Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 billion

I just got a tip that Google is about to make a sizeable acquisition. Not much more data. So, of course I took it to Twitter. I hear it’s a big dollar amount.

UPDATE: $3.1 billion DoubleClick. Microsoft was in bidding. New York Times has the story and says “Microsoft has been trying to catch up with Google in the online advertising business, and the loss of DoubleClick to Google is a major set-back for Microsoft.”

What do you think?

Published by

Robert Scoble

As Startup Liaison for Rackspace, the Open Cloud Computing Company, Scoble travels the world looking for what's happening on the bleeding edge of technology for Rackspace's startup program. He's interviewed thousands of executives and technology innovators and reports what he learns in books ("The Age of Context," a book coauthored with Forbes author Shel Israel, has been released at http://amzn.to/AgeOfContext ), YouTube, and many social media sites where he's followed by millions of people. Best place to watch me is on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble

Comments

  1. “UPDATE: $3.1 billion DoubleClick. Microsoft was in bidding. New York Times has the story, I don’t have the link yet.”

    Really?

  2. “UPDATE: $3.1 billion DoubleClick. Microsoft was in bidding. New York Times has the story, I don’t have the link yet.”

    Really?

  3. I’m not so sure that this is a huge loss for MSFT. If they thought Doubleclick was worth this much they would have bought the company. Google has already been accused by some of overpaying for YouTube. Doubleclick may be another case of their irrational exuberance.

  4. I’m not so sure that this is a huge loss for MSFT. If they thought Doubleclick was worth this much they would have bought the company. Google has already been accused by some of overpaying for YouTube. Doubleclick may be another case of their irrational exuberance.

  5. I can’t shake the impression that Google just paid 3.1 cool billions just to keep Microsoft from having it.

    Because I really don’t think Google would need to buy DoubleClick for any other reason… Well, at least it wouldn’t be worth that much money to them.

    I don’t buy it that Google doesn’t have the relationships to enter the display ad business or that it couldn’t build them in a timely fashion for a lot less money. Robert, can you comment on that? I’d love to read your analysis on this.

    For now, I believe this is all about shutting the door on Microsoft’s face. The company’s assets and relationships are just icing on the cake.

  6. I can’t shake the impression that Google just paid 3.1 cool billions just to keep Microsoft from having it.

    Because I really don’t think Google would need to buy DoubleClick for any other reason… Well, at least it wouldn’t be worth that much money to them.

    I don’t buy it that Google doesn’t have the relationships to enter the display ad business or that it couldn’t build them in a timely fashion for a lot less money. Robert, can you comment on that? I’d love to read your analysis on this.

    For now, I believe this is all about shutting the door on Microsoft’s face. The company’s assets and relationships are just icing on the cake.

  7. DoubleClick has certainly come in for their share of criticism over privacy and tracking in the past. It will be interesting to see whether Google gets a free pass from the babbling classes for this acquisition. Also will be interesting to see whether Microsoft remains the heavy user of DoubleClick tracking that it is today.

  8. DoubleClick has certainly come in for their share of criticism over privacy and tracking in the past. It will be interesting to see whether Google gets a free pass from the babbling classes for this acquisition. Also will be interesting to see whether Microsoft remains the heavy user of DoubleClick tracking that it is today.

  9. Definitely, a coup. Which is why they were willing to pay a 50% premium over Microsoft.

    It’s silly to suggest that MS was willing to pay this sum when their ad efforts show a lack of success and many markets show financial losses, and they keep spending their cash hoard. An additional billion dollars would have looked bad on their financial statements. For Google is much more explanable, and they are already kicking ass in the ad space so there is zero concern about their ability to make it a worthwhile acquisition.

    The actual details of integration, the costs, etc… That gets uglier, but stealing them away from Microsoft (who are quickly running out of options in the ad space; this was getting viewed as their last alternative to show major gains) is the only reason they need. And for that it is well worth it.

  10. Definitely, a coup. Which is why they were willing to pay a 50% premium over Microsoft.

    It’s silly to suggest that MS was willing to pay this sum when their ad efforts show a lack of success and many markets show financial losses, and they keep spending their cash hoard. An additional billion dollars would have looked bad on their financial statements. For Google is much more explanable, and they are already kicking ass in the ad space so there is zero concern about their ability to make it a worthwhile acquisition.

    The actual details of integration, the costs, etc… That gets uglier, but stealing them away from Microsoft (who are quickly running out of options in the ad space; this was getting viewed as their last alternative to show major gains) is the only reason they need. And for that it is well worth it.

  11. Cool to watch the story break while we were at lunch. I think this is a very good move for Google. As I blogged earlier today, Google is NOT in the search business – this just helps emphasize that point and expands Google into one of the few areas of online advertising (and offline advertising) which they were not dominant in.

