digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Google's Official Statement on the Microsoft Bid for Yahoo

googleblog.blogspot.com — What does Google think about the Microhoo deal? They have just released their initial response on the Official Google Blog

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheSilentNumber, on 02/04/2008, -95/+5Damn you beat me posting this by three minutes :)
    • gak001, on 02/04/2008, -17/+7BREAKING NEWS!!!1! LOLZ - Nobody cares
    • Kamill85, on 02/04/2008, -1/+11Thanks for letting us know, at least now we know you're almost as cool as bsloane! Keep it up tol!
    • getisboy, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1lol
  • nextlevel233, on 02/04/2008, -30/+118That's some serious stuff Google says 'bout Microsoft and Yahoo.
    What a courage, how straight..
    • estvir, on 02/04/2008, -19/+28I just loved reading this and thinking about the whole Google buying DoubleClick thing and than I stared chanting "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!"
      • fkr3, on 02/04/2008, -4/+26The real hypocracy is when Google says that it would give Microsoft 2 of the most popular portals in the world... ironically similiar to what Google enjoys something now with google.com and youtube.com.
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -7/+3And google totally abuses the fact that YouTube and Google.com are popular sites. I mean, honestly, both are bloated with five thousand ads, and integrated by force into an OS 95% of the population uses, and with that are hard to remove from that status.
          By the way, it's sarcasm. Most people will notice, but I'm not sure YOU would notice, after seeing how blind you are by posting such bs.
          • fkr3, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1What does their revenue models have to do with it? Google's complaining that MS buying Yahoo would give MS two of the most popular sites in the world...... Google currently owning 2 of the most popular sites in the world.
          • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Has to do with the fact that a monopoly exists when a company owning the totality or a very high majority of the market share in a domain ABUSES that position in order to keep themselves high up the ladder.
      • xatx2, on 02/04/2008, -12/+6i agree, ***** google
        • SlimFastForYou, on 02/04/2008, -5/+3Buried for not following digg doctrine!
          • SlimFastForYou, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Aw come on guys I just wrote that because "digg doctrine" has a neat ring to it. I was being serious, I buried his post because just about I generally likes Google like most everyone on digg. I haven't heard much about Google and Doubleclick, but from what I hear Microsoft was going to buy Doubleclick first. I trust Google to run a business ethically more than I trust Microsoft. So unless you guys have more than unbacked opinion, why would I digg?
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2You agree, ***** google.
          Shows not only how mature you are, but also that you cannot read properly, and that you cannot forge your own opinion by yourself.
          Please do get a brain.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/04/2008, -2/+21is microhoo.com still available?
      • Me1000, on 02/04/2008, -1/+10not anymore...
      • knuckles, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Wow, it was registered in 2006.

        Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
        Domain Name: MICROHOO.COM
        Created on: 04-May-06
        Expires on: 04-May-08
        Last Updated on: 04-May-07
    • ruddy, on 02/04/2008, -11/+23this came from the company that bought doubeclick? yes, incredibly straight...
      • xerexes1, on 02/04/2008, -1/+20Microsoft tried to purchase Doubleclick first. Google beat their offer.
        • daza, on 02/04/2008, -3/+5Still doesn't make Google any less of a hypocrite. They dominate advertisements, there's nothing open about that market.
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Dont be stupid daza. Dominating and keeping a monopolistic behaviour are two different things. Google does not jump on every attempt to completely kill the competition and send it out of the contest. This is what a monopoly is about. Dominating in a domain is not enough, it means they acted smart, thats all.
    • thebusdriver, on 02/04/2008, -2/+26dont forget YouTube, Google pretty much rules online video.
    • rpgmaker, on 02/04/2008, -8/+10Of course they are being that straight because they want to make difficult for Microsoft to acquire Yahoo! Even though most of us know that Microsoft+Yahoo can't take on Google -and Google knows this too- is a danger to let that acquisition happen.
      On the plus side Google said some stupid and paranoid things like this one: "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?" As we all know right know, if Microsoft hasn't did anything "illegal" to survive on the internet it wont do it after the Yahoo! acquisition.
      • mcduckov, on 02/04/2008, -5/+11Agreed, this post sounds like it was written by a know-nothing Google fanboy and then "prettied up" to look semi-professional. Google, IMO, would have come off MUCH better if they had publicly said nothing at all.
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3I give them the respect they are worth for at least posting about it, unlike Microsoft shutting up about Google whereas they'd be the first ones concerned.
        • rpgmaker, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Yes, that google post is kind of FUD like stilesja said below.
      • Atomic1fire, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Unless they put their act together and Combine the steel with steel (such as Live video search and Live image search, and then flickr and delicious) and replace the rusty Iron with some more steel
        Google probably does not want that to happen
      • Sil369, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Google should buy MS. :()
      • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Microsoft did a lot of semi-illegal stuff. Patents like the one filed about Internet Explorer's monopole (sp) are here to prove it.
        • KirbyMeister, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Internet Explorer comes with a magnetic monopole?
          • SlimFastForYou, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2lol give him a break, it sounds like "monopoly" if you read his word with a long e. Not everyone learns English as their first language, and a spell checker doesn't catch wrong words well (or at all).
    • stilesja, on 02/04/2008, -2/+9I Hate Microsoft as much as the next guy :-) But isn't it interesting that if lets say Microsoft were to say these same open ended questions everyone would by crying "FUD" Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Google has learned from the best here and is asking open ended, yet directed questions that lead you to draw the conclusion that a MS/YAHOO merger would be dangerous and detrimental to end users. Although since I agree with google I tend to see them using these FUD powers for good rather than evil.
      • SlimFastForYou, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Yeah but Google didn't really make any very extraordinary claims. Strong with the FUD Microsoft is, yes! Whenever Microsoft's "Get the Facts" tells me that Windows is more stable, cheaper, and open than Linux, it makes me want to go on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" so I don't have to hear so much BS and lies. Haha, that's probably about the only endorsement Bill O will get from me but hey he can take it or leave it :).
        • stilesja, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1HAHA! You think there is no BS or lies on O'Reilly? Come on, that show is pure propaganda just like the rest of the network. You want accurate news, read the press releases your self from the AP and decide for yourself. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are about saying your product is better than another product, its about making you afraid or unsure about something else. Saying Windows is cheaper, more stable, and more open than linux is not FUD, those are just lies. Saying "Do you really want to rely on a volunteer group of programmers to support your enterprise systems?" is FUD. "Can you really trust that software does what it claims when any HACKER could modify it to add a backdoor?" Thats FUD.
      • dajernts, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1Can't say I hate MS. And I tried Linux. Didn't work very well on my hardware and wasn't worth the time it took downloading it for free. Some day I guess.
    • Riven213, on 02/04/2008, -5/+8hahahhahah its so pathethic of google to speak about openness, when in China they promote censorship. hypocrites.
      • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2You really don't know much about Google then.
        They don't promote ***** (sic) in China. They refused online services like Gmail there. They just give web search, because a censored web search is better than no web search at all.
        Alot of Google haters should read up before going with their own thoughts. Idiots flaming the company that pulls its ass out every day to improve your life by creating what you need, and not forcing you to use what you don't need.
        • Riven213, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1"They just give web search, because a censored web search is better than no web search at all."

