Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed
It no longer is about Data Portability or Social Graph Portability, if you will.
I’m hearing these rumors too that John Furrier (my ex-boss) is reporting. That Microsoft will buy Yahoo’s search and then buy Facebook for $15 to $20 billion. Add that to all the news that Microsoft is buying Yahoo’s search and that gets very interesting.
That just changed the whole argument of Facebook vs. Google to one of Microsoft vs. the Web.
Think about this just a second.
Let’s say Microsoft gets Yahoo’s search. That doesn’t look that brilliant. After all, we know Google is gaining share there and taking Yahoo’s best advertisers (and let’s just forget Microsoft’s efforts, which have been an utter failure so far).
But these two moves would change everything and totally explain why Facebook is working overtime to keep Google from importing anything. First, let’s look at what is at stake here:
Loic Le Meur did a little test with me a couple of weeks ago. He listed his Le Web conference on both Facebook and Upcoming.org. Here’s the Facebook listing. Here’s the Upcoming.org one.
The Facebook one can’t be seen if you don’t have a Facebook account. It’s NOT open to the public Web. Google’s spiders CAN NOT REACH IT.
He put both listings up at exactly the same time and did no invites, nothing. Just let people find these listings on their own.
The Facebook one is NOT available to the Web. It has 467 people who’ve accepted it. The Upcoming.org one IS available to Google and the Web. It has 101 people on it.
This is a fight for the Web. We all just crawled inside a box that locks Google out.
Don’t believe me?
Go to Google and do a search for “Le Web 08.”
Do you see a Facebook entry there? Nope. Google is locked out of the Web that soon will be owned by Microsoft. We will never get an open Web back if these two deals happen.
This has created HUGE value for Microsoft and has handed Steve Ballmer an Internet strategy which brings Microsoft from last place to first in less than a week.
Boom!
Now Microsoft/Yahoo search will have access to HUGE SWATHS of Internet info that Google will NOT have access to.
Data and social graph portability is dead on arrival.
Microsoft just bought itself a search strategy that sure looks like a winner to me.
If all this is true there is no way in hell that Facebook will open up now.
It’s Facebook and Microsoft vs. the open public Web.
Can the open public Web fight back? Yes. It’s called FriendFeed. Notice that FriendFeed replaces almost all of Facebook’s killer features with open ones that are open to Google’s search.
So, now, do you see why I’m so interested in FriendFeed? It’s our only hope to compete with Microsoft’s new “buy enough and keep it closed” search strategy.
Don’t think this matters? It sure does. Relevancy on Yahoo search will go through the roof when it has access to Facebook data and Google doesn’t. People will see that Yahoo has people search (something I’ve asked Google for for years) and Google doesn’t. That’ll turn the tide in advertising, and all that.
Brilliant move, if this all comes true.
I’ve SMS’d Mark Zuckerberg and asked him if he’s selling. I doubt he’ll answer. I hope he holds out for more than $20 billion. He just might get it.
UPDATE: Someone on Twitter (Soulhuntre) says that it doesn’t matter as long as HTTP keeps working. That’s just the point. Facebook BLOCKS HTTP if you aren’t logged into its system and it can remove you at a moment’s notice. @irinaslutsky (former employee of mine) was removed last week from Facebook. This is a scary company and if it gets in the hands of Microsoft will create a scary monopoly.
UPDATE2: thanks to XKCD for the cartoon. I love those cartoons.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:16 am
You’ve got a very good point here. I dislike facebook now, and now I’ve got an even better reason.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Yes , Robert but this smacks of MS of old with the old MSN and AOL and Compuserve.
Eventually people get tired of the walled garden and get over it. Yes, EVERYONE was on AOL for years and then the web opened up and they realized there was LIFE BEYOND AOL. Just like there is life beyond FaceBook.
If you ask me, it’s Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot if they keep the garden wall up.
Now then, making BETTER search results available through MS Live Search rather than Google within their Walled garden - now THAT’S something they could do.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Hi Robert, what’s the value for Microsoft for keeping it closed. In the developing world, Facebook is just a small player. Take Brazil and India where Orkut and Hi5 are dominant players. Wouldn’t MSFT be more interested in the geographies which are growing than just the US markets?
I hope the Facebook folks are not stupid enough to let this happen. But yes, money does change everything. Thank god for twitter and friendfeed though!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 am
Thanks for the heads up Scoble. I’d started on FriendFeed, but now I’m going to start evangelizing for it.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 am
interesting observations,
once again it looks like quality of service is almost irrelevant, it’s all about people, attention and data. which facebook has got.
friendfeed has a long way to go though.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 am
might want to fix that up there…
May 19th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I still don’t get it….
If Google has access to billions of web pages created by over a billion people, why would Facebook’s 60 million members make a dent? Almost everybody has more content outside of Facebook than inside it?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Perhaps Google should just cough up the money and buy Facebook instead ;)
But declaring the open web dead if MS’s deals goes through, isn’t that a bit far fetched?
Isn’t this just another FriendFeed is your friend post? =P
May 19th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Sorry Robert, I think that’s bullshit. MSFT realise that keeping stuff closed is going to make them too many enemies in the long run and gaining mindshare on the web is most definitely a popularity contest. Keeping Facebook closed will be detrimental in the long run.
Plus, argubly MSFT are more open than anyone else right now (not my words - they’re Marc Canter’s).
-Jamie
May 19th, 2008 at 4:25 am
[...] Article: Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed Let’s say Microsoft gets Yahoo’s search. That doesn’t look that brilliant. After all, we [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 4:27 am
wilsonng: Facebook already is the biggest repository of videos and photo on the Internet. Also is the best event calendar — by far. Also has the best social graph data — by far. Keeping this all locked up so Yahoo/Microsoft could search it and Google couldn’t will totally change the business.
Anyway, stay tuned. I see a ton of pushback. I’ll be on the Gillmor Gang this afternoon.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
I’d hate to see this happen X-(
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
That’s a whole bunch of craziness there, I’d love to say ‘Scoble, what the crack have you been smoking’ but the thing is it’s not a huge leap to get toward this conclusion that you’ve proposed here..
Scary scary times!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
>isn’t that a bit far fetched?
I don’t believe so. I’ll talk about it later after the frenzy calms down a bit.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:29 am
I see what the big deal is. Facebook is hardly hidden from Google.
site:www.facebook.com
Brings up few results. Could it be that Google has no idea as to how to judge the importance of a page in Facebook… possibly. This would go a long way to prove the point that Google doesn’t always have the most relevant results.
