Yahoo committed seppuku today(calacanis.com)
calacanis.com
Yahoo committed seppuku today
http://calacanis.com/2009/07/29/yahoo-committed-seppuku-today/
79 comments
Fantastic analysis. But where's the money? The point of Calcanis' piece is that the Borg only gets (buys?) its way into markets which are big or growing.
Whilst there is no doubt Yahoo is strong in some areas, he's saying Yahoo has thrown-in the towel in the big fat one. He argues that Yahoo had more than one chance of being a player in search and each time they fluffed it. All the current focus-on-core-strengths talk doesn't cover up the fact that they blew the big one. That's his point, and I think it's a very valid one.
Whilst there is no doubt Yahoo is strong in some areas, he's saying Yahoo has thrown-in the towel in the big fat one. He argues that Yahoo had more than one chance of being a player in search and each time they fluffed it. All the current focus-on-core-strengths talk doesn't cover up the fact that they blew the big one. That's his point, and I think it's a very valid one.
"But where's the money?"
It's not in search, as far as Yahoo is concerned. Having gigantic teams dedicated to tweaking search algorithms and running servers was obviously not working out to Yahoo's advantage in the long run... they were losing market share to Bing, and who knows how much they were spending to try to innovate in search? As far as I know, they've been losing money on searching for a long time.
Is Yahoo ever going to be rolling in money again? No, and maybe not ever. However, they have a metric ton of products that can generate revenue: commercial licenses for service APIs, cloud computing resources, etc, and now they'll be focusing more on their advertising (which is REALLY where the money is these days). As far as staying afloat as a company not raking in the big dollars, this was probably the best bet without some major upheaval. They can focus and develop and sell things that actually might have a chance at making some money.
It's not in search, as far as Yahoo is concerned. Having gigantic teams dedicated to tweaking search algorithms and running servers was obviously not working out to Yahoo's advantage in the long run... they were losing market share to Bing, and who knows how much they were spending to try to innovate in search? As far as I know, they've been losing money on searching for a long time.
Is Yahoo ever going to be rolling in money again? No, and maybe not ever. However, they have a metric ton of products that can generate revenue: commercial licenses for service APIs, cloud computing resources, etc, and now they'll be focusing more on their advertising (which is REALLY where the money is these days). As far as staying afloat as a company not raking in the big dollars, this was probably the best bet without some major upheaval. They can focus and develop and sell things that actually might have a chance at making some money.
Bing on Yahoo search results pages is a product endorsement. Users will become familiar and comfortable using a Bing branded product. Bing Sports is a text ad on the current "sports" search results page. It'll go from, WTF is Bing to, "oh Bing, they have sports news"
It is like BMW switching to Toyota engines and putting a little sticker on the dashboard that says Powered by Lexus. How long will BMW last when that happens?
It is like BMW switching to Toyota engines and putting a little sticker on the dashboard that says Powered by Lexus. How long will BMW last when that happens?
"It is like BMW switching to Toyota engines and putting a little sticker on the dashboard that says Powered by Lexus. How long will BMW last when that happens?"
Unfortunately, that analogy just doesn't work in the car industry. People will still buy the BMW because it is a BMW.
To back it up, I'll give you a two real world examples, both to do with another car Manufacturer - Porsche.
When Dr Ferdinand Porsche first created his company, his Porsche 64 was created using many parts from the VW Beetle.
From my personal experience, back in 2002, I was helping my brother strip down his 1986 Porsche 944 turbo to be raced in 03.
While pulling the car down, I noticed that many of the parts were manufactured by Audi and VW (which admittedly owns Audi). Even while we were stripping the sound proofing material off the body, I found out that the body of the car was manufactured by Audi, which to me was very surprising (given the body was one of the main selling points of the car at the time, even Mazda ripped off the design for the RX7).
If I had to give a rough breakdown in parts, I would have said that particular model was a 3-way split when it came to who's parts were in the car.
As for Porsche's company performance, they are one of the strongest car brands worldwide and definitely one of the most profitable, in 07 having made 5.8 Billion Euro profit off of 7.3 Billion Euro in revenue.