          LOL ! ! ! ! ! I won't even comment that, come on...
          • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Don't tell me you won't comment on that, just don't ***** actually comment on it. Yes, they gave China the censored search engine for that reason. Go to youtube.com/google and watch some of the policy talks. They are long, so I hope your small brain can retain over 30 seconds of attention.
        • Riven213, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1you stupid ass, you didnt even understand what I've written. i don't care anyway LOL
    • chris1012, on 02/04/2008, -4/+0that is the official google statement? wtf ... trafficked spelt with a k?
      • TomFrost, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Dude, next time you're about to broadcast your illiteracy, open a dictionary first.
      • dajernts, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Please tell me you didn't just say that.
      • chris1012, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1holy shiat someone can't take a joke. Haven't you heard of sarcasim?
    • falstaff, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3You have to understand Internet math: Three behemoth internet companies = Free, open, competitive, consumer-oriented paradise. Two behemoth internet companies = 1984-style dystopian monopoly hell.
  • Pixelpaws, on 02/04/2008, -54/+202I find it interesting that Google would accuse Microsoft of trying to build a monopoly over Internet-related businesses, considering that Google has over 60% of the search market. While a 60% share is hardly a monopoly, Yahoo and Microsoft combined will have just 32%, leaving Google as the dominant player.
    • latova, on 02/04/2008, -23/+149Google offers people the most relevant search results, therefore this is why they have 60% of that marketshare, They've worked hard to offer the best service.

      Microsoft offers people one choice, and this is why they have 90% of the PC market. They've worked hard to be the only service out there. The only other choices, Mac and Linux, sometimes don't offer things you can get on a PC like games and some applications, because Microsoft has worked hard to make sure these things won't go there.

      Google on the other hand supports things like open formats (their office app has ODF and a handful of other formats), and aren't interested in locking people in.
      • SysstemLord, on 02/04/2008, -4/+7In fact, Microsoft sells you its operating system with their Live Search in the browser, and Google isn't even in the list. But every product Google has, is design to work with windows and its internet explorer.
        • GawtMilk, on 02/04/2008, -3/+8In Fact, Mozilla lets your download it's browser with their Google search built-in, and Live Search isn't even in the list. However, with every product Mozilla has, it is designed to work with pages made for Internet Explorer.

          What's your point? And for the record, Mozilla makes millions of dollars since they get a percentage of the ads clicked from Google searches done with in the browser.

          Proud user of FireFox and XP / Vista Ultimate. They both work in harmony, quit bitching.
        • daza, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Google is in the list. One the first run of Internet Explorer 7 it asks you who you would like your search provider to be. By default it is Live Search, but Google is just underneath it. Very, very easy to change it to Google. Haven't really been offered the opportunity to use Live Search in Firefox, though.
        • rpgmaker, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1"But every product Google has, is design to work with windows and its internet explorer."
          They don't have a choice, MS has the biggest stake in the OS market.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5I tried to use Live Search for images. But the Menu was confusing.
        It wouldn't return any good results so I went to google and 3 seconds later I was looking at what I needed.

        (searched for examples of activity diagrams used in software development)
      • SierraAlpha, on 02/04/2008, -8/+2No it's because max and linux suck. I know Windows isn't a perfect OS but I don't think you realize that Windows has people working really hard to make it a appealing, user-friendly OS. Linux requires me to go to a command line and enter "noapic" just to get it to install... already that's going to stop like 90% of people over the age of 50 from installing it. Windows you just put the disc in and follow the instructions (which usually require pressing the enter button or typing your name).
        • KirbyMeister, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1I just installed Ubuntu on an old box a few weeks ago, switching from a now-broken Debian installation. It installed quickly, was easy to configure (and partition !!), and even made it easy to install that annoying nvidia driver blob which was a pain to get working in Debian... and then broke and required the latest obscure configuration fix to repair.