If Microsoft pull this one off… then good on them, for now. Here in South Africa Google have something silly like 98% of all of the search market. Want to talk monopoly’s?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Is the answer for everyone to just dump Facebook? Go elsewhere and out in the bright, open web? Like the good old days? (Hmm.. or was that MySpace)
Someone needs to redux the Epic 2015 video ;)
May 19th, 2008 at 4:29 am
I can’t search most of Facebook when I’m inside Facebook. At best I can get name of people, but I can’t see their data unless I’m a friend. I don’t see how that is going to change. Pages in Facebook are already open. What exactly would they be able to search that they can’t now?
I also don’t think Facebook is as cool or cutting edge as it once was. If Microsoft purchased Facebook and Google purchased either Twitter and/or FriendFeed, I’d call Google the winner.
The scenario you outlined is not a strategy I’d risk 10 figures on.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:33 am
If that’s all true then surely it’s our job as technically literate professionals to highlight this to any legal body that could veto such mergers. Microsoft/Facebook/Yahoo is not something that will be overlooked by regulators, at least not in the UK/EU where not everyone in politics is on the payroll.
I see now why you’re championing FriendFeed; good reason. I’ve not looked at FriendFeed myself so I’ll hold my judgement on it until I’ve had a better look.
R
May 19th, 2008 at 4:36 am
[...] find this post by Robert Scoble interesting. I haven’t got the slightest idea if it’s true but … it doesn’t sound [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 4:36 am
I honestly think you’re going to far my friend.
Let’s trust the market and let the web users decide. We’re relatively educated… and when we’re not: there’s a digg post to educate.
Haven’t you heard the latest news: Microsoft is proposing a joint venture with Yahoo, not a takeover. The bid has been withdrawn for some time now.
Facebook is choosing to stay closed. I would. It’s in their best interest (relatively).
May 19th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Don your tinfoil hats in 3…2….1….. NOW!
Who cares? If apps like FriendFeed can still be created (and they can, since they can impersonate you) then it doesn’t matter.
This is akin to the “DRM hysteria”. New DRM comes out, new format comes out, and everyone freaks out and shouts and blusters. Then in 3 weeks, some guy in northern Europe comes along, cracks it, and then we all go about our business.
And even IF the axis of evil of Facebook, MS, and Yahoo can somehow really lock stuff down - then market forces will decide if that’s the good way, or the bad way. If enough people bitch and moan, or more importantly, just stop using the service, then they will be forced to open things up. If I have some content on Facebook that I’m trying to get published, and I can’t search for it on Google, then I’m damn sure not going to put it on Facebook again. I’ll find the next free service that will come along to compete with Facebook. You know, those guys you interview nearly every other day Scoble?
If the web has proven anything to us, its that the mob will always rule in the end, and if we can’t rule, we’ll build another one. Scoble of ALL people should know that by now. Chicken little antics and twitter freak-outs are a little bit over the top. Get another cup of coffee and calm down. The web will be there tomorrow.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:39 am
[...] Scobleizer — Tech geek blogger » Blog Archive Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep i… [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 4:40 am
For google to break this deal, they just have to buy yahoo or maybe take ownership of Yahoo search. Wont M$ fall face front if that happens?
Also, lets imagine both the deals happen for M$ alone - wont they be slapped with another EU fine of some sorts just because they are involved in a monopoly of data?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Dave: >Let’s trust the market and let the web users decide.
FriendFeed is possibly too late. Why? Momentum. People don’t move their photos, their videos, their social graphs, once they are created. That’s why only a few people cared about the Data Portability issue over the weekend. Yeah, smart people care, but there aren’t enough of those who see the long-term consequences.
Most people TOTALLY don’t agree with you, by the way.
Well, look at Facebook and what it can lock you out of. Facebook is already the largest repository of photos. Locked out. Largest repository of videos. Locked out. Largest event listing. Locked out. I’m getting tons of comments and messages in Facebook. Locked out. And Facebook has quite an interesting search and application platform. Locked out.
People already ARE putting data into this locked box and are perfectly happy doing so.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I don’t think it’s as much Microsoft buying out facebook. But more so their capabilities to lock people out of the internet. THAT is the scary thought. But then we come to the question, is that legal?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I think we will never understand about the truth on all web business. I think we will be just users and nothing more :d
May 19th, 2008 at 4:43 am
The sky is falling!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Don’t worry the feature that makes the invite feature very useful on facebook, networks, is being done away with. Which is proof that even the best team can make bone headed decisions.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:47 am
yeah, and I really want Google to have access to everything.
I hope that Microsoft buys yahoo search and implement their improved search.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:50 am
[...] Robert Scoble is also confirming the rumors swirling. Don’t bother going to the Garden Court Hotel for a sticky beak at what [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 4:52 am
[...] Check it out on friendfeed.com here and here! Given the example that Robert Scoble gave in his blog post about why this would be a bad thing, I agree that with his opinion that this could be very bad for [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 4:56 am
You make an interesting and very valid argument. But I think a very important point has been left out – loyalty (even though Andrew hinted on it with AOL). Facebook can loose their 60m users faster than they got them. If you are honest with yourself, the only really added value on facebook is the ability to re-connect with old friends that you have lost track of over the years.
Robert: I disagree with your point ‘People don’t move their photos, their videos, their social graphs, once they are created.’ If you look at the generation that uses this feature of facebook excessively, you will see that they are the people that don’t care about yesterday. They will not go back and look at photos for memories…they preferably want to see the photographic evidence of the bad behavior on the same night or by lunchtime the day after. When seen once, they will not go back. Therefore that does not put facebook in a strong position. Kids experience too much too look back.
To me this all looks like a short term move by Microsoft that they quickly need to convert before the train has left. History proves that Google are significantly faster at adapting to change than Microsoft. Only if Microsoft has really planned this one properly will they have a chance. It might look like Microsoft has been a sleep for the past years…this could be the wake up. Never underestimate a company with that much talent and money in the bank…
May 19th, 2008 at 4:58 am
I didn’t pick up on the ramifications of this strategy until I read this post. Steve Ballmer obviously has far more nous then I have given him credit for, if he actually came up with this play!