    If the NYTimes story is correct DoubleClick was generating $300M / year, so the price is about 10x earnings – not cheap but certainly not seriously overpriced.

  12. Cool to watch the story break while we were at lunch. I think this is a very good move for Google. As I blogged earlier today, Google is NOT in the search business – this just helps emphasize that point and expands Google into one of the few areas of online advertising (and offline advertising) which they were not dominant in.

    If the NYTimes story is correct DoubleClick was generating $300M / year, so the price is about 10x earnings – not cheap but certainly not seriously overpriced.

  13. DoubleClick did the image ads? Right? The ones that many people hate? Thats why Google’s AdWords were so popular? Whats going to happen with those?

  14. DoubleClick did the image ads? Right? The ones that many people hate? Thats why Google’s AdWords were so popular? Whats going to happen with those?

  15. A little overpriced IMHO but I think it was a good purchase that will add to their business. Also, anytime the door is slammed in MS’s face is a good time.

  16. A little overpriced IMHO but I think it was a good purchase that will add to their business. Also, anytime the door is slammed in MS’s face is a good time.

  17. This move is to disrupt Microsoft short term and long term strategy and plan. It would take longer for Microsoft to catch up.

    Follow Ycombinator Paul Graham’s advise: Buy the startups with the brightest developers in Silicon Valley locking them up in a building away from Seattle. Offer them FREE shuttle bus and FREE healthy food. Allow them to bring dogs and cats to office. Waiting for H1B visa talents won’t get results fast enough on the web. Listen to the veterans and industry watchers.

  18. This move is to disrupt Microsoft short term and long term strategy and plan. It would take longer for Microsoft to catch up.

    Follow Ycombinator Paul Graham’s advise: Buy the startups with the brightest developers in Silicon Valley locking them up in a building away from Seattle. Offer them FREE shuttle bus and FREE healthy food. Allow them to bring dogs and cats to office. Waiting for H1B visa talents won’t get results fast enough on the web. Listen to the veterans and industry watchers.

  19. None of these businesses Google buys makes anywhere near the amount of money they purchased it for. Youtube for 2 Billion, it was LOSING 1M per month at the time. DoubleClick is a modest business, in the single digit millions GROSS. It’s not going to recuperate the money. It’s a buy out at a loss.

    The MySpace search buy out is a loss too. Orkut and Gmail on the other hand are different.
    Google is playing the game of internet Monopoly here.
    The obvious choice is to let go of the traditional web internet, and let Google choke on their own vomit by spending on businesses that do not live up to the expenditures. The money they spend on Live could alternately be used to fuel a different strategy that does NOT compete with Google.
    Microsoft competing with Google on the internet is going to be as futile now as it was for Commodore to compete with windows in the early or mid 90s.
    It’s a money pit at this point and they need to find something they ARE good at. And fire Ballmer. He’s a train wreck.
    Screw Doubleclick, it’s cookie spam. It’s Claria of the internet.

  20. None of these businesses Google buys makes anywhere near the amount of money they purchased it for. Youtube for 2 Billion, it was LOSING 1M per month at the time. DoubleClick is a modest business, in the single digit millions GROSS. It’s not going to recuperate the money. It’s a buy out at a loss.

    The MySpace search buy out is a loss too. Orkut and Gmail on the other hand are different.
    Google is playing the game of internet Monopoly here.
    The obvious choice is to let go of the traditional web internet, and let Google choke on their own vomit by spending on businesses that do not live up to the expenditures. The money they spend on Live could alternately be used to fuel a different strategy that does NOT compete with Google.
    Microsoft competing with Google on the internet is going to be as futile now as it was for Commodore to compete with windows in the early or mid 90s.
    It’s a money pit at this point and they need to find something they ARE good at. And fire Ballmer. He’s a train wreck.
    Screw Doubleclick, it’s cookie spam. It’s Claria of the internet.

  21. I agree with Chris.
    Microsoft should abandon competing with Google and let them have that space. Google overpaid for it, but they have it now and will have it forever. In fact, Microsoft should make an online version of Office and make a deal with Google to make it part of Google’s web services (Google’s own web apps are a pathetic joke). Both companies would make money.

    As for Live, I wouldn’t abandon it, but move it in a different direction. Get out of search altogether; meaning, just provide a search box that directs all searches to Google. And I’d cease trying to compete in the ad-space too.

    The bigger problem is for the non-Microsoft companies that were trying to compete on ads, search, and whatnot. They’re essentially dead now that Google has the market cornered. They have to hope that the DOJ comes after Google for buying properties at massive loss for the sole reason of stamping out competition.

  22. I agree with Chris.
    Microsoft should abandon competing with Google and let them have that space. Google overpaid for it, but they have it now and will have it forever. In fact, Microsoft should make an online version of Office and make a deal with Google to make it part of Google’s web services (Google’s own web apps are a pathetic joke). Both companies would make money.