          Plus 90% of people over the age of 50 don't know how to use a computer.
          And 495.385% of all fake statistics can kill people with bears.
      • FutureGuy, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1In that case Google should encourage this deal, it will create a viable competitor to Google. Today Google owns so much of the search market that its pretty much impossible for anyone to compete with it. Instead of doing everything it can to derail this including desperate measures like lobbying congress http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04yah ...
    • Remmy, on 02/04/2008, -13/+43Google doesn't force anyone to use their engine. It's results are simply more accurate.
      "because Microsoft has worked hard to make sure these things won't go there."
      That is the very reason they are a monopoly. They have padded pockets to keep things in their favor. They are attempting to do it again.
      • arcooke, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3"Its results"
        • SniperGX1, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Goog has a monopoly through the manipulation of open source. Look where all the big players in the open source community work.
    • scuvball, on 02/04/2008, -7/+48The goal of any corporation is to grow. Microsoft, Yahoo, GOOGLE.... Google is a publicly held stock just like the rest of them (your padded pockets), and their goal (whether explicitly stated or not) is to maximize shareholder value. People shouldn't oppose this deal simply because it is 'Micro$oft'. I don't think the op should be dugg down impulsively. His statement is completely valid.
      • Jenadae, on 02/04/2008, -15/+5It's the moral of their business ethics that is the issue. Microsoft unlike Google doesn't force you to use their product by using proprietary formats and the such.
    • wingnut21, on 02/04/2008, -12/+21You talk like Google buys areas of the internet and lock users into one search engine. Choosing a search engine is completely equal opportunity.

      Microsoft has been around years before Google, along with Yahoo. Both had a greater brand recognition before Google. Google got to where it is quickly for being the best.

      Microsoft DEFAULTS its search to Live Search on the preinstalled Internet Explorer on your PC. Despite this, people choose Google. Microsoft has only themselves to blame for where they are now.
    • OUChevelleSS, on 02/04/2008, -10/+4Monopoly doesn't mean you own the most of something...
    • FutureGuy, on 02/04/2008, -8/+17Google doesn't like the competition, plain and simple, and I don't blame them, Google is a publicly traded capitalistic company just like MS. So it would do things like say "we don't do evil" and quietly point at MS, its only serious competition, and say its the worst thing since devil himself, tell the world "you all need to open up your source, give it all way free so that we can get rid of MS, ohh just don't look at my sources, those make me money"
      • sonstone, on 02/04/2008, -5/+1What exactly is the difference between a capitalistic and a non-capitalistic company and how does google fit into that definition vs the counterpart?
      • thailand1972, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4This is Google scare-mongering as you say. They like the status-quo of two minnows hopelessly losing to Google. They're worried MS will buy Yahoo! and then for the first time they'll have serious competition. Personally I'm tired of Google telling us how morally fibrous they are as a company. Stop telling us that when we know it's not true. Google are like any other company, they have skeletons in their cupboards (Click fraud measures are insubstantial, MFA - Made For Adsense - websites abound).
    • Daggity, on 02/04/2008, -6/+3Kinda like saying Apple has a monopoly over mp3 players. :/
    • SoulGrub, on 02/04/2008, -8/+4Obviously Google has the greater market share. But the point they are making is valid based on Microsoft's history of making decisions against the interest of the public. We SHOULD be concerned about how this takeover will impact us.
    • omaryak, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3I think the issue they were speaking to was Microsoft's OS dominance, not the combined companies' share of the search market. As we've seen recently, Internet companies have become about much more than just search.
    • Peko, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4Scuse me if somebody else covered it. Google is accusing Microsoft of a history of anticompetitive acts. (which are much easier to achieve with a majority of marketshare)
    • PxCxG, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1You're right. Of course google will come out against this -- it means more competition for them. It's pretty stupid to suggest that a microsoft-yahoo! would be in a position to have market power. Google still dominates search, and email comes with every ISP out there, so they couldn't have market power there, either.
    • rebotfc, on 02/04/2008, -3/+15A monopoly has nothing to do with marketshare, it is about barriers to entry. Google has always supported open protocols that encourage entry into the market not discourage.

      The fact that the comment accusing google of a monopoly gets +72 diggs makes me sad, has Digg really become a mob of know-nothings.
      • samiam0007, on 02/04/2008, -3/+0It's the Pot calling the Kettle black, silly!
        • SoulGrub, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1How is that even relevant to his comment?
      • SoulGrub, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6/nod, it is quite pitiful
      • Llanowar, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3The sad thing is that even now, Digg is one of the more intelligent places on the web :(
    • highPhone, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Not to mention the fact that Google's CEO is on the board of directors at Apple....
      http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html
    • jimmyyy, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0aww Google, don't be scared, - Yes, Google would still hold the market share.

