If MS wants to kill Google, they should build an adblocker into IE that defaults ON and updates regularly. I don't know why they haven't done that. I don't use IE much, but I run FF with Adblocker Plus. One of the chief benefits is that it keeps certain ads and sites from slowing down my surfing.
He's got a point when he says, "But the health of the Internet demands a counter balance to Google. Yahoo-Microsoft, given the current state of things, is the only reasonable outcome."
I'm not one to much like Microsoft, but they are starting to come to market with decent web products. Combine Microsoft and Yahoo and you've got a pretty big web powerhouse that has a _chance_ at giving Google a run for it's money. That is unless, like the article said, all of Yahoo's top people find new jobs.
Thats the thing though. The vast majority of Yahoos seem to indicate that they won't work for Microsoft, even if it means a pay cut to go elsewhere. So in reality, Microsoft-Yahoo merely means Microsoft with Yahoo's domain names. Some of those are probably pretty valuable, but if Microsoft is to offer a realistic challenge to Google, it needs brilliant engineers and ideas, not domain names.
How are any of these proposed mergers actually going to, y'know, work? As far as I can see, the only compatible culture for Yahoo is Google, and anything else is going to mean a huge exodus. Of course, with all of the ex-googlers roaming around SV, a few thousand more from Yahoo could make for a very interesting startup climate!
huge exodus is not the end of the world for microsoft... they get the traffic and products, and the work force has reduced itself for them with no need to pay severance or benefits.
actually, exodus from yahoo might be good for ms+yahoo (no severance etc.) and for google too (good talent) and ofcourse as you mention, nice startup environ.
I think he has taken this a little too far. I don't see Yahoo destroying their market value with this 'test', they are just trying to stave off MS.
I've actually switched to Yahoo search in the last 3 months and find it better than Google, it definitely seems to be updated more frequently and the results are always as good, and sometimes better, than what I get at Google. There ads aren't as well targeted apparently but I never click on Google ads either so I don't really notice.
I think more than anything Yahoo needs a brand refresh. Like Ask did with the 'its the algorithm' commercials. I tried Ask based on those commercials, the problem is Ask doesn't have the quality results that Yahoo does.
With the new open search platform and support for microformats I think Yahoo is in a good technological position to take on Google, they just need better marketing.
> I don't see Yahoo destroying their market value with this 'test', they are just trying to stave off MS.
1. AOL is a giant, worthless pile of crap. Does anyone really think merging with them is going to do anything positive for Yahoo?
2. Yahoo has two sources of value. First, it's an incredibly successful content brand, with sites like Yahoo Sports, Yahoo Finance, and a boatload of others. Second, it's the #2 player and only remotely plausible competitor to Google in search and internet advertising.
Even if Yahoo keeps it's own search team, it won't matter, because Google will really be the only source of keyword advertising on the internet. Even if Yahoo were to own Google in search, Google would still get a lot of the money.
This move would effectively lock in Google's monopoly over keyword advertising for good, and it would mean that Yahoo is giving up on being a technology company to become a content company and embrace the slow, painful decline that befell Netscape, Lycos, AOL, and other companies that lost the source of the value they added to the internet.
AOL has a lot of very popular sites and brands, like Engadget and TMZ. The AOL-branded sites are pretty much worthless, but there is a lot of value there otherwise.
Of course, it'll probably kill my business...