    As for Live, I wouldn’t abandon it, but move it in a different direction. Get out of search altogether; meaning, just provide a search box that directs all searches to Google. And I’d cease trying to compete in the ad-space too.

    The bigger problem is for the non-Microsoft companies that were trying to compete on ads, search, and whatnot. They’re essentially dead now that Google has the market cornered. They have to hope that the DOJ comes after Google for buying properties at massive loss for the sole reason of stamping out competition.

  23. Perhaps a little overpriced but now who will Microsoft acquire if they want to really compete with Google? Yahoo? I don’t think they can afford it.

  24. Perhaps a little overpriced but now who will Microsoft acquire if they want to really compete with Google? Yahoo? I don’t think they can afford it.

  25. Chris, I disagree about DC’s value to Google. Firstly, everything I’ve read has said 100s of millions of profit. Second, the new online brokering system developed by DoubleClick has been getting mucho kudos and seems to be the latest, leading edge technology in the ad space. Third, Google, because of its enormity and search engine, instantly magnifies the value of DoubleClick once they internalize DC’s technology, existing ads, and relationships.

    As for Microsoft stopping trying to compete with everyone. That goes without saying. Just imagine what their profits would look like without the cash sinks (that are likely never to be profitable to them).

  26. Chris, I disagree about DC’s value to Google. Firstly, everything I’ve read has said 100s of millions of profit. Second, the new online brokering system developed by DoubleClick has been getting mucho kudos and seems to be the latest, leading edge technology in the ad space. Third, Google, because of its enormity and search engine, instantly magnifies the value of DoubleClick once they internalize DC’s technology, existing ads, and relationships.

    As for Microsoft stopping trying to compete with everyone. That goes without saying. Just imagine what their profits would look like without the cash sinks (that are likely never to be profitable to them).

  27. 3.1 BILLION??!?!?

    FOR DOUBLECLICK?!?!?!?

    HA! HA! HA!

    Hmm… Then again… I don ‘t think Google could have possibly afforded to lose Doubleclick to Microsoft.

    Bottom line: Google may have had NO choice but to make this purchase. They may not have really wanted Doubkleclick. Maybe Doubleclick really is worth it. But i’ll say this…

    Personally I don’t think anyone on earth today can reasonably or accurately predict if this was the right move on Google’s part. This deal was a “time will only tell” move. Just like Xerox’s refusal to go commercial with their Xerox Alto computer… this deal may go down in computing history as either the wisest move… or the dumbest.

    This deal WILL, like it or not, FOREVER alter the playing field. And ultimately … the history books.

  28. 3.1 BILLION??!?!?

    FOR DOUBLECLICK?!?!?!?

    HA! HA! HA!

    Hmm… Then again… I don ‘t think Google could have possibly afforded to lose Doubleclick to Microsoft.

    Bottom line: Google may have had NO choice but to make this purchase. They may not have really wanted Doubkleclick. Maybe Doubleclick really is worth it. But i’ll say this…

    Personally I don’t think anyone on earth today can reasonably or accurately predict if this was the right move on Google’s part. This deal was a “time will only tell” move. Just like Xerox’s refusal to go commercial with their Xerox Alto computer… this deal may go down in computing history as either the wisest move… or the dumbest.

    This deal WILL, like it or not, FOREVER alter the playing field. And ultimately … the history books.

  29. DoubleClick is a major ad network. Google gobbles it, which pretty much signs death for everybody else, including small agile players.

    Microsoft consolation : Gator (Claria) purchase can proceed…

  30. DoubleClick is a major ad network. Google gobbles it, which pretty much signs death for everybody else, including small agile players.

    Microsoft consolation : Gator (Claria) purchase can proceed…

  31. @29 : “Microsoft should make an online version of Office”

    They can’t. Either it’s a full online version which does not require Windows or Internet Explorer, in which case they canibalize themselves. Or it’s not a full online version, and nobody bothers.

    Look at those corporate applications that have moved from fat clients to intranet versions. It took a decade but pretty much everything has moved to the server (not to confuse with web-only).

  32. @29 : “Microsoft should make an online version of Office”

    They can’t. Either it’s a full online version which does not require Windows or Internet Explorer, in which case they canibalize themselves. Or it’s not a full online version, and nobody bothers.

    Look at those corporate applications that have moved from fat clients to intranet versions. It took a decade but pretty much everything has moved to the server (not to confuse with web-only).

  33. Doubleclick is a firm I have hated since the time they tried to fill my PCs with cookies and other stuff in the 90ies. If Google buys this **** firm some of that hate will be transferred. Bad deal for Google.

  34. Doubleclick is a firm I have hated since the time they tried to fill my PCs with cookies and other stuff in the 90ies. If Google buys this **** firm some of that hate will be transferred. Bad deal for Google.

