[H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> Microsoft's Bid for aQuantive Indicates Desperation
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Buying Yahoo! would have been a better option. There aren't any
>> | comparable deals Google could have done to match a Yahoo! purchase
>> | by Microsoft, so that would have actually closed the gap. I don't
>> | think this aQuantive deal does that. And given the price they paid,
>> | I wouldn't be too happy if I was a Microsoft shareholder.
>> `----
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070521/36101_id.html?.v=1
>
> Yes, I wonder how SeÃor Lopez feels about MSFT(sic) paying *double* for
> a company out of sheer desperation. Money well spent?
>
> Microsoft is so painfully inept in the services sector, that even if
> they bought *Google*, they'd still somehow manage to screw it up. Of
> course that's predictable, since one of the first things they'd probably
> do would be replace all those "nasty" Linux server thingies with nice
> new shiny-shiny Windows zombies, ahem ... I mean boxes.
>
With this purchase and another seemingly pointless purchase recently, in the
same advertisers field, MS might actually have a plan. If you don't have
the biggest advertiser income from the web, instead of buying those who do,
buy the publishers who create and distribute advertising on the web.
Then they can just point more of this advertising in their own direction,
more popups in MSN to follow.
Yahoo are doing the same thing, buying the likes of Exchange (Real Media).
Personally I am chuffed to bits that Google are doing so well. Gads I
remember them in the early days of Linux, they gave us
http://www.google.com/linux and it was a major source of information for
Linux for many years. Probably not as used now as it was because the
general search brings you to the same place now.
|
|
