Google Kills Yahoo Ad Deal 79
mytrip writes "Google has pulled the plug on on a search-ad partnership with Yahoo that would have given Yahoo major new revenue but that raised antitrust concerns. 'After four months of review, including discussions of various possible changes to the agreement, it's clear that government regulators and some advertisers continue to have concerns about the agreement,' said David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer in a blog post Wednesday."
Re:DOJ & antitrust (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, money talks. Giving *some* jobs to Americans doesn't hurt MS either. Of course, we geeks can also see all the contracting, offshoring, and H1B nonsense they're pulling...
Re:What This Means (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my God, no it wasn't. Yang was treating Yahoo like it was still his company, when in fact it belongs to the shareholders. There was no reasonable way to run Yahoo's numbers and think the stock would be worth what Microsoft was paying within any reasonable time frame.
Actually, this is something of a coup by Google. They screwed both Microsoft and Yahoo without spending a dime.
Re:I'm glad the government is in on this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has a very special place in society now given their success and they have a social duty--an obligation if you will--to provide society with quick and effective searches.
The only duty google has is to please it's shareholders, if you were to 'redistribute' the wealth of large companies that annoy you like you say, well that isn't exactly encouraging for people to try to form successful companies is it, what with them putting in the work and collectively everyone else getting the profit.
to our right to access to Google's search servers.
yes, because you have an inalienable human right to access corporately owned servers, you see.... surely even you must see how fallacious this is.
You wouldn't complain if it were MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Google was about to enter a deal with Yahoo that may have caused a monopoly of sorts (and infested the place with IFRAMEs, how can you not hate IFRAMEs?). The DoJ said they were worried about it. Google pulled out. End of. They saved money instead of waiting for the court case and going through years of appeals and spending millions/billions.
yeah, blame google (Score:4, Insightful)
Not M$ who first ruined their stock by proxy, then whispered 'antitrust' long enough into the appropriate ears so Google had to cease supporting Yahoo.
Yahoo could be fine (Score:5, Insightful)
They do have an extended userbase, and there is value in that, but they are right back where they found their stock price 8 years ago for a reason--a failure to innovate in an industry that values effective innovation over all things. I mean, it takes them several years to copy what Google did years ago...new management is needed (but not MS! that would be a disaster for both companies).
Re:You wouldn't complain if it were MS (Score:1, Insightful)
They are 'doing their job' by ensuring that a 'threatening' (note the quotes) monopoly doesn't form.
I just think they aren't looking at the big picture, looking at one outcome and missing the alternatives. "Never ascribe to malice..." and all that. By threatening to investigate, they are guaranteeing the competitive landscape gets *worse*. Which of the following is a better market share distribution?
(a) 65 25 10
(b) 70 20 10
(c) 85 15
(d) 70 30
(a) is basically what we have now. Unfortunately it doesn't look like Yahoo can survive purely on its own, so this is no longer an option. (b) is what could happen if the DOJ simply came out and said "We're fine with a Yahoo/Google deal, but you have to limit it to 20% of your impressions", but the DOJ didn't say that, instead being quiet and hiring a litigator. (c) is what happens if Yahoo dies or gets run into the ground (remaining companies eat up the void). (d) is what happens if MS buys Yahoo (Some ground will be lost during integration, just look at other mergers for why).
The DOJ has now all but guaranteed that (c) or (d) will happen. That is a worse situation than a "yes with strings attached" answer they could have given to the deal months ago. It is true that if the DOJ said "do whatever you want", then the situation could be worse (a 90/10 split), but there's a lot of shades of gray between an unconditional yes and "No."
Re:More economics terms (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing Google functionality to water. That's ridiculous. Water is fundamentally necessary to life. Google is not.
Did we manage before Google came around? You bet.
Would we cope if Google closed their doors tomorrow morning? You bet.
[offtopic]
Microsoft, like any other company, does not REALLY have an obligation to customers, they can close whenever they want. They shouldn't be able to disable software that you have PAID for without notice. What DRM'd music store attempted to close their doors and disable their DRM servers? Yahoo I think it was.
Corporations have an obligation to stockholders, and that's it. To think otherwise is completely naive.
[/offtopic]
Re:I'm glad the government is in on this. (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it is? What if it isn't, and it's a mistake? So what. You're proposing that the government should rule on what's in a given company's shareholders' best interests?
then providing free searches is fundamental to my success
And business models never change? What, do you still have your job at the telegraph office, bicycling Western Union paper scraps around town? Businesses evolve, and pursue what they please. Should the government be forcing AOL to back into mailing around CDs full of dial-up internet access software?
this is getting so far away from the point that it's getting ridiculous
No, it's not. Because the issue is whether or not government should be making business decisions for private businesses. We've just enhanced the power of a political party that thinks government should be more involved in businesses, more involved in your personal life, and more involved in specifically who should actually receive the money you earn... so ANY topic that brushes up against that philosophical issue is actually very pointed.
Re:yeah, blame google (Score:1, Insightful)
I was sure someone would blame Microsoft for Yahoos lack of a business and Yangs lack of common sense.