Now that the cat is out of the bag, this should push Yahoos price higher and, if it comes off, bring back the kind of dominance MS used to enjoy with the desktop.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Hmm, Facebook would be a very expensive acquisition for Microsoft. The acquisition would only be worthwhile if the Userbase is stable. That is, people won’t switch from Facebook to other social site at the drop of a hat. People migrated from Myspace pretty quickly, maybe that would happen to Facebook too.
But then again, the more time you spent on a social site, the less likely you are liked to change because you have gathered more friends on it nad invested more time and information on it and is more dependent on the features on the social site.
To use a science term, it’s less likely to reach critical mass of numbers of people leaving due to the fact that people are unlikely to leave because nobody else is leaving.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:58 am
I’m trying to get my friends to use friendfeed. I’m struggling with that, since most of them are blinded by Facebook and don’t get the idea of friendfeed.
Now I have a good reason!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Why exactly is this a bad thing? It’s a long time since the bright early days of the old Web when everything was sweet and inncoent. The modern Web resembles Dark-Ages Europe: vestiges of a glorious past but you’re only safe from the roaming Vandal hordes inside great big walled cities.
I for one would be happy to be involved in a closed MS-Facebook, venturing out into the open Web only when I have to. As a developer I know how dangerous the Web can be these days - I hate to think of all the poor newbies and grandmas who are just phishing-bait.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:00 am
If this is infact the play by MS (I Highly doubt they will be that stupid) it would be a huge mistake, Though as i said i doubt they would be that stupid to do something like that. They tried to dominate the net and apply standards with IE etc… they lost they must have learnt some lessons.
I doubt MS could even afford both yahoo & facebook without putting itself at seriously in DEBT, and MS is notoriously stingy and frugal with their cash.
So no, i dont buy that its a fight for the internet. In the unlikely chance that MS is going for this strategy, they will loose and we may see the end of them.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I don’t think this is as important as you’re making it out to be. Especially if this goes through and it’s made public that anything in Facebook will not be googleable….people will choose what they put in facebook, and what they want available for public search. Not that big a deal. Facebook isn’t that important in the overall scheme of things, it really isn’t. There may be 60 million registered users, but I’d guess only a fraction of them really spend time there. I’m on the web constantly, have a Facebook account, but rarely go there, as it’s so annoying with all the quizzes and silly applications. Just about everyone I know feels the same.
I don’t think it’s really anything to get that worked up over.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:04 am
The thing is, by locking out parts of the Web, Microsoft will force people to leave. Nobody is forced to be on Facebook. It’s like hotmail. I dumped my hotmail account when gmail appeared. People will turn to something else, because noone likes to be locked.
Anyway, thanks for sharing this!
May 19th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Control seems to be the behavior of the moment, or should we say has been, for the BIG to control the Little and the battle rages.
Comcast move on Plaxco, Wi Fi, etc is a convergence of control but like all the BIG the missing element is trust thus the chasm of the ages. see http://www.relationship-economy.com post this morning.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I think you miss one thing. The information in Facebook is mostly a FLOW, and that flow can relatively easily be shifted someplace else. Flow of pics, videos and events. Noone moved their collection of home videos or photo albums onto Facebook.
But, interesting times indeed.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Morten: if you think no one has their entire photo and video collections on Facebook you are TOTALLY misinformed. Sorry, go back and do some homework.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Sorry Robert, I think that’s BS. MSFT realise that keeping stuff closed is going to make them too many enemies in the long run and gaining mindshare on the web is most definitely a popularity contest (which they are losing - handsomely). Keeping Facebook closed will be detrimental in the long run.
Plus, argubly MSFT are more open than anyone else right now (not my words - they’re Marc Canter’s) so keeping Facebook closed would be incontrast to their current policies.
Oh, and as someone pointed out previously FB isn’t as big outside the states as much as it is inside so even if this didn’t happen its not the huge slice of the internet that you seem to think it is.
-Jamie
May 19th, 2008 at 5:09 am
MS should by Facebook and lose tons of money. Hopefully MS will suffer from it and go away in ten years.
Facebook is not here to stay as big player.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:10 am
biggest repository of videos and photo on the Internet
It doesn’t matter. The point is content content content. I have never seen anyone point to a Facebook video when passing a URL, even on Digg. It’s always YouTube or sometimes Break.com.
The point is, that with a social network, you only care as far as your circle of friends. With something more loosely tied, like YouTube, you are more likely to care about that stranger’s content in that non-social setting.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Morten: “Noone moved their collection of home videos or photo albums onto Facebook.”
Are you serious? :)
May 19th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Isn’t this a problem right now? If both google and yahoo search can’t ’see’ facebook info then you’re effectively explaining a problem that doesn’t exist at the moment.
The general web searchers currently don’t see this information.
If it’s something we don’t have in our search results today, then i’d suggest this is a non-issue. It would take an incredible marketing push to get people to shift from google to yahoo search just so we could see facebook data, and considering most people wouldn’t know any better then i see this as a problem.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:14 am
And actually, your point about not finding LeWeb in a search is silly when the first page of results brought up Upcoming and LeWeb3.com. Remember those non-social network URLs that the rest of the internet is composed of? The ones without the flash music player and blinding, blinking graphics? Yes, I know that Facebook is exponentially less annoying than MySpace, but I feel that social networks have a limited power and you are making them seem to be so much bigger. Sort of reminiscent of the dot-com bubble days.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:15 am
“Can the open public Web fight back? Yes. It’s called FriendFeed. Notice that FriendFeed replaces almost all of Facebook’s killer features with open ones that are open to Google’s search.”
No, it has virtually none of the features that made Facebook explode. Remember when Facebook took off? When it allowed people to build new applications. FriendFeed doesn’t do that. Neither does FriendFeed have groups, which are also a major part of Facebook. Life streaming, which is what FF does, is only a relatively minor part of Facebook.
That’s not to say “FriendFeed is bad and FaceBook is great”, but the two things really are apples and oranges.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Yes, FriendFeed is behind Facebook and has seven employees vs. 500 or so for Facebook. It’s an unfair fight, actually. If this deal happens watch FriendFeed get a ton of resources from Google and possibly even get purchased back in to build out a massive team to compete.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:18 am
WOW, this stuff scares the crap out of me! This sounds like a serious attempt by M$ to dominate and monopolize the web… yikes! Everybody run and protest! Yes, another great reason to LOVE FriendFeed and dump Facebook (BTW, why the heck did FB kick you off of their site?!)