      But of course Google will feel threatened, LOL.
      Personally I like Microsoft's organic search results, they seem fair, Though perhaps a little glitchy when tied into pay-per-click.
  • rYno, on 02/04/2008, -30/+14Is it going to come down to this? Google = Open/Good VS. Microyahoo = Closed/TheMan
    • hendzen, on 02/04/2008, -4/+5Nope. This acquisition is actually good for consumers because of the intense competition between Yahoosoft and Google. Hopefully both sides will put out some great new services.
    • michaelfitz, on 02/04/2008, -8/+8Google? Open?
      *chuckles*
      In your terminology, google is very much "The Man", as is Micro$oft.
      • AmazingAndrex, on 02/04/2008, -3/+4But... Android...
      • thailand1972, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Agree - Google is as much "The Man" as any large company who wants to protect its profits.
    • brufleth, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1No. Not really. Google would still dominate a Microsoft/Yahoo company as far as web portals go. At the most they MIGHT offer something approaching an alternative. Any criticisms from Google are just them doing what companies do (protecting their interests). They aren't looking out for you and they aren't your friend.
    • dajernts, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Google no more open and good than any other company looking for a profit. They make their money and it always comes back around to the consumer in the end.
  • nenee, on 02/04/2008, -17/+4From blog: "Could a combination of the Microsoft + yahoo take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors' email, IM, and web-based services?"
    Do you think so?
    • scuvball, on 02/04/2008, -3/+6No. First of all, this would be struck down by anti-monopoly laws in court. (unless judges completely ignored precedent). Second of all, it is not in Microsoft's interest to do so. They have a big enough problem with their current image, they are unlikely to do something that would make them appear even more 'evil'. People are becoming computer literate and more options are on the table than ever before. Microsoft has a large problem merely fighting against the image that Apple has right now. Anything that would limit a user's current ability to access websites on the internet would absolutely destroy the company.
      • hendzen, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4I believe Microsoft's actions aren't motivated by "image". The launch of Vista was universally panned, and despite that, Vista is doing very well. Source: http://tinyurl.com/2bkhb7

        Remember that diggers make up an insignificant portion of the total market for computers, and while I'm sure many people here love Apple, in the end there's one thing that determines everything, and that is price. Apple, wanting all apple computers to have a trendy look(amongst other factors), has not allowed people to go out and buy Mac OSX and install it on their regular beige boxes. Don't even mention hackintoshes, most people don't want their computer to run illegal(Against Apple's TOS)/pirates(Few people buy osx when they download the OSX_86 drivers.) Also, apple supports a small subset of hardware, not allowing people to swap many components in and out of their pc's(In MP's) I love Apple products and own a MBP, but realistically unless Apple changes it's entire direction, Apple will remain an expensive niche brand.
  • denisutku, on 02/04/2008, -22/+7Microsoft still thinks like a monopoly!
    Instead of closing all its online assets and enjoying high profits from software, they decided that they should be the only internet portal.
  • lengau, on 02/04/2008, -11/+3So... Is Google putting in a bid for Yahoo!?
  • patman, on 02/04/2008, -9/+129Somebody is pissed...
  • Atomic1fire, on 02/04/2008, -16/+4You wanna squelsh those worries
    Force Microsoft to sell its advertising division to Some not google company
    why not google
    because Google+more ad empire= real monopoly
    • Atomic1fire, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Let me clarify
      Tell the FCC to make Selling Microsofts Web advertising division to some other company because that would cause Microsoft to not make as much money on yahoo and its own services without having to split 50/50 or whatever with another company as microsoft couldnt talk with advertisers themselves
  • tinko, on 02/04/2008, -20/+7United States v. Microsoft 2.0
  • guardianx, on 02/04/2008, -12/+68Is there anyone else big enough to put in a bid? Google wouldnt be allowed for anticompetitive reasons...
    Its going to take M$ a couple of years to rewrite flickr/delicious/yahoo search in .net.... all that lovely PHP gone to waste :(
    • victorycig, on 02/04/2008, -2/+38Oh my god, I was laughing about this proposal until I read your post. I hadn't even thought about flickr and delicious... Now I'm upset.
    • skyshock1, on 02/04/2008, -3/+9Not to mention convert all of Yahoo's internal data center infrastructure to NT..... ugh.
      • jhaks, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2Your comment and ones along the same vein make me wonder if digg users are just as stupid and blind as the average idiot. "NT.... ugh"? Do you even know ANYTHING technical about the NT kernel? Go ahead then and explain the architecture and design and tell me why you say "ugh".
        • acidandspatter, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Basically I think what Skyshock1 means is that they already have a well established infrastructure running whatever (Linux presumably) so Microsoft would go and waste time converting their entire network to .net and so what would be the point. Instead why don't they look at creating some interoperability between .net and Linux and actually move technology forward...
          • KirbyMeister, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1.NET apps can already run on Linux thanks to Mono. Works pretty good, in fact. I've never been able to get Java apps to run on Linux, so I was quite suprised when mono installed and worked right out of the box.
    • Appleologist, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6I'm most worried about Zimbra.
    • thailand1972, on 02/04/2008, -3/+6LOL - you think they're going to spend their time re-inventing wheels?
      • eggnet, on 02/04/2008, -4/+7Yes, there is no question.
        • thailand1972, on 02/04/2008, -3/+3No question? You can only speculate, but it's unlikely they're going to strip down existing, popular web apps, with a team of Yahoo! engineers who know the existing codebases and can maintain them - and re-make them, tying up engineers time creating web apps that have already been developed - sounds like the equivilant of the army sweeping up puddles of rainwater if there's nothing else to do.
      • Mike89, on 02/04/2008, -2/+6They did it with Hotmail. And uhm, are you forgetting which company we're talking about?
    • beingdevious, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3thats a sickening thought :eek:
    • jhaks, on 02/04/2008, -3/+6This is a very uninformed statement. PHP and .net aren't even the same type of platform. There is no reason MS would not use PHP or overhaul existing Yahoo services needlessly. By the way using "M$" is not witty and never was.
      • KirbyMeister, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Microsoft overhauled Hotmail when they bought 'em out. Forced them to switch from FreeBSD to NT and from stories on the net it didn't exactly work that well...
    • dajernts, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Is it possible to write Microsoft without a $ or is that not cool enough.
  • mundus, on 05/15/2008, -30/+17Google's motto remains don't be evil.