Currently, the only thing that is causing them headaches is their financial acrobatics, not the fact that their cars are made out of other manufacturer's parts.
So unfortunately, your analogy just doesn't hold up.
Unfortunately, that analogy just doesn't work in the car industry. People will still buy the BMW because it is a BMW.
To back it up, I'll give you a two real world examples, both to do with another car Manufacturer - Porsche.
When Dr Ferdinand Porsche first created his company, his Porsche 64 was created using many parts from the VW Beetle.
From my personal experience, back in 2002, I was helping my brother strip down his 1986 Porsche 944 turbo to be raced in 03.
While pulling the car down, I noticed that many of the parts were manufactured by Audi and VW (which admittedly owns Audi). Even while we were stripping the sound proofing material off the body, I found out that the body of the car was manufactured by Audi, which to me was very surprising (given the body was one of the main selling points of the car at the time, even Mazda ripped off the design for the RX7).
If I had to give a rough breakdown in parts, I would have said that particular model was a 3-way split when it came to who's parts were in the car.
As for Porsche's company performance, they are one of the strongest car brands worldwide and definitely one of the most profitable, in 07 having made 5.8 Billion Euro profit off of 7.3 Billion Euro in revenue.
Currently, the only thing that is causing them headaches is their financial acrobatics, not the fact that their cars are made out of other manufacturer's parts.
So unfortunately, your analogy just doesn't hold up.
Things made in the same place aren't necessarily made to the same standards. I once packed strawberries - for the major supermarkets in the UK and for M&S in the same packing line. The M&S quality standards were higher, we removed more "uglies" and used more evenly sized strawberries.
The point: same line different production values.
The point: same line different production values.
Porsche 911 Turbo: ENGINE BY VW
or - Your 130 thousand dollar automobile is made by the same people who make your kids 15 thousand dollar automobile.
It would turn a lot of people off Porsche and boost VW's brand image.
I think many people are aware that major brands OEM parts from all over.
But there isn't a sticker on the dashboard saying one of the most expensive parts is from a specific maker.
My main point is that Yahoo is transferring a lot of brand equity to Bing. If there was no Bing branding on the SERPs then this would be much less of an issue.
And really, some hackers pop the hood and look at engines but really do most people? Do most people even know how to change their own oil or even bother to?
or - Your 130 thousand dollar automobile is made by the same people who make your kids 15 thousand dollar automobile.
It would turn a lot of people off Porsche and boost VW's brand image.
I think many people are aware that major brands OEM parts from all over.
But there isn't a sticker on the dashboard saying one of the most expensive parts is from a specific maker.
My main point is that Yahoo is transferring a lot of brand equity to Bing. If there was no Bing branding on the SERPs then this would be much less of an issue.
And really, some hackers pop the hood and look at engines but really do most people? Do most people even know how to change their own oil or even bother to?
Yes, but you miss the point.
People own these luxury vehicles BECAUSE of the status associated with them, not because of who produces what parts for the car.
So the analogy comparing the Yahoo situation to BMW was a bad one, which was my point - I wasn't trying to say it was a bad move by Yahoo.
Time will tell on that one.
People own these luxury vehicles BECAUSE of the status associated with them, not because of who produces what parts for the car.
So the analogy comparing the Yahoo situation to BMW was a bad one, which was my point - I wasn't trying to say it was a bad move by Yahoo.
Time will tell on that one.
I think we're disconnected on this because my point is that branding Yahoo results pages with the Bing logo is horrible for Yahoo.
And yes, while luxury brands use many parts not specifically made by them, they do not promote another brand who is a competitor.
Another analogy maybe? If the Apple iPhone had a splash screen that said "Powered by Microsoft" it would harm the brand. Apple knows this and while my mac is powered by Intel, there's never any "Intel Inside" branding.
And yes, while luxury brands use many parts not specifically made by them, they do not promote another brand who is a competitor.