  35. @34,

    Just do what I do, block ALL ads, even Google ads. If you use Linux, this is a joke to do. Konqueror comes with adblock by default now. It’s a cinch to blcok just about anything or anyone.

    Ads should be a choice on the part of the consumer, never forced on them. I don’t like being marketed to, so I just say no. I NEVER click on ads, ever.

    It’s your right to not see ads during your surfing experience, and there are free, easy tools to help that happen. Adblock with Firefox or if you don’t want to worry about it in your browser you can download Privoxy if you use Windows and configure it to see no ads whatsoever.

    Doubleclick’s ads have been particularly egregious in the past, so they were the first to get blocked.

  36. @34,

    Just do what I do, block ALL ads, even Google ads. If you use Linux, this is a joke to do. Konqueror comes with adblock by default now. It’s a cinch to blcok just about anything or anyone.

    Ads should be a choice on the part of the consumer, never forced on them. I don’t like being marketed to, so I just say no. I NEVER click on ads, ever.

    It’s your right to not see ads during your surfing experience, and there are free, easy tools to help that happen. Adblock with Firefox or if you don’t want to worry about it in your browser you can download Privoxy if you use Windows and configure it to see no ads whatsoever.

    Doubleclick’s ads have been particularly egregious in the past, so they were the first to get blocked.

  37. I agree with the sentiment to deny MS the purchase. MS needs to be taken down a notch or two. IF they cannot develop their own ad network, then they have no business being in that business. Google at least came up with adwords and the algorithms, etc.

    MS tends to buy its expertise rather than develop it itself.

  38. I agree with the sentiment to deny MS the purchase. MS needs to be taken down a notch or two. IF they cannot develop their own ad network, then they have no business being in that business. Google at least came up with adwords and the algorithms, etc.

    MS tends to buy its expertise rather than develop it itself.

  39. I can’t help but think that Google overpaid for double click, just as they overpaid for youtube,
    Google has lots of money, Microsoft has even more money than Google, Google hasn’t shown the ability to earn money outside of search.
    I can’t help but think than Goolge’s buisness model is based on throwing spagetti at the wall and hoping that something sticks.

  40. I can’t help but think that Google overpaid for double click, just as they overpaid for youtube,
    Google has lots of money, Microsoft has even more money than Google, Google hasn’t shown the ability to earn money outside of search.
    I can’t help but think than Goolge’s buisness model is based on throwing spagetti at the wall and hoping that something sticks.

  41. I agree with the sentiment to deny MS the purchase. MS needs to be taken down a notch or two. IF they cannot develop their own ad network, then they have no business being in that business. Google at least came up with adwords and the algorithms, etc.

    MS tends to buy its expertise rather than develop it itself.

    Comment by wreck — April 14, 2007 @ 7:44 am

    That’s actually quite common for most companies, Google,Apple, Oracle. Microsoft does have a Major braintrust in Redmond as does it’s competitors.

    I don’t see anything brilliant coming out of Mountain view , lets not loose focus here just becuase some of us don’t like MS.

  42. I agree with the sentiment to deny MS the purchase. MS needs to be taken down a notch or two. IF they cannot develop their own ad network, then they have no business being in that business. Google at least came up with adwords and the algorithms, etc.

    MS tends to buy its expertise rather than develop it itself.

    Comment by wreck — April 14, 2007 @ 7:44 am

    That’s actually quite common for most companies, Google,Apple, Oracle. Microsoft does have a Major braintrust in Redmond as does it’s competitors.

    I don’t see anything brilliant coming out of Mountain view , lets not loose focus here just becuase some of us don’t like MS.

  43. “I don’t see anything brilliant coming out of Mountain view , lets not loose focus here just becuase some of us don’t like MS”

    Yeah..It would have been interesting to see the reactions if it was yahoo instead of msft.

  44. “I don’t see anything brilliant coming out of Mountain view , lets not loose focus here just becuase some of us don’t like MS”

    Yeah..It would have been interesting to see the reactions if it was yahoo instead of msft.

  45. “Microsoft consolation : Gator (Claria) purchase can proceed…”

    If they really, really wanted to desperately compete with Google, the best way would be to buy out all the remaining smaller search engine sites that are reasonably big.

    That would draw some attention from the DOJ, and so it is impossible.

    Checkmate from Google on Microsoft’s queen, the internet.

    They should now focus on using the internet in other ways than HTTP, and not make it windows ONLY technology as they have been. Non HTTP inter operable technology is the way to go. Once the non-HTTP internet becomes as accessible and as popular as the HTTP web, Microsoft will have beat Google.

    Microsoft however are hell-bent on Windows, and gluing people to it, so they will never realize the potential of selling just the software sans the platform.

    XML RPC and SOAP is cool, why can’t EVERYONE use it???
    This is just a small example of what is possible but has not been popularized.