M$ needs to re-invent itself badly, so the Facebook and/or the Yahoo! Search purchases will be very important in defining M$ future. The Facebook deal would give M$ a strong leap forward in the Social Media space, where they have zero market presence, impact or control.
However, these possible deals would spell trouble for everybody that cares at all about privacy on the web. I suppose Social Media sites by nature are more “open” and “social”, but the mere thought of M$ buying Facebook makes me very nervous as an end-user. Same goes for M$ buying Yahoo Search. I’ve lost trust in M$, so these possible acquisitions are making the hair on my neck stand up and freak out!
The revenue potential for M$ is incredibly provocative, so they must be compelled to make a sizable purchase of either or both Facebook or Yahoo! Search. Personally, if I was M$, I’d buy BOTH asap. my 2 cents!
Thank you for bringing us the news and providing such great insight into it REALLY means to the everyday user! Great analysis! :-)
May 19th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Scoble -> People already ARE putting data into this locked box and are perfectly happy doing so.
So? First, if people are happy, then where are YOU to decide what’s best for them?
Second, I’m not one of “those” people. So, not everyone has drunk the social kool-aid. While I know that there are approximately 16 bajillion million people on Facebook now days, you are sort of in an echo chamber here. Very, very, very many people could really care less.
Third, a lot of people bought DRM’ed music too. Then they tried to copy the music to some unsupported player or another PC and got stuck. This raised their awareness of DRM, and they shifted their music buying. Now a lot of studios, Amazon, and Apple are all offering at least some music without DRM. The market spoke, and it changed - even when the market seemed inevitable.
So, in other words - its not the end of the world. The masses will either like it, or hate it, whenever it is (if ever) they choose to care about it. Once they care about it and it doesn’t provide, the market changes, the rules are reset, and everyone moves on to the next big thing.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:20 am
@Scoble
I don’t see the problem that seriously, although I agree that Facebook plus Yahoo Search would be a better fit than the whole Yahoo (which competes with MSN heavily).
Facebook is just one site - there are others. Go to Europe and you see Facebook not playing a huge role. We have dozens of regional social networks that are open. I work for one myself, and we’re using Google as a way to gain traffic, knowing that Facebook and others don’t do that.
Also, Microsoft won’t be able to use Facebook’s data in a new Microhoo search engine just like they want - users would go nuts.
Microsoft would profit from Facebook most if they included web search and content into Facebook - including Facebook into search will be very difficult.
Like Calacanis said - you can make tons of money with content and search, but it’s very difficult to monetize social traffic. Social traffic can create a lot of content- and search-traffic, though.
That’s why Facebook would be a great fit for Microsoft.
@Robert (not Scoble)
A search for site:www.facebook.com brings up 700.000 results. That’s about 1% of Facebook’s members, without any of the photos, events and videos. Facebook is a big silo, showing me 1 mill of their data on Google won’t change that.
Go home and do your homework.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I would buy LOTS of stock in Friendfeed once it IPOs!
May 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am
You are hotlinking to XKCD without a mention of his site? At least have the decency to put up a link to his site maybe? Lame Scoble….
May 19th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Why aren’t my comments getting posted here? I wonder if this one makes it? (its the 3rd one I’ve attempted)
May 19th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Ticau: you’re right. I added a link to the site: http://www.xckd.com/
May 19th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Jens said: Robert: I disagree with your point ‘People don’t move their photos, their videos, their social graphs, once they are created.’ If you look at the generation that uses this feature of facebook excessively, you will see that they are the people that don’t care about yesterday.
Yeah, and does anyone remember something called “MySpace?”
May 19th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Dave: yeah, I was at a MySpace concert a few weeks ago with thousands of people. People DO still care about MySpace, but it has definitely lost leadership role to Facebook.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:26 am
[...] Microsoft might be buying Facebook are now quickly taking over TechMeme. Robert Scoble just wrote a response to these rumors. He is turning it into the battle of the century where giants Google and Microsoft [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Robert: but we are talking about leadership roles here aren’t we?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Ernie said: Yes, I know that Facebook is exponentially less annoying than MySpace, but I feel that social networks have a limited power and you are making them seem to be so much bigger. Sort of reminiscent of the dot-com bubble days.
No, I think its more that Scoble is too much of a user of these networks to react appropriately. In other words “he’s too close to the subject.” I can sort of understand his freak out if it were all of MY data that was at stake, and I was building my livelihood off of constant self promotion. (Which is fine, that’s Scoble’s job.) But, for the 99.999% of the rest of us in the world, this really doesn’t matter.
But, that’s why he blogged this, and is reading the responses. He gets instant feedback and hopefully understands a different perspective on it. Viva la social!
May 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
your link is wrong btw, it’s xkcd.com not xckd.com, fortunately he was smart enough to buy xckd.com also…. sigh….
May 19th, 2008 at 5:33 am
@Jens Buch & Scoble
MySpace has NOT lost leadership. They’re still more used, make more money, more profits (even if they didn’t reach their goals). Facebook gets more hype, though.
No or just very little MySpace-users left for Facebook, though. MySpace simply serves a different audience than Facebook.
So no, MySpace is not evidence that users switch sites if something better comes along. MySpace is the very evidence that people tend to use crappy websites, if only their friends use it, too.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Scoble: People DO still care about MySpace, but it has definitely lost leadership role to Facebook.
That’s my point exactly. In another 3-5 years, Facebook will either be a “utility” like Google, or Amazon, or some sort of defacto standard, because they did what people want; or MySuperHappyFunPlace.com will be the new “standard” and we’ll all be bitching about how THEY don’t get social either. The web spins round and round… and there are NEVER any absolutes here.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Interesting ideas. I kind of followed the “le web 08″ argument, until i realised that facebook is a social network, in which i would want my friends to know what i’m doing, but i wouldn’t necessarily want the whole world to know. Surely if all events became public information you might get 10,000 people turning up for a house party somewhere. Also its not like all of facebook is blocked from search engines - for example all of the causes pages are visible as are some of the comments on events walls.
And when you think about it, would you really expect any website that requires a username and password to access it, have its information publically available to search engines. I do a lot of fell running and am a member of fellrunning.org which has listing of all this years races, but i wouldn’t expect the details to show up in google. Are we saying because facebook is huge that they should share all of our data…or am i missing the point?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Very good point Ticau. Credit where credit is due.