Another analogy maybe? If the Apple iPhone had a splash screen that said "Powered by Microsoft" it would harm the brand. Apple knows this and while my mac is powered by Intel, there's never any "Intel Inside" branding.
"It is like BMW switching to Toyota engines and putting a little sticker on the dashboard that says Powered by Lexus. How long will BMW last when that happens?" Could not have said it better.
That happens all the time. Pop the hood on a Mazda 6 - there is a Ford motor inside. GM and Toyota built cars in the same factory (albeit, its shutting down now).
"Yahoo is now a media creation and curation company"
Oye. Isn't that what AOL was?
Oye. Isn't that what AOL was?
It was clear that Yahoo never planned on being a search company when they passed on buying Google. And you're definitely right: Yahoo operates much better as a destination site. But in terms of media creation, Terry Semel and his Hollywood crew was brought on for that and it was just a waste, treading waters, not grabbing YouTube, not grabbing Facebook, flubbed on creating a better search ad product, etc.
They should have just worked it out with AOL last year.
They should have just worked it out with AOL last year.
Just looking at the homepages of Google vs. Yahoo - it's clear that Google's focus is search. On Yahoo's home page, search is just a feature on a page littered with tons of bandwidth hogging widgets.
But Bing is clearly a search engine. That's the central focus and that's what people will remember. It might not be "top of mind" for most of us but it's going to be top of mind to a lot of Yahoo users soon enough.
The market's immediate reaction: "Yahoo Shareholders Transfer $2.9 Billion To Microsoft Shareholders" - http://bit.ly/yn2TT
But Bing is clearly a search engine. That's the central focus and that's what people will remember. It might not be "top of mind" for most of us but it's going to be top of mind to a lot of Yahoo users soon enough.
The market's immediate reaction: "Yahoo Shareholders Transfer $2.9 Billion To Microsoft Shareholders" - http://bit.ly/yn2TT
"Innovation is all you have"? Microsoft has never innovated, not even at the beginning. Many big players in many industries have never been innovators.
These guys have something else: a strong bargaining position. "Innovation is a fleeting advantage." Cornering a market, setting up barriers to entry—those are time-tested and effective ways to make serious money.
These guys have something else: a strong bargaining position. "Innovation is a fleeting advantage." Cornering a market, setting up barriers to entry—those are time-tested and effective ways to make serious money.
Thank you. I can't count the # of times I've heard Microsoft described as innovative. Yet, nearly every time they try to innovate they fail. MS Bob anyone? Or how about that home automation pitch they made in the late 90s? Or Cablesoft / MS Media Server. Nearly every single one of their successes came from copying the competition (XBox, Windows) or through acquisition (Frontpage, Hotmail). And a lot of their failures (Zune, Vista, Win7 TBD) came from un-successfully copying the competition. Office is home grown, makes a lot of money and seems to innovate on its own, but it seems like the exception to the rule.
It's part of the mythology of American capitalism: if they're a big winner, they must be a big innovator, because innovation drives the economy!
Don't get me wrong, I love American capitalism, and I don't think innovation trumps all other factors (like reliability). The myth of Microsoft innovation is just one of those peculiar cultural myths that, in this case, blocks out the reality for people who don't work in the field.
Don't get me wrong, I love American capitalism, and I don't think innovation trumps all other factors (like reliability). The myth of Microsoft innovation is just one of those peculiar cultural myths that, in this case, blocks out the reality for people who don't work in the field.
Reliability trumps innovation if people want to use the same stuff for a long time. In the consumer market it seems it's all about new stuff. People chuck out perfectly serviceable items because there's a new model they want. Which companies would bother to make a reliable mobile phone or computer for the mass market.
The facade of innovation works for larger items too. Why create a vehicle that lasts long after the 5 year bodywork warranty when you're just reducing your market. Entice people with the new model, make sure your goods don't last too long - that appears to be the capitalist way.
The facade of innovation works for larger items too. Why create a vehicle that lasts long after the 5 year bodywork warranty when you're just reducing your market. Entice people with the new model, make sure your goods don't last too long - that appears to be the capitalist way.