    While Microsoft everyday stinks more and more of monopoly and antitrust.
    • supporter12, on 02/04/2008, -13/+18what if microsoft's motto was sunshine and flowers , it doesnt matter *****, google is as evil as any corporation, and all that ***** in their blog about openness and ***** is part of their brand creating efforts , dont be a fool
      • Darkhacker, on 02/04/2008, -5/+12Can you give an example of Google being evil?
        • pauleric, on 02/04/2008, -5/+6Here you go:
          http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FBCF686& ...
          • MadOtaku, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Censorship isn't evil and there is nothing wrong with working within the laws of a country. Just because America supports freedom of information and speech, doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't is "evil". Grow up and learn that someone disagreeing with you doesn't make you good and them bad.
          • Darkhacker, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3That's not Google being evil. That's China being evil. Google can either choose to censor stuff for China or be blocked entirely by the country. Better to have a watered-down Google than none at all.
    • Archer007, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I thought we were down to the least worst option years ago.
  • bluegene, on 02/04/2008, -2/+101Check out Microsoft's reply for Google's statement against the deal
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb0 ...
    • spammishking, on 02/04/2008, -10/+40"Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation..."
    • Remmy, on 02/04/2008, -18/+63"Microsoft is committed to openness"

      *****.
      • rockchops, on 02/04/2008, -6/+35and by 'openness' of course, we mean 'open to purchasing Microsoft products'
      • Wildthing, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Yes, we all know Apple is even more open. In fact, I was able to build my own Mac last week .
        • AndrewWiggin, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Don't "Kitchen sink."
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Apple has everything to do with the current discussion and is totally on-topic. Please continue.
    • frontporsche, on 02/04/2008, -10/+53Microsoft isn't even open enough to say _which_ patents they accuse Linux developers of violating.
    • MasterThief117, on 02/04/2008, -14/+5"Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential."

      Do I need to even say anything?
    • PixelD, on 02/04/2008, -4/+26While Googles actually felt like somebody was writing that. Microsoft came off as a legal PR document generator. Guess we'll see that feature in Office 2008.
    • mntalkase, on 02/04/2008, -1/+20I love how there is more legalese at the bottom of the statement, then there is statement itself.
    • adwarereport, on 02/04/2008, -5/+10I've worked pretty closely with both Microsoft's (and Yahoo's) search teams. I can attest to the fact that their company has made a real change in how they treat their customers. Gone is the arrogance and unresponsiveness of the mid-90's. They realize they lost the battle in the search engine wars and tried to make that up in innovation and customer service. It wasn't enough. At the end of the day, it's not attitude, but value. Google gained an early edge by innovating their search results, and as a result got a majority of advertisers and users. They continue to edge out Yahoo and Microsoft month after month in advertiser counts, and neither company has any realistic chance of changing that.

      Google "only" has 60% of search engine usage, but they have 95% advertiser share. Does this sound like a monopoly to you? You betcha it is.

      They are going through the same cycle that MSFT did in the 90's. One difference - MSFT alienated developers. Google alienates advertisers. Other than that, this is the same company, different name.
      • philhatesyou, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3No, having a higher share of the market doesn't make you a monopoly. Being the only provider of a good or service makes a company a monopoly. From Wikipedia:

        "In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure monopoly") is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. "

        Doesn't sound like Google at all. The only thing required to get people to switch from Google is to convince them it's a good idea. To get people to switch from Windows, you have to convince them it's a good idea, then get the massive software industry behind it.
        • gerbintosh, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0Yes google is not a monopoly, but they are using monopolistic practices
      • dajernts, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Great call. I completely agree. People have been taken into the Google driven delusion that Google is this new monopoly for the people or something. There is absolutely no monopoly that is beneficial to the consumer and, like you were saying, monopolizing advertising increases the cost of products and services which greatly effects the consumer.
    • julianrod, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Now they're fighting to show which has LESS market share...
    • onebit, on 02/04/2008, -3/+3Poor micwosoft :(
    • Llanowar, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Microsoft is commited to openness just means they love to hold their huge wallets wide open for people to throw more money in.
    • KirbyMeister, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Here's the reply in a nutshell: "We are the Borg. Lower your competition and surrender your servers. Your infrastructure will be modified to service us. Resistance is futile." Or for today's generation: "We are Microsoft. We are legion. We do not compete. We do not play fair. Expect us."
  • spammishking, on 02/04/2008, -10/+20I've been using Yahoo since '95, and I've really grown to like the little guy... I'm really hoping that somehow this falls through and Yahoo is around to try and compete with Google on it's own terms
    • Eisim, on 02/04/2008, -1/+20you craaaazy
    • mrfreeziexp, on 02/04/2008, -5/+8Same here, I've been with Yahoo since the start. It's a great website, I really think it's underrated, I don't understand why Yahoo's stock is so much lower than Google's.
      • m3mn0n, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7underrated? Isn't it like the most visited website in the US?
      • terminal157, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3It might have something to do with people not wanting to wait for a bloated, ugly page to load up and offer them nothing they can't find elsewhere.
    • drummer1189, on 02/04/2008, -0/+11you know google used to be the little guy
  • neiltc13, on 02/04/2008, -22/+4YAHOOSOFT or MICROHOO!
    • neiltc13, on 02/04/2008, -16/+2I repeated this comment because of my 3184 previous ones it was probably one of the highest dugg up. It currently has 585 positive diggs. I like it as a comment.
      • Mejogid, on 02/04/2008, -1/+14Seriously? You must have a really big penis.
  • jlee2081, on 02/04/2008, -23/+15That's it? Did he have an intern write that for him?