If Microsoft wants to build a bigger badder silo as Robert suggests, they will lose. People don’t want lock-in. They want features and freedom. If what MS gives them doesn’t work for them, a workaround will be constructed or people will vote with their feet. Same for Google or anyone else.
As far as FB is concerned, while it may be useful to millions of Robert’s friends, it has always seemed useless to me. They can have all my Funwall comments and stupid spammish invitations. Lock it all up and take it away. You’d be doing me a favour.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:36 am
“If this deal happens watch FriendFeed get a ton of resources from Google and possibly even get purchased back in to build out a massive team to compete.”
Google already has a product which could be used as a basis to build something that does everything FriendFeed does, in the shape of Jaiku - and it already (now) runs on Google’s App Engine platform. Given that, I doubt that they’d bother buying FF.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 am
[...] this morning when an urgent Scoblegram came across Twitter I immediately checked out the issue at hand. I mean, how could I help it? The very web was in peril! “Why Microsoft will buy Facebook AND [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 5:38 am
[...] Zeiten der Walled Gardens scheinen vorbei zu sein (Es sei denn, wir bekommen bald einen deutlich größeren), wie bei (fast) jedem autoritären System, finden die Leute früher oder später die Möglichkeit, [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Sebastian: I don’t think we can say ‘leave’. I think many users have profiles on both. Question is which one they use primarily (thus spend most time on).
In terms of marketing, I believe facebook is more powerful. The average facebook user has more spending power than the average myspace user. But now we are moving of the subject.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Scary stories about walled gardens don’t work anymore. Back in the days of AOL, the walled garden was a problem because it was something forced on users who wanted access to other features. Facebook is completely different… the wall *is* a feature, not an imposition.
I’m not trying to pick on you, Robert, but this is your issue, not ours. You want to use services like Facebook as marketing tools that will allow you to turn “friends” into perceived prestige and influence… “hey, LargeCo, give me money or access, because I have the attention of all these people!” The Wall gets in the way of you executing your career plans.
But for the rest of us, Facebook is just a place to hang out and connect with people. Keeping the world out is exactly what we want.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Holy traffic generating post!
This notion that it’s somehow scary to force people to sign up to a site before allowing them to search / interact with it - so what? It’s up to Microsoft if they want to explore this high risk strategy. Publishers have been doing it for years. If that content is so compelling that it gets people to sign up, then well done. If it’s not, people will leave.
And remember - Facebook has always been walled. It’s a business not a chairty, and it needs to sign users up to improve its advertising offer to brand owners. If you want searcheable open web content, why not go to Wikipedia? But even they need donations / need to make money.
I think they’ll all go this way. What will be the only truly free / public web community in years to come? The BBC website.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
I agree with you to the extent that I would hate it if Microsoft bought Facebook, and it would probably lead to me spending even less time there (I already don’t post photos/videos there, unless it’s just a few that I specifically want to share with Facebook friends, and crosspost from Flickr, etc). On the other hand, I think what a lot of people like about Facebook is that it IS closed off from Google. I’m with you, I’m for data portability and openness, but that’s not a mainstream position yet. In fact, I had a friend e-mail me out of concern a few weeks ago when one of my blog posts was the first Google search results for a query she made - she was genuinely creeped out at the idea and definitely wouldn’t have wanted one of her posts to be high in Google results. Many other people I know are much more concerned with privacy than portability (I try to convince them that nothing on the web is safely private, but oh well).
I think a closed-off Facebook/Microsoft is not a good thing, but a lot of Facebook’s users wouldn’t think it was a big deal at all. (Of course, the response is that they wouldn’t care until they wanted to move elsewhere, but if Microsoft/Facebook kept up the things they like about Facebook - perceived privacy and security from web-wide Google searches - why would they?)
May 19th, 2008 at 5:52 am
[...] Robert Scoble put up this on his article - Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
@Jens Buch
If Facebook can be more powerful for marketing, how comes that MySpace is the company that makes one deal after the other with big brands? Every big brand is using MySpace to advertise their stuff. I know several people (not big brands, just normal people) who use MySpace for promotion, none who use Facebook.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
…speaking as a .NET-head, that would be one SWEET setup. Speaking as an advocate for openness, transparency, portability and competition, however, I’d have to note some concerns.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
[...] una interesantísima entrada en el blog de Robert Scoble acerca de la maquiavélica estrategia de [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I dont think facebook is as important amongst the general sheep throwing population as your story might suggest.
A lot of people are bored with it, don’t get it, or understand how it can be really beneficial. I have observed people joining, then there friends, and then friends of friends however it doesnt reach critical mass in a good way. It peters out once they get bored of throwing sheep at each other (and other such vacuous activities).
Mike Ashworth
Marketing Consultant
Brighton and Hove, Sussex, UK
May 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am
[...] don’t care, but there is an ongoing battle for user data and user attention on the web :-) Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed No Comments Leave a Commenttrackback addressThere was an error with your comment, please try [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
[...] of Microsoft taking over Yahoo and Facebook and gets paranoid - or maybe it is as in the saying: It’s not paranoia when they are out to get you: Let’s say Microsoft gets Yahoo’s search. That doesn’t look that brilliant. After all, we [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
[...] Scobleizer — Tech geek blogger » Blog Archive Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed … [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Scoble, you’ve crossed the line into crackpot land. Careful or those Oompa Loompas will get you!
Seriously, this idea is so crazy, I can’t believe you’ve managed to find enough people to buy this to stir up the hornets nest this way. I’d be interested in how this is helping your bottom line, because it’s obvious that’s what you’re up to.
The majority of the web users don’t use Facebook. Hell, most of them have never even heard of it. Microsoft isn’t so stupid as to try and buy it out in order to attempt some sort of vendor lock in. The chances of that working are slim and none, and slim didn’t come to town. The attempt would be a PR disaster on a scale we’ve never seen in this industry… and Microsoft is smart enough to know that.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Sebastian:
add me on facebook and we can have the discussion there - I can give you several examples.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:05 am
[...] as first reported on Robert Scoble’s blog and repeated on Truemors.com (run by Guy Kawasaki), it appears that Microsoft’s new [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
You should add me, I don’t know which Jens Buch you are. ;) (I’m the Sebastian Moser from Austria, Vienna UT.)