    Google won’t do it, google is starting to own HTTP. MS could, Yahoo could ect…
    MS totally isn’t intelligent enough to succeed anymore. Their entire brains in Bill Gates is too busy going to G8 style summits and giving speeches to do anything meaningful anymore.

  46. “Microsoft consolation : Gator (Claria) purchase can proceed…”

    If they really, really wanted to desperately compete with Google, the best way would be to buy out all the remaining smaller search engine sites that are reasonably big.

    That would draw some attention from the DOJ, and so it is impossible.

    Checkmate from Google on Microsoft’s queen, the internet.

    They should now focus on using the internet in other ways than HTTP, and not make it windows ONLY technology as they have been. Non HTTP inter operable technology is the way to go. Once the non-HTTP internet becomes as accessible and as popular as the HTTP web, Microsoft will have beat Google.

    Microsoft however are hell-bent on Windows, and gluing people to it, so they will never realize the potential of selling just the software sans the platform.

    XML RPC and SOAP is cool, why can’t EVERYONE use it???
    This is just a small example of what is possible but has not been popularized.

    Google won’t do it, google is starting to own HTTP. MS could, Yahoo could ect…
    MS totally isn’t intelligent enough to succeed anymore. Their entire brains in Bill Gates is too busy going to G8 style summits and giving speeches to do anything meaningful anymore.

  47. This is not related to Microsoft, Double click was a #1 rival in Google’s Ad business. Google now more than 99% ad revenue company. Media/Technology companies do not clearly understanding Google business models.
    There is no reason MS to buy this, since MS have

  48. This is not related to Microsoft, Double click was a #1 rival in Google’s Ad business. Google now more than 99% ad revenue company. Media/Technology companies do not clearly understanding Google business models.
    There is no reason MS to buy this, since MS have

  49. less than 10% search engine market share, to me, this acquisition is a set back for Yahoo and few Media companies. Moreover, Microsoft does have any ‘user centric’ brand ?
    Kind rgrds
    saran

  50. less than 10% search engine market share, to me, this acquisition is a set back for Yahoo and few Media companies. Moreover, Microsoft does have any ‘user centric’ brand ?
    Kind rgrds
    saran

  51. “Seshadri: my reaction would have been Google loses one.”

    I don’t see how. This is search marketshare but it has a relationship to advertising:

    Google: 64%
    Yahoo: 21%
    MSN: 9%
    Ask: 4%

    Yahoo is a stronger competitor than Microsoft to Google in both search and advertising. With both companies, it strengthens Google. Just because Microsoft was desperate to get a piece doesn’t mean this doesn’t impact Yahoo.

    “If they really, really wanted to desperately compete with Google, the best way would be to buy out all the remaining smaller search engine sites that are reasonably big.”

    Which ones? Do you mean Ask? Or the ones even smaller? The top 4 represent 97% of the market. If they grabbed Ask and the remaining 3% (which would remain impossible: that small percent is almost always going to defect to obscure or niche searche engines), they’d still be smaller than Yahoo.

  52. “Seshadri: my reaction would have been Google loses one.”

    I don’t see how. This is search marketshare but it has a relationship to advertising:

    Google: 64%
    Yahoo: 21%
    MSN: 9%
    Ask: 4%

    Yahoo is a stronger competitor than Microsoft to Google in both search and advertising. With both companies, it strengthens Google. Just because Microsoft was desperate to get a piece doesn’t mean this doesn’t impact Yahoo.

    “If they really, really wanted to desperately compete with Google, the best way would be to buy out all the remaining smaller search engine sites that are reasonably big.”

    Which ones? Do you mean Ask? Or the ones even smaller? The top 4 represent 97% of the market. If they grabbed Ask and the remaining 3% (which would remain impossible: that small percent is almost always going to defect to obscure or niche searche engines), they’d still be smaller than Yahoo.

  53. Saran: when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future. Double-click mattered a LOT to that future strategy.

  54. Saran: when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future. Double-click mattered a LOT to that future strategy.

  55. “when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future.”

    Since he was wrong, how much value does that prediction have?

  56. By the way, remember when I recommended buying Yahoo when it “tanked” in July (from around $32 to $26)?

    Well, it’s back around $31.50 and is going to be THE interesting player in this space. Microsoft is going to want them big time next but I don’t know how they’ll handle their $42 billion market value. Nevermind how they would incorporate the brand and properties. (In fact, thank god it would be difficult to merge properties and is prohibitively expensive: I’d had to see Microsoft destroy a lot of tools that I use.)

  57. By the way, remember when I recommended buying Yahoo when it “tanked” in July (from around $32 to $26)?

    Well, it’s back around $31.50 and is going to be THE interesting player in this space. Microsoft is going to want them big time next but I don’t know how they’ll handle their $42 billion market value. Nevermind how they would incorporate the brand and properties. (In fact, thank god it would be difficult to merge properties and is prohibitively expensive: I’d had to see Microsoft destroy a lot of tools that I use.)

