Forum Moderators: goodroi
An independent Yahoo Inc is better for business, Google Inc Chief Executive told reporters on Thursday, saying a combination with Microsoft Corp would be anti-competitive."The world is better off with an independent Yahoo," Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporters. There's "more competition ... in search, and more competition in the other advertising markets where Yahoo is a leader."
The spin is making me dizzy.
MS might have killed a few businesses here and there, but Google will have the power to kill thousands of businesses with a simple algo or quality score update. Sure you think Google is all nice and lovable now, but do you honestly think it's always going to be like that?
(and don't tell me about not putting all your eggs in one basket, if Google owns 80% of the market and you get on Google's bad side, good luck to you.)
Google will have the power to kill thousands of businesses with a simple algo or quality score update.
Granted that might happen but whose fault is that really? Google's or the company that relies solely on Google for its success or failure.
Google isn't killing businesses. Businesses are failing because they refuse to market through multiple channels. That being said, it seems obvious to me that this deal with G & Y will not pass regulatory inspection, which is probably a good thing. But that's why we have these measures in place right?
"Wouldn't this thread make more sense in the Yahoo Corporate forum, since it's really about Yahoo?"
My friend, that's the point... it's always about Google. It's like God + Santa Claus + the CIA + the FBI + DHS all rolled into one... they see and control everything...
Google mind control BETA, coming soon!
If Google gets that traffic they will be a much worse monopoly than MS ever was.
When an algo change affects negatively some webmasters, it's pretty unintentional from Google, who is just trying to protect its search engine from spammers and other crooks. MS never had any qualms stomping over whoever was between them and complete dominance.
A full blown monopoly would be (and is) bad, but I think there's a real different corporate culture between the two.
just insert this prior to that statement:
if (World == Google)
{
//google code goes here
}
When an algo change affects negatively some webmasters
What about algo changes in paid ads that result in more money to Google for the same service?
Anyone?
Thought so...because Yahoo is doing good on all fronts. Let the greedy money grubbers on Wall Street feel a little pinch. They need to wake up to the reality that money isn't everything.
- John
I'm sorry, but what anti-competetive behavior has Google taken? Everyone keeps throwing money at them, but it seems almost everyone here likes to complain. Ever wonder if maybe they provide good services, and most people are reasonably happy?
Look at this for a minute: Yahoo! clicks, for my business at least, convert better than Google clicks. However, my Google ads have a higher Click-Through-Rate. Know why? They're better at targeting ads.
If Yahoo! runs Google ads, my business gets the CTR of Google with the conversion rate of Yahoo! (potentially); let me also say that Yahoo! is probably getting a much better adsense rate than the rest of the webmasters out there :)
Just like any other service provider can change their rates at any time, so Google can change theirs
Not if they are a monopoly in which case price controls will apply - this is precisely why it is important to keep competition going and current Googles behavior is clearly anti-competitive - not only they are trying to prevent competitor from becoming more viable, they are actually trying to grab bigger share in the process.
And don't talk about making your site unique. That has nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is, regardless of how much you may like Google or how good they are at delivering ads, they should NOT have that much control over search advertising.
Them talking about an MS/Yahoo deal being anti-competitive when they are trying to get a deal with Yahoo that would create a HUGE monopoly over search advertising is laughable.
I always see people trying to come to the defense of Google when it comes to troubles. That may be OK some of the time, even most of the time, but if Google partners with Yahoo, we might as well come to grips that Google will rule the internet advertising world for a long, long time to come.
Gimme a freakin' break. Gimme a real Google competitor, an internet will be a better place with more competition. We can all thank Google later for making internet a giant MFA dump
300m: and it worries me that they will essentially dictate who make what in an online business
essentially? they will? they ARE! See how many "my adwords is $10/click" threads there are here. and tons of other cries of decreased adsense revenue. and tons of threads on "i was dropped from google", "-99 penalty", etc. etc. Unless you study Google and follow its rules, you are not going to succeed on the internet. I say this qualifies as "essentially dictate".
Those of us were around before Google, remember the web as it was then. Vstore faux-front retailers, Spamazon or Hotel.spam.spam.spam.now doorways, "Online Malls"... Google meant (and still means) spammers have to keep scurrying to keep from getting stomped like roaches.
On the good side, a lot of chaff got reduced to ashes. On the bad side, back then it was easy for a relatively-savvy surfer to spot the poseurs. Now they have to spend so much effort disguising themselves to stay in Google's good graces that the survivors are much harder to detect.
I'm a firm believer in the "competition is the only way humans have of measuring excellence" theory. The question is, which is more competitive: a Microsoft that has absorbed Yahoo as efficaciously as it did Excite/Altavista/Inktomi/whoever, or a limpingly independent Yahoo?
But the problem is, Microsoft is just a Dalek gang without the cool lights. There's no such thing as competition, there's only hordes of robots intoning "exterminate!" "exterminate!". If you just want to murder browsers/search engines/file systems/antiviruses/word processors, Microsoft is just the ticket. But if you want leapfrogging imitations, like Intel/AMD, IBM/HP, Linux/Solaris, etc., you need three things. You need two innovative companies that will leap. And you need barbed-wire cages for all the Microsofties.
We can all thank Google later for making internet a giant MFA dump
Amen. Google has helped create more copyright infringement with their programs than anything the world will ever witness. It is truly historical in nature. No spammer or search engine has ever cost me the trouble Google has.
And competition is always a positive thing; assimilation stifles effort and creativity. Yahoo has some amazing people on board, and needs the chance to shine on their own. They haven't gotten enough credit for what they're worth as an internet personality and need the chance for their day to come.
I think the answer to this is, sadly, a Microsoft/yahoo takeover, although you are right that it is't a particularly competetive move either. And the worst option of all would be a google/yahoo tie in.
But then I disagree about competition being the only way to measure excellence. I think it's more a measure of corporate power, advertising and fashion. Betamax anyone?