May 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
[...] Scoble floats a rumor that Microsoft is on the verge of making some moves that will shift the balanc…. [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Very popular post already (as it should be). The implications of these issues are huge. (I also like the cartoon). The most important fact from the above, I believe, is that there is a huge chasm between what Microsoft would like to be able to do, and what it will in fact be perhaps able to do.
In the past it was regulators that kept Microsoft in check, because competitors were trounced. Recently, however, Yahoo! put the kibbutz on a Microsoft proposed megamerger (purchase), despite major outcry and pressure. Similary, Microsoft can’t just buy Facebook because it wants to. If Facebook decides that it does wish to sell (rather than staying independent and going public route) Microsoft would have a mega mega competitor for the purchase with Google (and secondarily also Yahoo). I’m not at all sure that Microsoft would win that.
Microsoft has made many purchases (including a relatively recent one for $6 billion) but that does not necessarily alter the landscape as well. Markets are so large, so multifacted etc., and innovation and catch up occurs so quickly, that gaining and keeping a competitive advantage is so difficult.
Also, users are more powerful, making companies less so. The Data Portabiliy issue is an interesting one. I do not agree with Arrington (expressed on The Gillmor Gang etc.) that key influencers/early adopters (namely Arrington and those like him) can force the companies to be fully open. Users have power but they don’t have all the power. Companies retain some power, and they won’t be totally dictated to (they’ll appease and negotiate, but make sure that they still retain some competitive advantages etc. — the smart and able ones anyway).
And it should be that way — a balance I believe. Companies are not inherently evil. They employ people. They offer services. That is the heart of capitalism. But they also require - like governments or politicians or any souce of power - checks on their activities.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I completely agree with everyone who thinks Facebook importacne is overrated. It’s a very specific group of people who depend on it. You’re just at the centre of that group and it looks like you can’t step beyond that. The Le Web 08 experiment doesn’t prove anything either. This is the same group of peolpe again.
I don’t have anything against Facebook. I tried to embrace it but what’s the point if my social circle didn’t? Have stick to email and I’m happy with that. Should it disappear of the face of the Earth tomorrow it would take me a good while to notice.
We’ll all be fine. There’s more to the web than one blueish website.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Who cares if everyone has their photos and videos inside of Facebook? What does that have to do with profitable web search?
And if this is Microsoft’s play to crush Google, again how does one dominate web search by buying up a popular service and keeping it out of web search results?
The fact that a growing web service is not indexed by Google is certainly worth noting, but buying it up and keeping it closed doesn’t look like a winning strategy for winning in web search to me. What am I missing?
May 19th, 2008 at 6:49 am
You’re example first of all is plain wrong… Loic is catering to his demographic on facebook, Imagine what would have been the effect when upcoming.org would have had a twitter link….. He would probably have had even more hits than the one of facebook….
Loic knows that his demographic is on facebook, if he would have put up a listing for a plain old cuckoo clock how would the result have been….
So MS will buy search, what will they get, they will only get an enhancement on some markets and internationally neither MS or Yahoo search matter a lot…
To be honest, if ms search start showing the data where Google can’t how long do you think before someone has written a screen scraper to fetch the data out of Microsofts search results….
Nah, if this happens, it’s plain old stupidity which makes no business sense at all.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am
P.S. If this really is their strategy, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Open Web! Mark my works.
As another poster pointed out, there are a billion people on the web and 90M on facebook.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Ballmer as the Emperor and Zuckerberg as Anakin Skywalker, completing his conversion to the dark side? “Rise my son… yes, master” I look forward to that youtube clip…
May 19th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Neat post. However, I think it’s only true if Facebook is the primary website on the internet. Remember, the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If important information starts not showing up in Google, folks will stop putting that information in Facebook.
Facebook data already doesn’t show up on Google, and nobody complains because Facebook events and such aren’t externally important–nobody cares if folks don’t stumble across it during a Google search.
Also, isn’t this just more speculation? Isn’t it based on rumors that MS may buy Yahoo!/Facebook?
May 19th, 2008 at 7:02 am
[...] Scoble has posted an interesting yet somewhat off the wall post suggesting that once Microsoft acquires Yahoo’s [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:05 am
[...] If what Scoble says is correct that makes this story all the more [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Yup, could be a big big deal. There are arguments that MS wouldn’t overpay for Facebook, but the payoff of a killer MS (Yahoo) search synergized with Facebook could be worth the risk for MS. Something to watch (any maybe run from!).
May 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
[...] hubbub is really about arranging the pawns in an Internet chess game between Redmond and Google. Robert Scoble seems to agree. The rumors may change (the software giant’s most recent statement could be a ruse to derail [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Wow. Will Google index my mail and put it to the web? And why dont you buy facebook for 15 billions, then sell it to Google for 20 billions, so you could make a hefty 5 billions for youself, save Google and save the world from Microsoft
May 19th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Robert, you said “Do you see a Facebook entry there? Nope. Google is locked out of the Web that soon will be owned by Microsoft. We will never get an open Web back if these two deals happen.”
and
“This is a scary company [Facebook] and if it gets in the hands of Microsoft will create a scary monopoly.”
Instead of saying you are an idiot I’m going to say these two statements are true lunacy.
1) Locked out of the web? If M$ purchased Facebook and then closed the data and made it hard for people to export data or for search engines to search then they would be cutting their own throats in the long run. In fact, since I own M$ stock if they spend 20 billion on Facebook I’m going to sell because it will truely show how stupid they’ve become. As for loosing the open web, I’d worry more about ISP filtering and packet shaping than social applications hoarding data. Users can walk to other applications, but it is damn hard to deal with packet shaping.
2) “Scary Monopoly”. Sounds like the crying of the little boy on the hill tasked with sheparding sheep. Unfortunatly, with the web and with social applications there IS NO SUCH THING AS A MONOPOLY. I’d venture to say Myspace is as big or bigger than Facebook and when users (consumers) get mis-treated they aren’t dumb, they’ll walk with their money and data in hand, even if they have to re-import into a new application.
Keep it real as M$ and Facebook is just another way to throw hard earned money into the Pit they call the http://WWW. Remember in 1999 when the WEB was everything and the money flowed like wine? I’d say the past 9 years have softened people’s memories and so now stupid has reared its ugly head and is unleashing its rath once again.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:13 am
[...] Microsoft to buy Yahoo’s search division and Facebook for a cool $45 billion. Apparently the Yahoo search part of the deal will be complete within the week. Now Scoble, naturally has been all over this like a rash (of the good kind) see his post here. [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am
We should probably add something very, very important to this discussion:
With Facebook and Yahoo Search, Microsoft would NOT end up with a monopoly! Microsoft would probably buy its way to be up to par with Google, but not more.
