The Tech Giant Mating Game

In the brave new Internet world, where the consumer is king, what does it mean when news of a takeover of Yahoo my Microsoft refuses to go away? Does it mean less choice, or better service? In 2008, this news appeared to be revolutionary, but here we are two years later, and it hasn’t moved forward. It has also given Google’s share price time to recover, while Icahn and the rest of the Yahoo board are still hurling insults in their own sandbox, and perhaps time for everyone to get over the whole thing. Could it still happen? What would we get as well as the partners, and their competition?

It still make sense from Microsoft’s part, especially, hanging in there, seeing the value of the buy, and perhaps the row that would come from the announcement of intent to buy. I am still surprised that Yahoo is that weak, but perhaps that was a window that has now closed.

They both have several search-related patents – combining them may well allow them to finally narrow the “Google gap” (the huge difference in percentage of the search share market). Microsoft can offer money, technology and excellent management processes (something Yahoo sorely lacks), while Yahoo has experience, reach, passion and credibility on their side. Together they could become the world’s premier search engine.

Conversely, if these two gargantuan forces work day and night to thwart one another, as opposed to trying to evolve into what searchers demand they become, it could possibly open the door for up & coming search engines, Ask.com for example, to gain mindshare, not by competing with their larger rivals, but by focusing on their own evolution based on the increasing demands of users.

Yahoo still has a lot of potential, especially if it can effectively leverage its rather in-depth knowledge of social media. Most of the companies Yahoo has acquired in these interminable two years or so have had a social media focus and with the way the use of the internet is moving, the social side of the industry is just busting at the seams to have a “leader” here. Yahoo could be that leader. Microsoft on the other hand, buys companies and really doesn’t know how to leverage them properly. They are, basically, horrible at search. Microsoft has been trying for several years now and has made virtually no significant progress on market share. That being said, Microsoft has been bolder about integration of universal search-type aspects, and that approach would serve both vehicles well.

The main prize still remains, though: Mobile Marketing. Whoever can maximize ROI on this area will be global king (Outside of China, as Google is finding out.), so it may take a third partner to facilitate the move. Imagine the partnership between say a Verizon or Sprint with a ‘MicroYahoo’? This could be the positioning that everyone is waiting for: Making money on a platform that we understand as a non-paid advertising platform. Not just companies involved, but us poor consumers – this could reshape everything for the next few years.

Netizens: Freedom, or…….

While applauding Google’s decision not to compromise its beliefs in order to simply gather more eyeballs in China, the subject of cyberspace freedom is, once again, being discussed. The Search Engine behemoth isn’t making any money in China, so it’s not as if this proud stance will cost them anything, but it makes the right decision to do this and state that “Do no Evil” is more than a motto. Most companies would take the position that more eyes mean higher rates for Ad Words so on behalf of all of us, Thanks ‘Googs’. When contrasted with the US financial institutions, the company is certainly making a case that it’s ideals are worth more than it’s share price; a ray of sunshine in the gloom of corporate America. But does the existence of an unpoliced Internet as a whole in our lives mean now what it used to?

The Chinese government may well have been spying on G-Mail account holders, but is it the only Government doing so? It’ a knee-jerk reaction to look at this as a case of a Communist regime, once again taking people’s freedoms away, but if you don’t think that most Governments are doing this, you are dreaming. If your own ruling political party’s secret service were watching you, do you feel any freer where you live than in Beijing? The fact that the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made such a public fuss about Google’s decision may sound like freedom loving America bitch-slapping it’s Eastern foe, but we all know that all US citizens are being spied on.

The freedom to read and write what you want across a borderless global system comes at a cost: Hacker’s, Viruses, Spam, and predatory individuals are something that we put up with in order to chat with someone in a far flung corner about the mundane seconds of our own lives. If you believe that the ‘net is home to evil doers that don’t need to communicate in public, then what does that say about your feelings concerning the outbreak of laptops in coffee shops? Are those people that you don’t really want to talk to really Twittering on about what they just bought, or do you believe that their conversations a re more nefarious?