  58. “when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future.”

    Since he was wrong, how much value does that prediction have?

  59. In a way this deal is a made-for-google one.

    MSFT can never justify a 3 billion purchase when its online presence is a distant third. Personally I am happy that MSFT didn’t end up buying DC. With the google buyout, all the negative perception associated with DC will be ‘forgotten’. But the situation would have been whole lot different with a MSFT buyout of DC.

    From a tech reader perspective, any news involving MSFT or its direct competitor is getting boring. You can easily predict the reaction – MSFT thrashed. No proper arguments, no pro-con analysis. Just pick the side against MSFT and start thrashing…

    Curently thats the dominance theme in all the techmeme-d blogs. Look at this – http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/13/googleclick_and.html – he says 1/3 rd of the cost is justified as an anti-msft move while the rest is the buyout. I mean, how ridiculous things could get. One instance i see articles saying that msft can never match google whatever they do and the next moment someone justifies a 1 billion spend to keep msft down.

    (I thought scoble would come up with one such pro-con stuff. But i get a feeling that post “Kathy Sierra”, he is unusually subdued)

  60. In a way this deal is a made-for-google one.

    MSFT can never justify a 3 billion purchase when its online presence is a distant third. Personally I am happy that MSFT didn’t end up buying DC. With the google buyout, all the negative perception associated with DC will be ‘forgotten’. But the situation would have been whole lot different with a MSFT buyout of DC.

    From a tech reader perspective, any news involving MSFT or its direct competitor is getting boring. You can easily predict the reaction – MSFT thrashed. No proper arguments, no pro-con analysis. Just pick the side against MSFT and start thrashing…

    Curently thats the dominance theme in all the techmeme-d blogs. Look at this – http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/13/googleclick_and.html – he says 1/3 rd of the cost is justified as an anti-msft move while the rest is the buyout. I mean, how ridiculous things could get. One instance i see articles saying that msft can never match google whatever they do and the next moment someone justifies a 1 billion spend to keep msft down.

    (I thought scoble would come up with one such pro-con stuff. But i get a feeling that post “Kathy Sierra”, he is unusually subdued)

  61. “he says 1/3 rd of the cost is justified as an anti-msft move while the rest is the buyout. I mean, how ridiculous things could get.”

    What’s ridiculous about that? 2 Bills is what MSFT was willing to spend and what the consensus valuation is. 3 Bills is 10x revenue, not absurd. As you say, Google is best positioned to leverage this.

    This deal is 100x better than the YouTube deal, and 1000x better than the Time-AOL merger… Google has the cash ($11+ Billion) and has quarterly profits of $1 Billion on $3+ Billion revenue when they were earning only around $300 million a quarter a year ago. (i.e., a year from, probaly even much sooner, you’ll look at Google’s financials and see zero sign of a $3 billion purchase.)

    Yes, I and others are anti-Microsoft, but this doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate the value to Google and particularly in relation to its competition fairly.

  62. “he says 1/3 rd of the cost is justified as an anti-msft move while the rest is the buyout. I mean, how ridiculous things could get.”

    What’s ridiculous about that? 2 Bills is what MSFT was willing to spend and what the consensus valuation is. 3 Bills is 10x revenue, not absurd. As you say, Google is best positioned to leverage this.

    This deal is 100x better than the YouTube deal, and 1000x better than the Time-AOL merger… Google has the cash ($11+ Billion) and has quarterly profits of $1 Billion on $3+ Billion revenue when they were earning only around $300 million a quarter a year ago. (i.e., a year from, probaly even much sooner, you’ll look at Google’s financials and see zero sign of a $3 billion purchase.)

    Yes, I and others are anti-Microsoft, but this doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate the value to Google and particularly in relation to its competition fairly.

  63. “What’s ridiculous about that?”

    That particular idea viewed in isolation is not ridiculous. But put it next to the popular view that “MSFT is DEAD and can never do anything significant in the online space” and see how it looks.

  64. “What’s ridiculous about that?”

    That particular idea viewed in isolation is not ridiculous. But put it next to the popular view that “MSFT is DEAD and can never do anything significant in the online space” and see how it looks.

  65. I don’t see any saying they are DEAD in relation to this. I do see people say they can’t do anything significant in the online advertising space — and that is TRUE. And in terms of search it is also TRUE. They’ve done some things in some areas with some Live properties, but they have all been essentially irrelevant financially and strategically.

    It seems to me that you are drawing together anything negative about MS to paint your own little conspiracy theory.