The counter-point to that is to recognize the fact that Google has had only three real innovations that worked over the course of its entire existence and it has been been almost five years since their last hit. All of the big players seem to be throwing darts at the innovation wall and taking long lingering looks around the room to see whose ideas they can copy. This is nothing new, but please don't suggest that Microsoft is the only company stuck in this position.
Here are some:
Gmail
AdSense/AdWords
Google Scholar
Google Maps / Google Earth
Google Books
Google Image Search
Google Apps
Google Code
Google News
Chrome
SketchUp
"Innovation" in the strong sense of something super-radically new is not that important, at least to me. Let's not get distracted by that.
The reason I like Google is that things they make are well done. They don't have jingly-bobs popping up all over the place and lots of new "features" that actually make things worse. Their stuff has generally started simple and good, and gotten better. I don't find myself resenting using Google's stuff, cursing at the stupid bugs all the time. Their products have lots of nice little touches, like the way Google search will evaluate a mathematical expression or look up the time in a given location, and it searches PDF and PPT files and renders them decently in HTML. Google Groups now searches bulletin boards and discussion lists as well as Usenet groups. Google Maps does a really nice job of finding bus routes in San Francisco. It often just does what you want it to, without your having to ask, and without getting in the way.
When using most Microsoft products, I usually have the feeling that some "manager" has decided that there's no money in making things work nicely, but there is money in "shipping it". For example, the auto-numbering bugs that have been in MS-Word more than 10 years now and annoy people every single day.
Gmail
AdSense/AdWords
Google Scholar
Google Maps / Google Earth
Google Books
Google Image Search
Google Apps
Google Code
Google News
Chrome
SketchUp
"Innovation" in the strong sense of something super-radically new is not that important, at least to me. Let's not get distracted by that.
The reason I like Google is that things they make are well done. They don't have jingly-bobs popping up all over the place and lots of new "features" that actually make things worse. Their stuff has generally started simple and good, and gotten better. I don't find myself resenting using Google's stuff, cursing at the stupid bugs all the time. Their products have lots of nice little touches, like the way Google search will evaluate a mathematical expression or look up the time in a given location, and it searches PDF and PPT files and renders them decently in HTML. Google Groups now searches bulletin boards and discussion lists as well as Usenet groups. Google Maps does a really nice job of finding bus routes in San Francisco. It often just does what you want it to, without your having to ask, and without getting in the way.
When using most Microsoft products, I usually have the feeling that some "manager" has decided that there's no money in making things work nicely, but there is money in "shipping it". For example, the auto-numbering bugs that have been in MS-Word more than 10 years now and annoy people every single day.
Really? AdSense: Applied Semantics acquisition; AdWords: GoTo/Overture innovated here; Google Earth: Keyhole acquisition; Google Apps: Writely/Zenter acquisitions; SketchUp: @Last Software acquisition.
[deleted](1)
Microsoft was innovative in one way: the cheap, permissive licencing model they adopted for DOS is the reason it became the de facto standard for PCs.
This is a good point. Microsoft has guts and even some creativity when it comes to marketing.
It's not just marketing though. It's legitimate business genius.
Say what you will about their software - but there is no argument that they know how to run a business.
Say what you will about their software - but there is no argument that they know how to run a business.
Agreed.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't post the nearly contentless "Agreed," but since the opposing point was made in reply to my post, I thought I should say something to show that I read and was moved by roc's point.
Any recommendations for what I should have done instead?
Any recommendations for what I should have done instead?
Just an upvote.
You don't need to respond to every qualm or counterpoint if others do it for you.
You don't need to respond to every qualm or counterpoint if others do it for you.
You did the right thing. And at least you didn't commit the heinous sin of applauding. I spit on clappers, curse their mothers, and I make a strong point of never breathing their exhaled air.
That's just bullshit. They produced their products like everyone else, and as a result built thousands of little innovations into it. Windows is not a cheap OS X clone (and thank god for that, here's to choice). Yes, they also copied successful concepts. So does everybody else.
