- this is the same *cult of the amateur* argument debunked over and over 'round these parts. Nothing about participatory news implies everyone's voice is equal.

        • What happened to editorial integrity, with it's provider staking it's credibility on the accuracy it's content?

          I was going to mod you up, but damn, three in one sentence.

          I can't tell if you're serious or if you just wanted to slip that amusing little grammernazism in. But don't be fooled by this ignorant argument -- this is the same *cult of the amateur* argument debunked over and over 'round these parts. Nothing about participatory news implies everyone's voice is equal.

          Except for the fact that as it is currently structured, everyone's voice *is* equal. Reputation is a highly complex social structure, and the way most social reputations are calculated online are either 1) so subjective (personal) as to be valuable only to the person doing the ranking or 2) so objective (mutual) as to make everyone a miasmic shade of grey indiscernible to anyone with a "normal sense of vision" Until online reputation encompasses *both* the subjective and objective (and everything in betw

  • Microsoft should go back to making shitty Operating Systems. Or concentrate on adding support to ODF documents to their reasonably okay office suite (tip to Microsoft - add the support to Office 2003 and ditch 2007). Or even to .... no, don't bother. Microsoft should really really concentrate on being a good and morally improved IT industry citizen, and less of a bully and purveyor of inferior products. Why do they need to have this constant fear of another company having more market share and expertise tha

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.

Working...