    That response was underwhelming. Not what I'd expect from the folks at Google.
  • Phocion55, on 02/04/2008, -15/+17"Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets."

    Wow. Those are some incredibly blunt words from Google. But, I guess it had to be said....
  • deadowl, on 02/04/2008, -13/+1I highly doubt the FTC will approve the deal anyway, even with the Bush administration. Too many interests on this one.
  • str3ama, on 02/04/2008, -19/+73"So Microsoft's hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions"
    Oh..so it's only hostile when a competitor starts buying out the other competitors, what about the massive takeovers and buyouts by Google during the last 5 years that saw them buy out not only technology firms like KeyHole Inc (Google Maps), or social networks (Dodgeball), but full fledged search engines (Baidu) as well..

    I'm more weary of Google which seems to be more of a threat than the 'on-the-decline' Microsoft monolith.
    • estvir, on 02/04/2008, -9/+11And don't forget DoubleClick which Google purchased for 3.1 billion and was looked at for possibly anti-trust, monopoly and other issues.
    • hendzen, on 02/04/2008, -1/+21Since when did Google buy out Baidu?
    • m3mn0n, on 02/04/2008, -0/+16"hostile" has a different meaning in the realm of buyout bids for stock market listed companies

      purchasing a small, private company and coming to a deal with its management is not "hostile" just because you as a user disagree with the deal
    • skyshock1, on 02/04/2008, -0/+12Um... I'm pretty sure Google doesn't own Baidu. They've bought an ultra small percentage of Baidu stock, but in no way controls Baidu.
    • rossnyc, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Yea, well Google doesn't ***** everything up like Microsoft...I think that's why everyone is weary of Microsoft.
  • Zoshchenko, on 02/04/2008, -17/+10Anything...and I literally mean ANYTHING Microsoft does should be viewed with suspicion. They do not have anyone's best interests in mind but their own - and most likely at the expense of everyone else's.
  • advertboy2007, on 02/04/2008, -8/+4Yahoo is just one of a handfull of promising Internet companies out there, anyone that knows anything around asian internet companies knows that there are some major other internet players out there eg. Baidu and Naver. These companies will be the yahoo's of the future. Let Microsoft take yahoo, these other internet companies will rise to take there place...
    • osbjmg, on 02/04/2008, -4/+3Oh, so sorry - I was with you until you said "take there place". It's "their".
  • tOnybOgs, on 02/04/2008, -13/+33While I don't really like the idea of Microsoft having more control, this is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read.

    Google has control of the vast majority of online advertising, pretty much a monopoly in itself.
    • SoulGrub, on 02/04/2008, -6/+4It is not hypocritical for Google to comment on this since MS has a much poorer history of behaving like a monopoly. Their have earned their right to comment by having superior company ethics. Correct me if you tihnk I'm wrong.
      • lotsofcooki3s, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1You are wrong... and that's why people like you will never be able to understand business... ethics, monopoly blah blah... meow meow.. Do you really honestly thinks a company that makes billions of dollars in revenue every year can afford to give a ***** about ethics.... oh... and the "user"..? Google is hypocritical.... Kudos tOnybOgs.
        • brinco, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2No, you're wrong. Google has shown in it's history to do the right thing, even if it's means bad business. They've said they'll stop allowing AdSense to accounts younger than 5 days in order to stop domain tasting. This is good for the consumer, for the little guy. Horrible for Google's advertising revenue.

          Although you are right that they do have a monopoly, I don't mind that as they treat us with respect and give us what we want and need, nothing more. They respect the consumer in such a way where they deserve the monopoly.

          Because business doesn't have to be about big money, and that's what some capitalists don't get. It's about people - and when you make those people happy they come back to you - which in turn makes you money. So it's a win-win.
          • lotsofcooki3s, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0It's precisely because it is good for the little guy in THAT CASE, that it's good for BUSINESS(it seems to have worked perfectly in manipulating you.... ohh we are Google and are going to lose some money to prove to you how goody- doers we are and then make billions again because you like us so much... are you guys completely blind??) Sacrificing revenue for a BIGGER revenue is a common business strategy... It has been around since the medieval times.
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3You want hypocrisy? Read up MS's answer linked above.
      Also hilarious to notice how up the top comments, MS haters are getting dugg up, and past the 10th/15th comments it's all the google haters getting dugg up. THAT is also hypocrisy. You people instead of going paranoid about Google becoming a monopoly should think out of your ass for over a second. They got all the power they need to become a monopoly. If they wanted to, they would be.
      And also alot of you need to understand what a hostile bid is, and to read more than just one article on the net. MS's bid is hostile, if you take it literally go read the definition of hostile in economy. I laughed at the comment above getting over 40 diggs whereas it was full of bs.
  • Alix7, on 02/04/2008, -14/+5WOAH HOSTILE BID *****!

    Google lays a smackdown
    • m3mn0n, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Thanks, Ollie. And now to asian reporter Tricia Takanawa on scene at Google HQ. Tricia?
  • samfishercell, on 02/04/2008, -9/+23"We take Internet openness, choice and innovation seriously."