If Microsoft is so bad, why is everybody buying it? The "shady business practices" theory is just too easy. And even if that was the only reason: I guess then they innovated in the sector of "shady business practices". They certainly did not become so big through sheer luck.
If Microsoft is so bad, why is everybody buying it? The "shady business practices" theory is just too easy. And even if that was the only reason: I guess then they innovated in the sector of "shady business practices". They certainly did not become so big through sheer luck.
The very first thing I thought of when this deal was announced was how similar it felt to how Google first got traction by lending their technology to a Yahoo "front-end." This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water all over again.
I don't normally agree with Calacanis (although it's hard to argue with his success) but he's dead on about this I'm afraid.
I don't normally agree with Calacanis (although it's hard to argue with his success) but he's dead on about this I'm afraid.
Note: It's actually OK to agree with me 38% of the time (i.e. the actual percentage of time I'm correct).
For what it's worth, 100% of my fear wasn't about you being right but about Yahoo being officially dead.
Is you real or is you fake?
c'mon, what are the chances someone is gonna create a fake calcanis account on HN?
Dunno. That's why I asked. Pretty high?
well, I'm using my Facebook account, so chance are this is really me. :-)
surprisingly good [albeit ridiculously hard to read. grey on white? ugh] post.
I liked the aggression + innovation = fighting.
I liked the aggression + innovation = fighting.
Wow now I can read Daring Fireball, thanks!
What a great site! Thanks for sharing; I'll be using this on many other sites to improve readability.
This is great! I've been wanting this for years!
Nice Herring, thanks much.
Awesome.
Sort of a self-downmod font, don't you think? What you said, but I think pompous and self-serving. And possibly wrong.
If you don't want to deal with the horrible color scheme, subscribe to his mailing list. It's all the same content.
That's good I might use that on my blog - don't like this horrible, barely readable colour scheme; subscribe to my mailing list or feed and get the content in a readable format!
[deleted]
suicide? how?
which is better? giving up the areas in which yahoo can't win, getting a good deal in return and concentrating on the areas they are strong in or trying to fight a losing battle, sinking millions of dollars in the process?
His logic seems to be 'search is very important so yahoo shouldn't give up its second place'. It doesn't matter search is uber important, what matters is whether yahoo can keep its place. They certainly feel they can't, so its very sensible to get out before the going gets really bad.
good business is all about deciding which areas to play, and knowing when to leave
which is better? giving up the areas in which yahoo can't win, getting a good deal in return and concentrating on the areas they are strong in or trying to fight a losing battle, sinking millions of dollars in the process?
His logic seems to be 'search is very important so yahoo shouldn't give up its second place'. It doesn't matter search is uber important, what matters is whether yahoo can keep its place. They certainly feel they can't, so its very sensible to get out before the going gets really bad.
good business is all about deciding which areas to play, and knowing when to leave
I agree with you, but imho Yahoo should have made these decisions years ago. Yahoo has clearly made a lot of bets it hasn't been able to follow through on (acquisition bets alone tell a sorry tale: Broadcast, Geocities, Inktomi, Overture).
When I was at Yahoo during the "dot bomb" crash. Yahoo was scrambling to decrease its reliance on advertising and made a big push into premium/paid subscriptions. Well that fizzled. As did Terry Semel's entertainment strategy and the subsequent attempt to go toe-to-toe with GOOG.
Personally, I like the entertainment/media portal strategy (out of the remaining options available). But at this point it still feels like Yahoo is being pushed into this strategy rather than boldy pushing forward with it. I think that's partially why it feals more like defeat/retreat at this point than anything else. Present-day Yahoo just can't shake that feeling of failure/lost opportunity in the eyes of many observers. That's gonna hound them for a long time until they can garner up a bona fide hit.
When I was at Yahoo during the "dot bomb" crash. Yahoo was scrambling to decrease its reliance on advertising and made a big push into premium/paid subscriptions. Well that fizzled. As did Terry Semel's entertainment strategy and the subsequent attempt to go toe-to-toe with GOOG.
