Google, Yahoo, and the Elephant In the Room

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.'"

Bragging about Corruption.

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:Inside information

I like Googhoo, but only on an empty stomach.

Re:Inside information

I hate to promote an AC, but that was funny.

Enderle is mostly full of shit

Rob Enderle is an idiot and a compulsive liar. He's also a paid Microsoft shill. His comments on the SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, etc. were always something along the lines of "SCO is going to win. SCO has a good case. Linux contains pirated UNIX code." And so forth. If Rob Enderle told me the sky was blue, I would run outside and check for myself.

Re:Enderle is mostly full of shit

If Rob Enderle told me the sky was blue, I would run outside and check for myself.

... because more likely than not, the atmospheric conditions would have changed enough to make the sky bright green.

Re:Ask the AntiTrust Senator and DOJ about it.

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.

Re:

When a sock puppet like Enderle says something about Microsoft's intentions, it probably came from Microsoft. Whether it's true or not is a separate question.

Re:

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.

Not even.

Sounds like a classic example of attacking the person rather than what he is saying.

No. If people were saying that he's wrong because he's a well known Presbyterian you'd be correct.

Saying that he's been consistently wrong ... and ALWAYS on Microsoft's (and their allies) side ... is called "experience" or "learning from history".

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".

Re:

And I never understood how that could be considered a logical fallacy.

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.

A new front

Google and Yahoo should start their own operating system business...just to make a point

The elephant may smash all the chairs in the room

... 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

well given how much this line has been used against them, its hardly surprising that they want to see google judged in the same way.

Or is that 'they want to use it as an excuse to stop google from beating them into a messy pulp on search'.

Re:The elephant may smash all the chairs in the ro

Have you ever tried Hotmail(or whatever they're calling it now) and MSN search(or whatever they're calling it now)? Man, last time I tried those it was like being stuck in a giant infomercial,but without the hot babe to distract me from what a ripoff it was. What is sad is they buy out these small companies that have halfway decent products and then by the time their "design by focus groups and committees" gets done with it there is nothing left but a mess. How this same company made Win2K Pro is beyond me. Now they remind me WAY too much of Symantec. Every year they bolt on more pieces and it just gets to be more bloated.

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

Rob Enderele

Rob Enderele, Rob Enderele, Rob Enderele, where do I know that name?

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.

Him again?

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...

I am really starting to get annoyed with Yahoo and how they are handling this. They are a beaten company, because they just sat around and did nothing... Google crushed their future business model, and now instead of letting themselves be purchased by what appears the best fit from a competition standpoint, they instead are poisoning it in a number of ways.

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:

Yahoo is WIDELY used outside the US. In many countries, particularly in South America and Eastern Europe, it is THE go-to web portal and search engine. That is far from a "beaten" company.

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

Hmmm. what about Google's payout?

Google cut the deal such that if somebody else buys Yahoo, then Google get 250M (poison pill). What happens with that?

This would be true, if not...

...for what Microsoft has been trying to do for the past few months: make them and Yahoo ONE COMPANY. For them to argue that Yahoo and Google cooperating on one deal is worse than them wanting to cooperate with Yahoo on everything would be ludicrous. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it'll never fly.

I know that Steve Ballmer isn't too thin, but....

...it's just cruel to describe him as an elephant.

First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?

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

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?

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".

Re:First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lobbyists

Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans had the access to officials that only lobbyists get?

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.

Re:

No, not all Americans have that access. What makes you say that? Have you ever tried to get a meeting with your senator? When IBM, or just the Coca-Cola bottling plant, wants a meeting, they get one that month, if not that day. If some mere constituent wants one, they can wait months, if they get one at all. Some states with very low populations (in their ratio to their 2 senators, or even in their ratio to their reps, which also vary by almost 100%) do have more easy access. But most states, the ones with