    What about my choice not to have Google cache enough information about me to create a clone?
    • philhatesyou, on 02/04/2008, -3/+5No one made you use Google.
      • samfishercell, on 02/04/2008, -5/+2Regardless of if I use it or not, Google probably still has loads of info on me.
        • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1If you didn't publish them on the web they wouldn't have it. Google doesn't work with the FBI you idiot.
    • AndrewWiggin, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2You shouldn't put important information about yourself on the internet then, huh?
  • Aroundtown27, on 02/04/2008, -7/+5I was hoping for a "Nuts" reply...
    • happyalex, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0well said
    • natedouglas, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1I wish that I could be CEO of a multibillion dollar tech company with > 60% marketshare in its field. No, not for the obvious reasons. I just want to be able to control the official company blog.

      "Re: Microsoft Makes $46 billion bid to purchase Yahoo.
      by natedouglas

      :-(

      34 comments | Post a comment"

      Watching the stock price plummet after the blog post would be awesome.
    • el_taco, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1why was your comment dugg down? it was perfect!
  • monkeestylee, on 02/04/2008, -10/+3i couldn't give a microhoot about the whole thing.
  • allenu, on 02/04/2008, -27/+43How about Google mind their own business.
    • KurtangleTN, on 02/04/2008, -5/+35Oh because two major competitors merging isn't really their business.
    • addakorn, on 02/04/2008, -4/+1I do not think Google could do that.
    • MadOtaku, on 02/04/2008, -3/+7Google's mission is to mind everyone's business! And index it!
  • AnonymousSkull, on 02/04/2008, -9/+1*****
  • ryanonfire, on 02/04/2008, -8/+10How is more competition not good?
    • tylerjames, on 02/04/2008, -2/+10probably because this constitutes less competition??
      one company gets absorbed by another
      • ryanonfire, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2Google is the number one Internet Empire. Microsoft doesn't have an Internet Empire. So by joining/buying Yahoo, there will be increased competition in this domain (no pun intended).
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1What tylerjames said. And read the blog post entirely before assuming Google doesn't want competition.
  • BomarJr, on 02/04/2008, -11/+1u just love buying what u can just to promote ur company don't u microsoft?
  • tkloppel, on 02/04/2008, -16/+13What a bunch of nonsense. The internet isn't great because of "openness". It is great because it makes a lot people very rich very quick. This is what will keep the internet alive, not "Policymakers around the world" asking questions.

    Whoever approved this nonsense at Google should pull their head out of their ass.
    • brinco, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5The internet would not be able to make a lot of people very rich very quick were it not open. Net Neutrality and other factors are what make this possible. This is far from this 'nonsense' you're talking about.

      And since when did everything start being about money? All these comments are always about money. Can no one have a little ethics with their capitalism?
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Brinco speaks the truth. I cannot believe tkloppel's comment is even dugg in the positive. Hello Google haters.
  • merripen, on 02/04/2008, -13/+4If Google wants to take over every facet of the internet and lock people in to their method of operation, I will still welcome them with open arms.
  • wildbillhick, on 02/04/2008, -12/+39Google is just upset because they want to own the internet.
  • uselessexpert, on 02/04/2008, -23/+16HA....how funny....
    The pot (Google) is calling the kettle (Microsoft) black.

    What hypocrisy! On this one, I'm with Microsoft. ***** GOOGLE!
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Reposting from above, because you're dumb.

      "You want hypocrisy? Read up MS's answer linked above.
      Also hilarious to notice how up the top comments, MS haters are getting dugg up, and past the 10th/15th comments it's all the google haters getting dugg up. THAT is also hypocrisy. You people instead of going paranoid about Google becoming a monopoly should think out of your ass for over a second. They got all the power they need to become a monopoly. If they wanted to, they would be.
      And also alot of you need to understand what a hostile bid is, and to read more than just one article on the net. MS's bid is hostile, if you take it literally go read the definition of hostile in economy. I laughed at the comment above getting over 40 diggs whereas it was full of bs."
  • nicejai, on 02/04/2008, -10/+3Sometimes, I wish Google were a political party.
    • SniperGX1, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Just go with the party closest to them...republicans
  • xxdesmus, on 02/04/2008, -8/+35Clearly Google has no hidden motive here...
    • MadOtaku, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2GOOGLE REALLY IS HIDING ITS MOTIVE BEHIND THIS POST. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY SAID THEY WANT LAW MAKERS TO LOOK AT THE DEAL AND MAYBE STOP IT RIGHT IN THEIR POST OR ANYTHING. I WONDER WHAT THEIR SECRET PLAN IS.
  • sharpie45, on 02/04/2008, -5/+9Interesting.... Not the reaction I expected. Kinda surprised that Google views it as enough of a threat to respond like this. I think they should be giddy cause of the news. Microhoo will be a clumsy beast that's unlikely to be a serious rival to Google. The buyout will slow development at both Microsoft & Yahoo, giving GOOG even more of a lead in search.