Personally, I like the entertainment/media portal strategy (out of the remaining options available). But at this point it still feels like Yahoo is being pushed into this strategy rather than boldy pushing forward with it. I think that's partially why it feals more like defeat/retreat at this point than anything else. Present-day Yahoo just can't shake that feeling of failure/lost opportunity in the eyes of many observers. That's gonna hound them for a long time until they can garner up a bona fide hit.
This deal is the most demoralizing news I've heard in a long time. It calls for some kind of ritual lamentation. Any ideas?
Honest question: why do you find it demoralizing?
Because the Microsoft Way is to give top priority to holding on to the high-leverage point in a market, and to do the lowest-quality engineering they can get away with to hold onto it. Their internal culture favors mediocre work as long as it's done fast and the testers don't find too many bugs.
Search is now one of the highest-leverage points in the world economy, and it will become more important as time goes on. Microsoft having their claws a little deeper into search means they will use that position not so much to give people everywhere access to information, but mostly to help other Microsoft ventures grab and hold market share against competitors.
Search is now one of the highest-leverage points in the world economy, and it will become more important as time goes on. Microsoft having their claws a little deeper into search means they will use that position not so much to give people everywhere access to information, but mostly to help other Microsoft ventures grab and hold market share against competitors.
I'm guessing that he dug Yahoo in the old days much like myself. Kinda weird seeing them working a deal with MSFT. I guess Google needs some competition in search.
I guess I see as positive since I've thought for years that Yahoo could not continue on the path they're on. This seems like a necessary change for the better.
So are you depressed by Facebook doing a deal with MS? MS is enormous. This deal is just collaborating on search - I don't understand why people are taking it like it's the end of Yahoo as an independent entity.
"Bing, bang, bung". Said in a sad, whimsical voice as one shakes one's head and turns away.
Is tweaking some complicated algorithm, really innovation anyway?
I think Yahoo are better off leaving this problem to Microsoft. People don't tend to call Microsoft innovative and search is an established place that they want to be in - this is normal behavior for them. Microsoft are in a good position for doing search by acquiring powerset and other companies (as Jason mentions). Microsoft this more so they can compete with Google directly and Yahoo have better sense. Yahoo is doing stuff that neither Google or Microsoft do well, like Flickr, Del.icio.us, News and other content.
Innovation from the customers point of view would come from improving the interface to search, which Yahoo can do without doing the algorithm themselves.
If look at what they offer with the BOSS and search monkey APIs http://developer.yahoo.com/search/ Yahoo is keen on this direction. At the Yahoo Hackday London in May they were pushing these APIs with talks and handing out documentation etc.
I think Yahoo are better off leaving this problem to Microsoft. People don't tend to call Microsoft innovative and search is an established place that they want to be in - this is normal behavior for them. Microsoft are in a good position for doing search by acquiring powerset and other companies (as Jason mentions). Microsoft this more so they can compete with Google directly and Yahoo have better sense. Yahoo is doing stuff that neither Google or Microsoft do well, like Flickr, Del.icio.us, News and other content.
Innovation from the customers point of view would come from improving the interface to search, which Yahoo can do without doing the algorithm themselves.
If look at what they offer with the BOSS and search monkey APIs http://developer.yahoo.com/search/ Yahoo is keen on this direction. At the Yahoo Hackday London in May they were pushing these APIs with talks and handing out documentation etc.
In ye olden days, before google, yahoo was the search that returned the best results ordered by relevance. They had to create their index manually to do so, but it kind of worked for a while.
I'm really surprised about Yahoo's market share. I've generally found it a lower quality search than both Bing and Google, and other than this deal I haven't heard anyone talk about it at all. I know a lot of people that have their home page set to MSN by default, but I haven't heard of Yahoo being someone's homepage in years.
What's everyone else's experience with this? Does anyone here use Yahoo, and if so, why?
What's everyone else's experience with this? Does anyone here use Yahoo, and if so, why?
I don't use Yahoo search, but my start-page is MyYahoo, and has been for eons. Because of this, a fair bit of the news I read is via Yahoo's aggregators.