No need to cry for regulations here, although I’m usually a fan of government regulation. (Pure capitalism is very bad for a market economy, even if it sounds a bit strange. We would have one company in every industry, little innovation and high prices. And don’t tell me that Silicon Valley is the example for the opposite. The Valley is the economic powerhouse it is BECAUSE of government regulation. (Especially the military and intelligence funded a lot of stuff here. Including Keyhole/Google Earth, for example.))
May 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
[...] Scoble weighs in on Microsoft’s apparent grasp for the whole Internet. He makes some compelling points. I’m off to set up a FriendFeed account just because he said so « Man Babies [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:35 am
For me I see this whole walled garden as a bit of a trust thing. This is often personal information being used and aggregated and searched. Creating a walled garden puts some kind of layer of security or trust around the whole thing. Would you want a Bank with no walls? Welcome to the information economy…
I also agree with a comment above about climbing those walls, that’s a requirement, there need to be “manageable” ways in and out. Like it or not, security of personal stuff is something the masses value (I think the hyper-connected worry about that less).
Final point, who do you trust…one company or everyone? Who has YOUR money, one bank or lots of individuals?
May 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
[...] hearing the same kinds of rumours — and that his fear is Microsoft will try to keep Facebook walled off from the rest of the Internet as an attempt to blunt some of Google’s strength. I wouldn’t [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Scoble> … the Web that soon will be owned by Microsoft
Why did you leave Microsoft then?
Furrier> … Yahoo and Microsoft teams are bunkered down in a Palo Alto hotel
Go make the Valley’s biggest picket line around that hotel.
Robert, Google’s PR has always been excellent. Now that so many ex-Googler’s are working at Facebook, they are obviously pissed, and now take any chance to create problems for Facebook. You have just fallen to their spin.
Wake up.
BTW: just noticed *your* copyright notice under the “Submit Comment” button. YOU OWN MY COMMENT NOW??? How is that for data potability?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Everything is as it should be…
or maybe not. Although lets face it (not facebook it) this is a “net quake” at the moment, and there is lots of hype especially in the “Hype Gravity Center” of the US. It’s easy to get into a frenzy.. I wonder if this is similar to the “early” days where MS started to dominate the desktops and office apps.
Either way, the web needs to stay open for sure, but again, if facebook are keeping google out, then if MS buy facebook, what would change there? I agree with a few of the comments that either way, MS cannot afford to keep in a locked environment for long.. as you say, the likes of friendfeed and such other aggregators will always find a way.
Also, as also mentioned, take the whole world into account here.. facebook is one social network - albeit popular etc.. the other question is what would happen to Yahoo if their search was sold to MS - what would Yahoo be?
Always interesting debates…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Wolke: I haven’t talked with anyone in Google PR recently. I don’t even know what their official spin is.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:22 am
And regarding copyright. You own the copyright on your words. I own the copyright on mine.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:25 am
[...] morning today started with a cup of coffee and seeing Robert Scoble’s tweet and related post regarding the rumors flying around Microsoft/Yahoo and possibly Microsoft/Facebook, started via [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I don’t think searching inside Facebook is that interesting anyway. At least not enough to change the balance.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I didn’t read all the comments but I like to say that this is all very interesting. This was the same problem with AOL. You had to have an account to get access. They were forced to have open web access with there aol.com website and now Facebook is controlling the closed web access. It won’t work. Once users realize the limited access they will demand the open access.
These points are real and relevant but I have to say this is another old debate. We had this debate over 10 years ago.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am
This article is DUMB. You think Google will sit on the wayside if Yahoo/Microsoft has access to data (that is useful) and Google can’t get them into their indexes?
YOU THINK GOOGLE IS THAT DUMB?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Robert, I can’t understand why you appear to equate “open” with “enables Google to profit from other people’s content.”
Who cares if stuff is “Googlable” ?? Let them figure out another business model that doesn’t sit fat on top of my content, reaping dollars from every ad blaring right alongside. I get so sick of those in my Gmail that I’m moving to a live account or something else with no ads…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I can’t see this as a killer feature for search, either, though Facebook isn’t done growing and MS isn’t done acquiring. But as an online office play, it might work. People growing up on Facebook and Myspace are entering the workforce now. Intranets are usually a mess. New employees are comfortable using the web for collaboration, wikis, message boards and online groups, not shared drives and email threads. So if MS wants to sell office online as a service, they could do a lot worse than building an enterprise-friendly service on top of Facebook.
Advertising isn’t lucrative on social networking sites, anyway - which is why Zuckerberg is probably willing to sell now. But selling business social networks could be very lucrative, esp. alongside office apps. Facebook has a proprietary API, is MS-friendly and skews older than Myspace, but still has a sizable audience. It’s viable as a platform and familiar enough to be attractive. Developers would pay fees to offer MS certified enterprise apps. Everything would be subscription-based. So in the future, maybe Facebook replaces Google Docs, MS Office, monster.com and corporate intranets. That would be a new business monopoly and a familiar one for MS. Plus, real killer content for search: your own work content served alongside live.com results.
MS provides potential customers, the legal framework and experience with the enterprise market. Facebook provides the platform and the brand. It would never work, since it cannibalizes roughly 90% of MS.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I call BS on these “sources say” stories. Frankly, I think this nothing more than link bait.
Disgusting.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
[...] a combination of Yahoo’s search business with Facebook. Robert Scoble lays out his conspiracy theory about how such a combo would spell the end of the open Web. Scoble points out that stuff on Facebook [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
[...] FusionSearchers Sales, Technology & New Media « Zyb acquired by Vodafone for €31.5 Gossip Microsoft buys Yahoo and Facebook 2008 check this this & this [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am
>YOU THINK GOOGLE IS THAT DUMB?
You think Google can figure out how to spider something that has a TOS and blocks it? Riiiggghhhhtttt.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:52 am
[...] Maybe I’ll start drinking coffee after all. This is kinda scary. But relax, it’s still just a rumor. [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 8:57 am
this reminds me of when the MSFT-YHOO merger was first proposed, and Google’s Chief Legal Attack dog foamed at the mouth about how Microsoft would exert an “inappropriate and illegal” influence over the Internet, and how Google was standing up for Free Internet, Mom, Apple Pie, the American Way, etc. Have you ever seen Bill Gates wearing an American Flag pin? Hmmm??? Well HAVE YOU?????