    Email and web apps are slowly shifting, but the tide is in Google's favor. It takes time for people/companies to switch these long-term services.
    • DeathAngel0125, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8I agree... Microsoft already has products that compete with both Google and Yahoo and they're not doing well. This acquisition is going to bury Yahoo. Microsoft has already shown that they cannot beat Google in Search, Mail, and online applications. And Microsoft will impose its Operating System monopoly agenda on Yahoo, which will make it even less appealing. Add to that the possibility that Microsoft may attempt to port Yahoo products to its own development platforms and this all starts to look like it's going to do more harm than good for Microsoft.
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4I kind of agree with you, but I don't think Google sees it as a threat for themselves. As one of their spokesman said in another interview, the acquisition doesn't encourage them to change anything to what they are doing.
      I think they see it more as a threat to internet itself. For example, Flickr pics are automatically under a Creative Commons license right now. Knowing Microsoft, they will definitely change that - Legally they cannot change the ones already under the CC license, thankfully.
      • sharpie45, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Hmm, good point. I hadn't considered much other than the search and news angles.
  • ernieoporto, on 02/04/2008, -9/+38We're talking about the same Google-Doubleclick "do no evil" folks? That ship has passed, guys.
    • MadOtaku, on 02/04/2008, -2/+6Buying a competitor isn't evil; trying to lock people into your service is. Google has never been shown to do that, so I wouldn't really call them evil.
      • MrPig, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3They are also the largest funder of Firefox and Opera. Remember that.
        • jeremyjudkins, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3You make it seem like they are giving it out of their pockets. Firefox earns the money from their search bar just like websites earn money from their ads. Google is still getting a large cut of everything.
  • freshtraffic, on 02/04/2008, -3/+4Google's privacy problems on the Internet vs Microsoft's software PC monopoly, are they both not as bad as each other? after all is it not these two companies buying or bidding for every other on the planet.
    Top and bottom Google is pissed that the revenue Microsoft would gain from Yahoo's adverts,banners and marketing online might dent there earnings, if they thought they had a chance of getting Yahoo, they would and the statement they just made would be utter *****.
  • Lutremi, on 02/04/2008, -8/+10You don't see Google bundling proprietary software to everything and having you chuck over money for everything. In fact, out of all the things Google offers (search, gmail, reader, docs, I could go on), only a very select few are ones you have to pay for - and often times, it would be for corporate use. A monopoly is good for the consumer if it is placed in good hands, ones that will continue innovating no matter what and always create high quality products. This is something Google does mostly for free, while Microsoft fails at it completely.
    • estvir, on 02/04/2008, -4/+2You do realise you just said monopolies are good and compared programs to web services? Oh my..
      • brinco, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Well, he explained when it's possible to be good. And if you don't notice, Microsoft charges for some web services..
      • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Comparing programs to web services is not new, and it's common. Go read up on Wikipedia. "Web Applications" "Web 2.0" "Interactive Content". And come back smarter; not that you could do much worse than you do right now.
    • joepaterno, on 02/04/2008, -3/+3Are you 11 or do you just have the business mentality of an 11 year old?
  • Scheissen, on 02/04/2008, -8/+1Libtards live in fear of monopolies while are forced to pay governments programs.
    • natedouglas, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Contards live in fear of government programs while are forced to retake englishes classes.
  • Pearl7, on 02/04/2008, -7/+6I think this is very dangerous to the freedom of the Internet and Microsoft should be corralled.
  • chuckpenzone, on 02/04/2008, -8/+6Why does Microsoft continue to insist on being a player in this arena? They will never make a dent in Google's market share if they don't innovate and furthermore - there is a negative connotation with sites that Microsoft is involved with.

    Make a better operating system - you've lost the internet battle.
    • uptown, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1You should be a motivational speaker.....
    • Adys, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Boy Microsoft must have alot of money to waste. First the 45 billions to Yahoo, and now the millions spent on paying idiots to digg down comments. I don't even understand how chuckpenzone's comment is in the negative, it's ***** true to the bones.
    • jimmyyy, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0lol im not i mico-digger, But appears lot of people disagree w/ ya. Including Google as there the ones sniffling.
  • WarPirate, on 02/04/2008, -9/+11sounds like their scared...
    • philhatesyou, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Sounds like you need to go back to ***** grammar school.
      • spammishking, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2no he just never finished the sentence...
        sounds like their scared /noun/ is going to /verb/ their /adjective/ /noun/
    • MadOtaku, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Their scared what? The suspense is killing me; I've been waiting almost 5 hours!
  • birkoph, on 02/04/2008, -8/+2The Internet is going to be no fun anymore.
  • Jangles, on 02/04/2008, -1/+8"We believe that the interests of Internet users come first -- and should come first"

    Sadly it will be the interest of the shareholders that comes first.
  • bryan986, on 02/04/2008, -6/+26Sounds like Google is scared that they might have someone to compete with.
    • omaryak, on 02/04/2008, -4/+6... or that the new competition has an operating system and browser installed on 90 percent of the world's computers.
      • joepaterno, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4That competitor already exists. What about the Yahoo acquisition would change anything about how Microsoft bundles? Answer- it wouldn't
      • SniperGX1, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Not really. This isn't the 90's. Apple and Linux (Ubuntu or whichever distro you prefer) provide a real viable alternative. There is no way Microsoft has a monopoly. If you use Windows it's because you want to.
  • halukakin, on 02/04/2008, -3/+8What happened to the whole "Do no evil!" motto... I'm deeply surprised by this press release...

    I would have thought google wouldn't have any problems with its rivals getting stronger...

    Once other search engines get stronger us the users might actually have the chance to protest google for storing our old search queries.
  • acmethunder, on 02/04/2008, -5/+9The real issue is that Microsoft is not a competitor to Google or Yahoo! MS needs to realize this. They are a software company, not an ad agency, that produces decent software for enterprises. Google became what it is because it did not lose sight of its original goal.

    This deal would give MS even more of the tech industry: desktop software that was forced on people and difficult if not impossible to remove, a size able chunk of the gaming industry, one of the largest online e-mail and IM services, and now they are aiming for online search.

    This is not just about Google vs Microsoft. It is about giving people choice, which is something that Google has always offered.
  • ktorbeck, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2He sounds like a sore loser.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.