Anyone who uses Yahoo mail gets Yahoo news, sport, weather etc. shoved in their face every time they check their mail. From there people are linked into a network of stuff including search.
And Yahoo mail by the way is massive - I can't remember the actual status but they are a multiple of any of their competitors in size and google is a tiny small fraction. I think people underestimate the importance of this just because email isn't seen as sexy these days - but it's eyeballs, and very sticky ones (sorry for image :-) ), they come back regularly again and again - people with lots of history in their Yahoo mail are pretty much never going to leave.
And Yahoo mail by the way is massive - I can't remember the actual status but they are a multiple of any of their competitors in size and google is a tiny small fraction. I think people underestimate the importance of this just because email isn't seen as sexy these days - but it's eyeballs, and very sticky ones (sorry for image :-) ), they come back regularly again and again - people with lots of history in their Yahoo mail are pretty much never going to leave.
With Twitter’s repositioning as “real-time search”, and search becoming a two-dog race, both Google and MS must be salivating to buy Twitter. I wouldn’t be surprised if either of them laid down 1+ Billion to get ahead under these circumstances.
> Microsoft does not enter a market unless it’s important, huge and on the way to becoming even bigger.
Wait? So they've only just entered the search market? hmmm.
Ramblings methinks.
Wait? So they've only just entered the search market? hmmm.
Ramblings methinks.
"Chapter three will be the two-horse race of Microsoft and Google"
Starts singing - - - I'm so excited.....
Dude, Yahoo search was dying anyway, which is a shame because people like Yahoo, it's just that they have not been advertising so much. Like google had the benefit of viral marketing, to counteract it, Yahoo should have aggressively marketed itself to put its name out there. I mean, people in Europe probably hardly know of Yahoo compared to Google, which I do not think is true in the US.
So, in an ideal world I would have liked the Yahoo search brand to be kept, but the brains behind it to be of microsoft. This way, if played right, there could be a serious competitor and who knows we may get a 60 - 40 market share, and in that dream world, the publisher, or the user would hold the power.
As a side note, interesting that although Yahoo stock has gone down around 11%, Microsoft's stock has barely moved, I would have expected it to shoot up.
Starts singing - - - I'm so excited.....
Dude, Yahoo search was dying anyway, which is a shame because people like Yahoo, it's just that they have not been advertising so much. Like google had the benefit of viral marketing, to counteract it, Yahoo should have aggressively marketed itself to put its name out there. I mean, people in Europe probably hardly know of Yahoo compared to Google, which I do not think is true in the US.
So, in an ideal world I would have liked the Yahoo search brand to be kept, but the brains behind it to be of microsoft. This way, if played right, there could be a serious competitor and who knows we may get a 60 - 40 market share, and in that dream world, the publisher, or the user would hold the power.
As a side note, interesting that although Yahoo stock has gone down around 11%, Microsoft's stock has barely moved, I would have expected it to shoot up.
So, there are just Google and Microsoft, and that is very good for Google, because a good karma matters!
And where is Apple with "the search for rest of us"? =)
And where is Apple with "the search for rest of us"? =)
Jerry Yang would have never sold out.
Now this newcomer gets greedy, some money exchanging hands under the table and now Yahoo search is dead.
Carol Bartz? she will be forgotten quickly.
Now this newcomer gets greedy, some money exchanging hands under the table and now Yahoo search is dead.
Carol Bartz? she will be forgotten quickly.
Yahoo is now a media creation and curation company. Yahoo Sports is number one, Yahoo News is top five (HHS Secretary Sebelius had an exclusive op-ed in YN yesterday), OMG is killing TMZ and others, and so on and so forth. Yahoo's strategy of original content and great curation is all about stickiness. Let's be clear - Yahoo will still sell the very best ads for themselves, and Microsoft gets that sales expertise as well. No one on the face of this earth sells premium online ad space better than Yahoo.
Yahoo has clearly decided that they won't play in search any more, and that's a rational decision - they only played in search for a small period of their history. They were powered by Inktomi before Google, and now will be by Bing for the next ten years, and presumably something other than Bing after that.