Of course it would be easy to point out that Microsoft has committed to working towards Data Portability, but that fact kind of cuts into your fearmongering a bit, so let’s not mention it. Much easier to scare people when you leave out a fact here and there and start screaming about walled gardens and DEATH of the Interwebs.
The one thing Microsoft does believe in is the privacy of your data as a *default*, whereas you keep telling us “privacy is dead” and we should just get over it. Presumably because private things interfere with Google’s ability to index them, and anything that interferes with Google is by definition Evil, and must be stopped!
If you drink the Google Kool-Aid on a red-eye flight, does the lower air pressure & dehydration make it go to your head faster, or something…?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
well the deal was always about geting scale so that Yahoo plus Microsft could make a better job of competing against Googles Ad business.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Scoble, go sell crazy somewhere else. Kevin Johnson has said MS to make small, tactical acquisitions. Like any rumor this has no facts supporting it whatsoever. And your explanation is devoid of any financial analysis beyond made up prices for Facebook. Your “hearing rumours” is no different than the “9/11 truthers” or those that claim Elvis sightings.
BTW, didn’t the use of the word “TOTALLY” go out around 1986? Grow up in the San Fernando Valley, did ya?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
WTF? I quit reading when you used the Facebook event having more members than Upcoming.org example. OF COURSE IT DOES! Look at the user base of each network.
Microsoft won’t buy Facebook. It instantly loses its “cool”. At the most, Microsoft will invest in it as much as possible without people perceiving that they own it. Look at Google & AOL as an example.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
[...] Scobleizer — Tech geek blogger » Blog Archive Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep i… - May 19, [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Google Spin: Eric Schmidt has complained about Facebook’s contents not being searchable by/from Google. I think it was in one of your QIK videos — a while ago. Google has the Search monopoly and (like MSFT in the old days) agressively wants to break into any adjacent field, which here means peeking into any private data repository.
At the same time, Google has no respect for privacy. As Eric Schmidt said in London: Google wants to know what I will want tomorrow. Well, I don’t want them to know. I don’t even want to know myself.
Everything you said in this article makes Google look good, and Microsoft and Facebook look bad. And the only other property that looks good is FriendFeed — which could well be a Google property in disguise, given who runs it.
And regarding Google’s recent Connect thingy: It used to be that when a software company was significantly larger than another, it would have talks about cooperation before interfacing. If that didn’t work, it would buy the smaller company. Why is Google not buying Facebook, if they can’t come to an agreement with them?
Lastly: When paying the 240M USD to Facebook, Ballmer made very clear that he did not accept Facebook’s “valuation” of 15B USD. He didn’t quite say he could build Facebook on a weekend, but something close. And, Microsoft better than all the people locked in the Valley, knows that Facebook’s internationalization strategy was too little, way too late. Much like eBay back in the day, Facebook will have to buy all the national Facebook-look alikes — and that will be expensive (and would be even more so, with Facebook owned by MSFT). [For example, the two largest web properties in Germany are Facebook rip-off's owned by one of the large media houses.]
One more thing: in the last couple of weeks several blogs were saying that Facebook needs 50,000 new servers this year, MSFT will buy 120,000 servers in 2008, and Google 500,000. Facebook already needing 10% of the compute power of Google does not look like a well-scaling implementation. Plus, it’s a huge waste of electricity just for throwing sheep…
May 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
[...] Update: Robert Scoble argues the locked-in feeling I get with Facebook has great value to Microsoft. [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
[...] Scoble’s post on Facebook & Microsoft, and I have to say, it sounds like something Microsoft would do. It sounds like an offer FB would [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
It’s very simple, and brilliant. This is about buying the next “start page”. Facebook, if it succeeds, does so by becoming the default home page portal, replacing MSN and My Yahoo. Search is core to a home page (not searching facebook, duh). Microsoft is the only company in the world who can set the default home page to a large portion of the internet. This is a great strategy for Microsoft to own at least 50% of the search business in two years.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
[...] up with ways to buy some part of Yahoo. And now the rumor (reported by Robert Scoble) is that Microsoft may also buy Facebook for $15 to $20 billion. All of this in an effort to compete against Google - or as others suggest - perhaps just to [...]
May 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I hope that Microsoft does acquire Yahoo to merge it with Facebook.
This is the proverbial buying of an anvil to do the backstroke with:)
The real tragedy in such a desired scenario would be the impact on Yahoo!.
Yahoo! needs to receive the mind-staggering offer since it has the secret sauce to pull all of the entire concept together.
All else is ego-driven fantasy by executives involved:)
May 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yahoo-Google no antitrust thread, says Brin
Got that?
If Microsoft (#3) hooks up with Yahoo (#2), This represents a danger to Oceania and our way of life Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.
But if Google (#1) hooks up with Yahoo (#2), that’s great, because, um, their tech teams “have a really good dynamic,” and the advertisers contacted him when they started seeing Google Ads show up on Yahoo’s site. The prices are set fairly because “AdWords is an auction,” and having more inventory for advertisers is a GoodThing. “We really believe in companies having choice about their destiny,” Brin said. “…we want to make sure they have as many options as possible.”
So when Microsoft cozies up to Yahoo, it’s evil, THEY’RE evil, they’re limiting choices, they’re destroying the very foundations of the Interwebs and freedom that the blood of our fathers was spilled to secure.
But when Google cozies up the Yahoo, it’s great!!! It’s a win for everybody! You can choose whether your ads appear on Google, or Yahoo, or both and pay whatever random price the market will bear.
For those of you who don’t understand how this works, the Ministry of Truth will be holding a Doublethink refresher course tonight, after a brief Two Minutes’ Hate feature an image of Gates. Those handing in copies of programing books that are not about Python will be enouraged to throw them on the Google Campfire. Victory Beer will be distributed to all Party Workers, and a doubleplusgood time is guaranteed by all!
Onward to Victory!
May 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Robert, there is more to the internet than Facebook. FB will never be a valid alternative to the rest. So even if MSFT buys it (I work for MSFT but have no say in this) it will be about competing in part of the online advertising space.
Or do you believe Face book will take over the web anyway?