Slashdot Log In
Google, Yahoo, and the Elephant In the Room
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:32 AM
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
CWmike writes "Linda Rosencrance reports that despite assurances from Google and Yahoo that their online advertising deal doesn't need regulatory approval, the two companies should not be too quick to dismiss Microsoft's influence on Capitol Hill. Andrew Frank, an analyst at Gartner, said both Yahoo and Google will benefit from the deal, but he also said Microsoft will do everything in its power to bring the arrangement to a screeching halt. 'Expect Microsoft to challenge it and come back aggressively with some search plans of its own,' he said. Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group, said Microsoft is a formidable opponent and knows how to play politics. 'Without Microsoft, this probably would stand up to regulatory scrutiny,' Enderle said. 'But Microsoft has increased its presence on Capitol Hill significantly ... and there are restraint of trade issues, so by the nature of Google's size and because Microsoft is going to be pounding on a lot of doors, I think this is going to be a problem.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bragging about Corruption. (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter how many times it's done, it's always amazing to see people endorse corruption. The anti-trust trial, destruction of competitors, ISO have all left a bad taste in people's mouth. Yet it seems there's always someone that says these "sharp" business practices are good and another that demands people respect them.
Re: (Score:2)
But objecting to a merger between two rivals is like appealing in cricket- You are asking the 'umpire' to investigate whether the rules mean that your opposition is acting illegally. Big companies are pretty much obliged to pull that shit on behalf of their shareholders.
MSFT will fall one day, but chumps like you forestall this inevitability. Please stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please do stop. I expect to continue making money, hand over fist, on Apple stock. Google hasn't been disappointing either. In using the technologies it is painfully obvious how flawed Microsoft products are and become (after buying out various companies). I have a lot riding on Microsoft stock
The sooner they fall
Re: (Score:2)
The only effective change I can see is to diminish the power of the Fed. All else amounts to band-aids or salt for the wound, AFAICT. Truly amazing are those who'd grant even _more_ power to DC.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Inside information (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inside information (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Enderle is mostly full of shit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit (Score:5, Informative)
... because more likely than not, the atmospheric conditions would have changed enough to make the sky bright green.
Parent
I think we can trust Enderle (Score:2, Informative)
to say exactly what Microsoft wants him to say. We might not believe regulators will do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
to say exactly what Microsoft wants him to say. We might not believe regulators will do the same.
Oh, right.
As if Google and Yahoo! didn't have their own legal departments. And no lobbying power whatsoever.
Stop your karma-whoring fear-mongering, twitter. Your panicking is exaggerated, and completely unnecessary.
Ask the AntiTrust Senator and DOJ about it. (Score:2)
Quoted [theregister.co.uk] in The Register yesterday,
Re:Ask the AntiTrust Senator and DOJ about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The current administration's time is up.
Why, thank you, Captain Obvious. We'd hoped nobody would actually notice the quiet little elections we have going on behind the scenes.
Investigating this kind of deals doesn't seem like too bad a thing; I think there should be more of them, too.
If, however, this deal got sanctioned, while Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour didn't, then we would have a problem. Please do not create a problem where there is none. Yet.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I can see how he has a point. Google and Yahoo control an overwhelming percentage of the market share when combined. Do you really want Google to have no major competitors other than MS? (if you can even count MS as a major competitor in that space, they are pretty small relative to Google) I kno
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying. I dont know anything about this guy, but just because he was wrong about that doesnt mean he is wrong about this.
Wrong is an understatement. Enderle was saying the same things even after the judge threw out all of SCO's claims.
Personally, I can see how he has a point. Google and Yahoo control an overwhelming percentage of the market share when combined.
They have competition [google.com]. If none are as big as Google and Yahoo, maybe it's their approach rather than Google buying up all the competition. Even so, an alliance between Yahoo and Google is hardly going to make a monopoly -- Yahoo will still be competing with Google, they will just get the mutual benefit of each others' customers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody lies due to invalid evidence and backs it up, we can show it was the evidence, not the person.
If somebody lies because they were paid to do so, we can rest assured that they will most likely do it again.
If somebody is a habitual liar, we can be sure they will lie again.
In cases 2 and 3, we need to actively doubt anything said and check with a neutral third party. To do anything but that makes no sense.
Only in journal writing (
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fallacy is if you attempt to refute the statement by it, as in "this guy lies often. Therefore what he's saying now is a lie."
That's not the same as being doubtful.
Re:Enderle is totally full of shit (Score:2)
Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying
The fact is that nothing he says can be trusted, because he's in the pay of Microsoft. Furthermore we have substantial evidence he is happy to lie for money (viz SCO). Wouldn't you like to know that before you waste your time on his press release that is clearly angled to spread FUD about Microsoft competition?
Not even. (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that he's been consistently wrong
Remember the old saw about those who do not learn from history.
Now, he MIGHT be correct this time. But also remember that it is possible to get the correct answer with faulty "logic" and false "facts".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A new front (Score:4, Interesting)
Throwing some weight around? (Score:2)
Either way, if they do, it still amounts to a temper-tantrum.
The elephant may smash all the chairs in the room (Score:5, Interesting)
... but the Google-Yahoo deal is non-exclusive, so I guess that'll get them off the hook.
