Letters to the Editor
-
Irrelevant
Just because Microsoft and Yahoo are fighting has no bearing on how a combined company would deal with Google. While "Google might be loving" the acrimony, if a combined company competes effectively with Google, then all of the proxy fights in the world won't change that.
Also, it seems a bit naive to take Steve Ballmer's comments about a "happy marriage" at face value. Ballmer wants the company, and the fact that he is willing to do a proxy fight indicates he wants it at the expense of any good feelings.
Whether all of this is beneficial or not is to be seen.
-
@Electro Robot again
I guess I'm disagreeing with you on what locks someone in. I don't want to sound condescending but I think your definition is kind of out dated and too strict. Any software where you get used to using it so much that you would never leave, even if there's a better one out there, has you locked in. Take the QWERTY keyboard for example. We're all locked into it, even though we all know there are better ones out there. Now, I'm not saying there are better search engines, or email services, out there than Google but people wont use them. We're locked into google. Just like businesses get locked into using MS Excel.
Mike
MS was first HQ'd in NM? Really? I did not know that. Mind providing a link?
-
@Farhad,
First, I stand by my assertion that linking to an article that largely discusses a merger of govt agencies---despite a reference to a somewhat out-of-context opinion about corporate mergers-- is a very wobbly leg to stand on. Pehaps a look at previous MSFT acquisitions (and this is an acquisition, not a merger, especially if it goes to the shareholders, as now seems likely) would be a tad more relevant-- their track record is quite good. "Most mergers dont work" is a ludicrously broad statement and has little relevance to this particular acquisition. The thesis of the other article you link to is about effective implementation-- do you think that MSFT is, what, too inexperienced with absorbing other companies to pull this off? How many of the 65-85% of failed mergers referenced involved one or both players in dire straits, going the merger route in survival mode? MSFT's attempt to acquire YHOO is strategic, not desperate.
Second, I have critiqued your posts several times, and you only bother to reference a single one with zero relevance to the topic at hand (perhaps my comment about eliminating copyrights to all things digital was a bit reactionary and over-reaching, but you do clearly do believe that digital 'rights' are to be treated differently and given less teeth. I am still waiting for my free copy of your book in word format. Yes, I know, you chose to liberally excerpt it on your blog. Key words, 'chose' and 'excerpt'). That doesnt show a very strong hand
Finally, I stand by my opinion of your scant knowledge of the corporate universe, and I have referenced specific issues in other posts that I wont rehash.
-
@MC, you still haven't read the article
The article I linked to is an interview -- my interview -- with an expert on corporate mergers; he discusses the difficulty of mergers (corporate mergers), and why the numbers didn't bode well for a particular federal merger (the Homeland Sec. merger). He spends most of the article talking about business mergers, which is not a surprise, considering that this is his expertise (ie, that's what he studies, corporate mergers).
I linked to it with the tag "most mergers fail," and indeed, the article backs that up -- but sure, stand by your assertion that I failed to support that. It's OK with me where you stand.
-
Two clueless punck drunk losers
punching and missing, then falling over each other and brawling pathetically.
I cannot help but think of all the failures each company has spawned over and over on the web.
one example, Yahoo bought out the wildly successful GeoCities and proceeded to eviscerate it. IT did the same with so many other properties. Now its big initiative has been to generate gossip columns. How is that ad initiative going?
Microsoft is equally dense. Buying Hotmail, then ignoring it as it became a runaway haven for spam. Most of its properties online are also-rans. Didn't they also have an ad initiative?
Somehow the elementary magic of Google escaped them, as many as seven years ago, it became clear that basic unencumbered search was the key to untold riches online. What has either company done since then to try to chase that ball?
And these are billionaire geniuses?
Let them get together and fail together. I do wish there was competition to Google's ad programs, unfortunately, these ass clowns are nowhere close to IT.
-
@farhad, the article is...
... using the lingo and basic structures of corporate mergers to discuss a governmental agency, and dissecting the topic in an incredibly simplistic framework. This is such a flawed premise that, if your expert brought it up, I have a hard time taking him seriously.
It is so broad, so general, so unrelated to the case at hand, well, I just dont know what else to say.
-
Why does Redmond believe it has to beat Google in order to survive?
Because their business model assumes total hegemony. It's the only way they can think.
-
MS has to beat Google to survive?
Hardly. MS is a cash cow and surviving quite well. The yahoo over is simply a way for them to better compete against Google in it's core business.
Also Farhad, your merger article misses the point. The MS/Yahho deal is a "merger" in name only. In reality, it's a takeover. I doubt there is going to be all that much integration except for using yahoo to push MS product.
-
@KStone
I think you bring up an interesting point-- MSFT has bought a few other well-branded companies in the past-- HotMail is the best one I can think of that has a public face to it-- and very slowly baked them into the MSFT brand. Yahoo is really one of the best brand names in the internet universe. What will Yahoo look like in 5 years? Will it replace the (at least in my view) weaker MSN brand? Will it become a subset of MSN content?