  66. I don’t see any saying they are DEAD in relation to this. I do see people say they can’t do anything significant in the online advertising space — and that is TRUE. And in terms of search it is also TRUE. They’ve done some things in some areas with some Live properties, but they have all been essentially irrelevant financially and strategically.

    It seems to me that you are drawing together anything negative about MS to paint your own little conspiracy theory.

  67. Damn Goebbels. I hate when I agree with you.

    The stock market does too. Neither Google nor Microsoft really moved much yesterday.

    This is another “moat” around Google’s advertising business. It just made Google’s core business (advertising revenues) much more difficult to attack strategically.

    Microsoft isn’t going anywhere. When we say “Microsoft is dead” we don’t mean literally. We mean its growth is now constrained in a box and it will have to fight to get out of that box (and, yesterday proved that Ballmer isn’t willing to give up billions to fight).

    So, what does this all mean? The stock market is yawning. Why? Cause this purchase locks in place Google’s ascendancy and locks in place Microsoft’s ability (er, inability) to get anything strategically going.

  68. Damn Goebbels. I hate when I agree with you.

    The stock market does too. Neither Google nor Microsoft really moved much yesterday.

    This is another “moat” around Google’s advertising business. It just made Google’s core business (advertising revenues) much more difficult to attack strategically.

    Microsoft isn’t going anywhere. When we say “Microsoft is dead” we don’t mean literally. We mean its growth is now constrained in a box and it will have to fight to get out of that box (and, yesterday proved that Ballmer isn’t willing to give up billions to fight).

    So, what does this all mean? The stock market is yawning. Why? Cause this purchase locks in place Google’s ascendancy and locks in place Microsoft’s ability (er, inability) to get anything strategically going.

  69. And, Seshadri, this isn’t personal. It’s just that Google has a far more interesting business growth path than Microsoft does. And Microsoft’s own president knows it.

    That makes Google the more interesting company to watch, talk about, and consider.

    Microsoft still has tons of advantages over Google, though. You’re right that we shouldn’t write it off. Any company with billions in the bank can ALWAYS become interesting again! (Look at Apple).

  70. And, Seshadri, this isn’t personal. It’s just that Google has a far more interesting business growth path than Microsoft does. And Microsoft’s own president knows it.

    That makes Google the more interesting company to watch, talk about, and consider.

    Microsoft still has tons of advantages over Google, though. You’re right that we shouldn’t write it off. Any company with billions in the bank can ALWAYS become interesting again! (Look at Apple).

  71. Okay..I was off-topic a bit here.

    As for as this deal goes, only time will tell if this a sound deal or not(as someone already noted in the comments) and again, no one except google would have been justified in doing this.

    My rant was about not finding some fair pro-con anlaysis on the deal. All that i could read had pretty much the same point – this was a victory to google bcos MSFT lost out.

  72. Okay..I was off-topic a bit here.

    As for as this deal goes, only time will tell if this a sound deal or not(as someone already noted in the comments) and again, no one except google would have been justified in doing this.

    My rant was about not finding some fair pro-con anlaysis on the deal. All that i could read had pretty much the same point – this was a victory to google bcos MSFT lost out.

  73. “(and, yesterday proved that Ballmer isn’t willing to give up billions to fight).”

    Isn’t it ironic that IBM out revenues both Google and MS with

    A. No Operating system

    B. No web portal or internet strategy to speak of

    C. no hardware line anymore

    Has anybody at MS thought of growing in the Enterprise sector?
    Like NOT making out of box kiddy software and actually making some huge custom software and support deals?

    That would be far too painful for them I fear.
    So the rest of us keep making money off of that.

  74. “(and, yesterday proved that Ballmer isn’t willing to give up billions to fight).”

    Isn’t it ironic that IBM out revenues both Google and MS with

    A. No Operating system

    B. No web portal or internet strategy to speak of

    C. no hardware line anymore

    Has anybody at MS thought of growing in the Enterprise sector?
    Like NOT making out of box kiddy software and actually making some huge custom software and support deals?

    That would be far too painful for them I fear.
    So the rest of us keep making money off of that.

  75. One of the blogs mentioned that Google’s ad model was an anti-theses to the DC model and that was one of the reasons for its success. Now by acquiring DC they have some level contradictions in their as business model.

    It would be great to see some validation/invalidation of theories like this and consider tehcnological implications as well…

  76. One of the blogs mentioned that Google’s ad model was an anti-theses to the DC model and that was one of the reasons for its success. Now by acquiring DC they have some level contradictions in their as business model.

    It would be great to see some validation/invalidation of theories like this and consider tehcnological implications as well…

  77. Scoble, in relation to your Kevin Johnson statement: do you think Microsoft no longer believes there is growth left in their core markets and that advertising was the best and most promising industry (the only foreseeable one with real growth on their scale) or were they just seeing the massive success of Google and the potential of the advertising market and, with usual hubris, assuming they could just step in, providing them an easy growth path?