If you don’t trust anyone enough to talk to them in public, then you get the Internet you deserve. It’s easier to have numerous instantaneous pen pals across the globe than to open up about yourself to a real live person, but what does that say about the generation now in their teens, and what are they opening themselves up for in the future? There may be an argument for some kind of expanded control if the entire planetary communication is now online. We have always measured our species’ advances in technological terms, but we may have created something here that will enslave us. If this is true, the decision to keep one tiny part of the globe out of the conversation because someone may be listening may do more harm than good.

Paul says: “We are OK” Someone tell the experts

In a recent business headline page, I found three well known companies highlighted with current financial news. It made me wonder what is the most important thing to us? Finances, communication, or information.

The liberal democrat in me leans toward communication, of course. If we can’t talk to someone, and find out what they feel is important, then how can we find common ground?  That looks so cliched, looking at it in print, but bear with me. I was waiting for a ride downtown in our local city last week, and was approached by the usual crazy. Dressed in warm weather clothes in a heatwave, broken glasses, voice too loud, and repeating words  over and over again. Part of me wanted to run. I didn’t feel threatened, so it must have been guilt. He only wanted a smoke, but I apologized and said no. I am a firm believer that giving a little bit to someone who has nothing only exacerbates the poverty cycle. If we all said no, then no-one would bother us, because they knew they wouldn’t receive. Great! That’s really lib-Dem.

He looked at me, shrugged and said: “Well, they’re bad for your health, anyway. How are you doing?” I have never had my health questioned by a homeless person. I was so shocked, I carried on with the conversation. In five minutes, I found out that his name was Paul. He had a room close by, so he was better off than some of those “poor people out there”, he felt good, came from about 50 miles away in the country, but never went home anymore, because he didn’t feel comfortable. Yes, he was in hospital, but they couldn’t help, so he left. He knows that he’s a “bit out there”, but loves life. “Not everyone’s bad.”, he said. Just in trouble, sometimes, and the drugs make them go a bit bad. Not him, though. I said that everyone is basically good, and he agreed. Then he made his excuses and went away looking for a smoke. Just a conversation with a random stranger, but it made my day. I was glad to see that Paul wasn’t in trouble.

So, information was also passed, and that was what really made me feel good. I thought that I had grabbed a bottle from the sea, and read a small message. Perhaps information is just as important as communication. After all, you need something to say, once you touch someone else – even if you don’t know anything, you can still listen.

Is it any wonder, then, that two of these companies highlighted in the paper were Google and AT&T.

The first is doing well; Stock price up 20 per cent thanks to wonderful recent quarter results that ‘surprised industry analyst’s. These stocks are now worrth  over $530 US each, and this surge had added $28-Billion in company value. What? $28 Bill for a website? What do they do? If I don’t know something, do I immediately “google it”? Does this add to their advertising rate? I use the service a lot, but I cannot remember ever clicking on a single ad. If I want to know something, I think of the people I know that may know something, and call them.

Weird, then, that AT & T have announced they are cutting 4,600 jobs and take a downswing of $347-Million U.S. What? If a phone company can’t make money, then who can? Every month I check my phone bill and wonder how the hell it costs me over $80 per month when I have stopped making calls becasue I can no longer afford it. Surely the only people that couldn’t make money in the communications industry would be my new friend, Paul? Well, they obviously haven’t been checking Google news items, where it’s obvious that everyone is going wireless, and mobile advertising is coming up next. Didn’t you see that change in the tide? Whoops.

I would like to say that those famous ‘Industry Analysts’ had something to say about AT & T’s downturn, but they didn’t. Someone, somewhere, though, is looking at this stock price and making a decision about the future worth of your portfolio, and retirement plans. Most likely they would work for a financial services company. One of the World’s biggest, Citibank, recently announced that they would cut over 9,000 jobs (Whose going to analyze Industries, now?), and their current loss due to the credit crunch is now $15 Billion. These are the ‘experts’, folks. These are the ones making decisions about which companies are good and which are no good. They are the ones surpised by how good that Google did, and who were taken by surprise by the slippage in AT & T.

A recent upswing in Google’s stock price, mean that this company can take just a portion of their last three month’s profits, and bale both the other two companies out. Would the World be a better place with Google in charge?

I would like to think that if they were, there would be fewer Paul’s around. However, that would mean that I wouldn’t learn something waiting for a ride. Discuss.