I do find it quite ominous that Microsoft has been put on the defensive, and they can only try to defend by making the government stop their competitors.
They are influential, but it is growing ever more obvious they cannot compete with their own tech, no matter how much money they may have.
It's sad, really.
Re:The elephant may smash all the chairs in the ro (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is that 'they want to use it as an excuse to stop google from beating them into a messy pulp on search'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I call that inspiring.
Re:The elephant may smash all the chairs in the ro (Score:4, Interesting)
And IMHO all this talk of MSFT buying the Yahoo search is a red herring meant to stall while they hope that Icahn can take control of Yahoo and the can snatch up the whole thing. Because if you look at the numbers while Google rules the search Yahoo comes out ahead in webmail. And when combined with Hotmail that would give them a BIG share of the webmail market,which means not only more ad revenue but a ton of data to mine from all those emails. My guess is MSFT is going to try to keep the uncertainty going in the hopes Yahoo stocks will be driven further down and Icahn can take control,at which point they will buy it for less than their original offer. But that is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Rob Enderele (Score:5, Informative)
ah, thats where
http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/09/24/sco-linux-and-rob-enderle-a-conclusion/ [linuxquestions.org]
http://daringfireball.net/2003/12/enderle [daringfireball.net]
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34004/128 [tgdaily.com]
As far as i'm concerned, that man has ZERO credibility.
M$ might like him to shut up. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's true that M$ is throwing its weight and money around Washington [slashdot.org].
The question is if Enderele's mouth helps or hurts the soft. These kinds of statements are designed to manipulate people on Wall Street, but they are smarter [google.com] than M$ thinks they are [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to reply to me with your 'Mactrope' account just like you just replied to willy with your 'willeyhill' account.
Him again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rob Enderle, of the Enderle Group...
The guy who suggested SCO had a case, spoke at one of their annual meetings. Which put him the company of tech luminaries such as Maureen O'Gara. Seems like he spends the bulk of his time being an "independent" shill for Microsoft. Why do news organizations keep turning to a tool like him for quotes?
How much PR money does it take to wield that much influence over tech media?
Yahoo needs a new board... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am certainly no fan of MS, but Google definitely needs to stay nervous in my opinion. This will, they will not eventually fall into the same trap that Yahoo did.... The trap of laziness...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, letting themselves be purchased is DEFINITELY not the "best fit from a competition standpoint." Since when is GIVING UP competition? How is consolidating the effective market to two corporations from three pro-competitive?
Oh, and Yahoo wasn't lazy. They're problem was they tried to do too much at once. They got
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I'd like to see it, you're dead wrong here. The vast majority of consumers wind up with Windows. The rest wind up with OS X. A vanishingly small number of people are moving to OSS.
Hmmm. what about Google's payout? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rob Enderale wears a wig (Score:2)
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=video%20professor [google.com]
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Rob+Enderle [google.com]
they sure look like the same guy to me whom cater to the clueless...
This would be true, if not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pot calling the kettle black... (Score:2)
If MS does complain about this... (Score:2)
M$ pounding doors (Score:2)
--
Have USB, Will Travel - http://www.faunos.com/ [faunos.com]
I know that Steve Ballmer isn't too thin, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Capitol (Score:2)
Careful Whom You Quote (Score:2)
First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (Score:4, Insightful)
Access is the coin of the politician realm. The "go along to get along" culture means that they're always talking out of every side of their mouth to accommodate every conversation they've had that doesn't get them indicted. So just inserting your point of view into their environment is the key to carrying your point of view into legislation.
Every elected official should be required to fill their calendar from their constituents first, after they schedule meetings with their official staff. They should be allowed to reserve up to 1/3 of their office hours for people outside their constituency. Within those groups, people whose agenda is personal, even if they're the principals of their corporation or organization (eg. on its Board of Directors, shareholder committee, or executive tier) should all get equal access to the official. And every agenda should be published in their calendar, as well as the list of meeting attendees. Except in rare cases of actual national security, which must be confirmed by the relevant security committee in Congress, in order to be kept secret (though not from that oversight committee).
We shouldn't have to wait for the paid corporate reps to get done deciding everything for a gang of figureheads. We're a republic. These people are supposed to represent us every day, not just on the campaign leading up to the Election Day "accountability moment".
Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, that only happens in a democracy.
Yes I know this will be modded into oblivion. But please realise that The Rest Of The World does not acknowledge the USA as a shining example of Democracy and Freedom. I think it's because you've lost that "of the people, by the people, for the people" bit, and now have "of the moneyed, by the moneyed, for the moneyed".
Parent
Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists (Score:4, Interesting)
All Americans do have that access.
But officials are a limited resource. Obviously the Americans that work harder to get some of that resource will be the ones who benefit the most from those resources.
What you're really asking is "wouldn't it be nice if nobody was allowed to put any more effort into influencing officials than the effort I put into it today?"
And no, that wouldn't be nice at all. It's a free country: Everybody is free to specialize in accessing and influencing officials if they want to, and free to sell the benefits of their specialization to the highest bidder. And free to specialize in something else, and thereby generate enough personal wealth to retain the services of a lobbying specialist. And free to form an association with any number of other like-minded citizens, and pool their wealth for the purpose of accessing and influencing officials either directly, or through the services of a specialist. And free to do none of the above, and whine about it on the Internet instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)