[ryokimball]

Originally Posted by fingal

It's a takeover. There are a lot of complex angles to this one as the real financial cost to MS is starting to emerge. If I was pro MS I might argue, 'This is expensive and bad for our shareholders'. If I worked for Yahoo I might welcome the takeover as some form of financial salvation.

Whatever happens the world won't end if Yahoo are swallowed by the Big M, but as someone who advocates open source software, I don't approve of such a move. This is a matter of conscience for me, and might not have any sound logical defence. I never said I was logical Spock.

There seems to be a global trend towards mergers and takeovers, and actually I stand to lose through this. I work in the housing sector and I'm seeing a lot of small organisations merging into mega-companies. A new phrase has emerged (coined by a housing professional). It's called 'willy waggling'. This is what happens when a lot of male business nerds gather together around board tables and have a conversation like this:

Augustus P. Fingalberger - 'Mergers are good! Think of the economies of scale we could achieve by getting together with organisation X'.

Bob the Toady - 'Yesssss you are indeed wise massssster!'

So off they go and merge, or takeover or something similar. Unfortunately small organisations who rely on other small (un-merged/un-taken-over) companies then lose their profit margin, because they were providing a service, and the BIG NEW organisation doesn't want to pay them the same rate for the job. Why not? Because now two organisations have become one... Economies of scale.

I wouldn't get any points for arguing like this in an academic paper, but I have an inbuilt fear of large companies. I've worked for a few and I won't be going back. They are rather scary, and I happen to believe that the willy wagglers are wrong - Sometimes big companies are less efficient and cost effective than smaller (well run!) ones. You might disagree.

Okay, I'm starting to get what you're saying... but I have to shut the computer down (Tornado watching!!!!YAY!!!!!!!!). I'll be back

[cousinlucky]

Well said, Fingal!!

Large corporations are like large governments - the bigger they get the more evil they do!

[MikeTbob]

Well, with MS history in the past.......let's see if Yahoo can survive Extend, Embrace, Extinguish.

[Roxoff]

Well I think the whole thing is an utterly pointless manoeuver by Microsoft. It has no meaning from my point of view other than it costing MS waaaay over the odds for another company who really dont figure.

When my OS starts, it's not 'Microsoft Windows XPensive'...

When my browser opens, it's not Internet Explorer...

When I look for stuff on the internet, I don't 'Yahoo' it...

When I open my email, I'm not @yahoo.co.uk.

When I play videos, it's not Media Player...

I even play computer games from my preferred operating system, despite the Microsoft offering being theoretically better supported.

It's an acquisition of no impact.

[ryokimball]

Whew! Tornadoes are FUN!!
First: sorry for the full quote a last night --didn't mean waste so much space.
Anyways, I understand where this "fear of large companies" comes from --the single Wal-Mart Supercenter in my old town actually killed the mall and several individual businesses in the area. I don't suppose this is any different, but (of course) on a larger, virtual scale. So I understand how you probably feel, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't see where there is anything technically wrong going on. If two people want to work together to make something, then let them. If those two people find two other people working together and want to work with them, so be it. It can get pretty large and eventually, yes they do make a ochlocracy (heh, spell-check doesn't know that word...), but the established governments keep this from being an issue. I guess it is hard to understand when it stops being a bunch of people working together and starts being a "mob-rule;" and if the whole I.E. monopoly thing didn't go over in court, I don't see how this could cause a ruckus in Washington (DC or the state...). I really am sorry, but it seems like they haven't stepped out of line quite yet. I'm not saying they won't, but it is unfair to say they will and persecute them before hand. (Reminds me of that movie with Tom Cruise... "Minority Report," I think it was.)

Originally Posted by Roxoff

It's an acquisition of no impact.

As for this, I do see how it could have some major impacts (I think others have been pointing at this but haven't said it). Since Yahoo and Hotmail serve a good majority of online free emails, Microsoft would get a surprising amount of influence, perhaps not on you directly, but on the majority of other users. For instance, because of my dad's... ways, I have been running Vista for some time now for the one reason that I Have to have Windows Live messenger logged in "at all times" during the day (*mumbled curses*); and at some point, I actually got bored enough to click around, and eventually I even started watching videos on MSNBC. Crazy, ain't it? Of course, most of my friends have been druggies and I've never even touched a cigarette (not safe from second-hand, though...), so I'm not that easily caught up in things (it's not like I'm buying any of MS's stuff), but if it was enough to make me look, it's probably enough to make others buy. And buying from Microsoft means not buying from the other people.




...I wonder if Microsoft is really the Umbrella corporation?

[Roxoff]

Originally Posted by ryokimball

...I have been running Vista for some time now for the one reason that I Have to have Windows Live messenger logged in "at all times" during the day (*mumbled curses*)...

Surely you can do this from Pidgin which supports MSN accounts and lots more besides.

[carlosponti]

I honestly don't think this will do any good for Microsoft because Google practically has a monopoly on search as it is. It will mainly impact people like me who use their services. If Microsoft succeeds then it will be the end of certain services all together. first to go will be email they will force people over to hotmail live services. small business services will get dropped. any open source projects they contribute to will get dropped. flickr will get a msn make over. and frankly Microsoft will have a monopoly on web email. not to mention that Microsoft hasn't given fair market value to yahoo but have given bottom dollar bid. In the long run Microsoft will have spent 44 billion to get a search engine when that money would have been better spent wooing away programmers to improve their own. Only motivation I see in doing it this way is to eliminate a competitor.

[ryokimball]

I did use pidgin --until my dad &#(%^ the firewall and blocked practically everything. I don't even know how MSN chat works, but somehow it does where nothing else will. That and http (and other similar web protocols) are all that can go through.

[ryokimball]

Originally Posted by carlosponti

Only motivation I see in doing it this way is to eliminate a competitor.

I second that motion.

[Vergil83]

Originally Posted by carlosponti

In the long run Microsoft will have spent 44 billion to get a search engine when that money would have been better spent wooing away programmers to improve their own. Only motivation I see in doing it this way is to eliminate a competitor.

Oh, it is going to cost more than that! Shifting yahoo email, flickr, etc to servers running windows is going to cost a lot (labor, new servers, power use). It took years to shift hotmail to windows. Think about all the people that are going leave yahoo and the lost ad revenue. Hotmail lost tons of users during the switch. And during this time, yahoo's search market share will continue to drop, MS live will stay the same, and google will get bigger (some room for development in Asia). I would say a more realistic guess in like 75 billion.