deals.venturebeat.com— If you love something so much that you want to buy it, you shouldn’t profess your love for it to the world. It will just increase the price.
Jul 12, 2009View in Crawl 4
"unprofitable"?innocence is bliss. Look at the links inside twitter.com and think again. Can't imagine what a sponsored link that doesn't look like an ad costs on that site.Also data mining, and real time access to its data are worth millions a month.
A better question is WHY buy them?Google already took a major bath with the YouTube fiasco. They are probably a little gun shy about pulling off any major acquisitions right now. Esepcially with a looming dot com bubble burst that could very well see the value of hteir own company decrease by 75% or more.
When Microsoft announced they were integrating Twitter with Bing to do this, everyone on Digg said it was stupid and htey didn't wantthis. If Google ever did htis, it would be the smartest move ever, according to the very same people on Digg.
koshy...yes...the register BELIEVES that. They are wrong, but they believe that. First of all, what they are suggesting that Google is doing is illegal. And second of all, it is absurd. YouTube is not drawing more people to Google.com. Certianly not NEARLY enough to make up not only the tens, if not hunderds of millions of dollars a year that YouTube is losing on its own, but also enough to actual show a return on their investment.That ridiclous Register article was written by an obviously delusional fanboy who thinks that google can do no wrong and that eveyrone on the internet sees them as some great company that never makes a mistake. He is wrong on all counts.
I never saw that article so obviously it wasn't the same people...and I'm not saying integrate Twitter with Google, I'm saying they could use the data to held mould search results. It's not like there'd be a separate column with "Results from Twitter" or anything.
shaggy3Jul 13, 2009
Because Google isn't stupid.
gubatron2Jul 13, 2009
"unprofitable"?innocence is bliss. Look at the links inside twitter.com and think again. Can't imagine what a sponsored link that doesn't look like an ad costs on that site.Also data mining, and real time access to its data are worth millions a month.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2009
A better question is WHY buy them?Google already took a major bath with the YouTube fiasco. They are probably a little gun shy about pulling off any major acquisitions right now. Esepcially with a looming dot com bubble burst that could very well see the value of hteir own company decrease by 75% or more.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2009
When Microsoft announced they were integrating Twitter with Bing to do this, everyone on Digg said it was stupid and htey didn't wantthis. If Google ever did htis, it would be the smartest move ever, according to the very same people on Digg.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2009
koshy...yes...the register BELIEVES that. They are wrong, but they believe that. First of all, what they are suggesting that Google is doing is illegal. And second of all, it is absurd. YouTube is not drawing more people to Google.com. Certianly not NEARLY enough to make up not only the tens, if not hunderds of millions of dollars a year that YouTube is losing on its own, but also enough to actual show a return on their investment.That ridiclous Register article was written by an obviously delusional fanboy who thinks that google can do no wrong and that eveyrone on the internet sees them as some great company that never makes a mistake. He is wrong on all counts.
davidturnbullJul 13, 2009
I never saw that article so obviously it wasn't the same people...and I'm not saying integrate Twitter with Google, I'm saying they could use the data to held mould search results. It's not like there'd be a separate column with "Results from Twitter" or anything.
rmartin8484Jul 19, 2009
well everyone that uses it always updates what they're doing all day and its retarded. good thing i dont use twitter.