    I think, by the way, there are further lessons about Microsoft. A couple of years ago, it was believed they could get into the space with small acquisitions and technology, but those efforts had no effect against the Google Juggernaut. (This also was supposed to leverage existing properties and strengths (MSN, Hotmail — remember when Hotmail was talked about as the most important web property? Now even if still immense, it’s completely irrelevant strategically and financially in relation to the competition… But those web properties are losing value or are dying in a reallignment process that hasn’t resulted in any value yet…) So analysts have shifted to saying they could buy (bigger) into the market. But DoubleClick was primarily the only significant feasible opportunity. They’ve lost thus far on their typical strengths: buying power, leveraging existing properties, and developing their own tech.

    Without some yet unseen rebirth, crystalization, and major leap from the Live initiatives… (True gut-wrenching hard work and fighting involving developing their own tech and changing their strategy to something yet unseen) I don’t foresee anything good for Microsoft in this space for years to come.

    Which makes Yahoo extremely important. If Google continues to make gains and Microsoft continues to slide without any major new players in the next couple of years, we won’t necessarily be saying Microsoft is dead but we will say they are irrelevant, we will say they are just an OS and office software vendor… We will be saying things like Google-Apple (combined market cap of 215 Bill vs. MSFT’s 280 Bill) are more valuable, more powerful, more influential than Microsoft even if Microsoft still owns the business and most of the home software market… if the current landscape is accurate and trends continue.

    And its Microsoft’s own fault for perceiving all markets as their domain. For commoditizing most industries eliminating their growth opportunities. (In many respects, I agree with Johnson that their growth would come from advertising — I just happen to believe they won’t get any of it.)

    So over the next couple of years, I think we are finally going to see real examination of Microsoft’s attempts to enter new markets, its leadership, and strategies. (There cash has dwindled to 26 Billion; Google has 11 billion and is less than half their size; Apple, a company 3.5x smaller, has 12 billion.)

    We’ve come along way from when Microsoft was valued at $400 Billion and had $50 billion in cash, Apple was a $10 Billion dollar company, Dell was the financial powerhouse, and Google had no revenue and was just a search engine. They aren’t the 800 pound gorilla in any financial sense anymore — they still dominate 2 software markets, but that’s it… Yet some people haven’t realized the shift yet… They still think no one has the buying power or cash of Microsoft, that they still have all the leverage and expertise.

    Somehow, I think this purchase will ultimately be key to a perception shift in the market, will have substantial impact on both Microsoft and Google. And in a much bigger historical sense than just the ad/search space. And for this, $3 billion is a steal.

    (I apologize for the essay… I’m sure will think I’m dreaming, smoking crack. I’m seeing this long term and in many ways historically antecedent to the antitrust issues a decade ago which I don’t think people really even appropriately consider the effects of to this day.)

  78. Scoble, in relation to your Kevin Johnson statement: do you think Microsoft no longer believes there is growth left in their core markets and that advertising was the best and most promising industry (the only foreseeable one with real growth on their scale) or were they just seeing the massive success of Google and the potential of the advertising market and, with usual hubris, assuming they could just step in, providing them an easy growth path?

    I think, by the way, there are further lessons about Microsoft. A couple of years ago, it was believed they could get into the space with small acquisitions and technology, but those efforts had no effect against the Google Juggernaut. (This also was supposed to leverage existing properties and strengths (MSN, Hotmail — remember when Hotmail was talked about as the most important web property? Now even if still immense, it’s completely irrelevant strategically and financially in relation to the competition… But those web properties are losing value or are dying in a reallignment process that hasn’t resulted in any value yet…) So analysts have shifted to saying they could buy (bigger) into the market. But DoubleClick was primarily the only significant feasible opportunity. They’ve lost thus far on their typical strengths: buying power, leveraging existing properties, and developing their own tech.

    Without some yet unseen rebirth, crystalization, and major leap from the Live initiatives… (True gut-wrenching hard work and fighting involving developing their own tech and changing their strategy to something yet unseen) I don’t foresee anything good for Microsoft in this space for years to come.

    Which makes Yahoo extremely important. If Google continues to make gains and Microsoft continues to slide without any major new players in the next couple of years, we won’t necessarily be saying Microsoft is dead but we will say they are irrelevant, we will say they are just an OS and office software vendor… We will be saying things like Google-Apple (combined market cap of 215 Bill vs. MSFT’s 280 Bill) are more valuable, more powerful, more influential than Microsoft even if Microsoft still owns the business and most of the home software market… if the current landscape is accurate and trends continue.

    And its Microsoft’s own fault for perceiving all markets as their domain. For commoditizing most industries eliminating their growth opportunities. (In many respects, I agree with Johnson that their growth would come from advertising — I just happen to believe they won’t get any of it.)

    So over the next couple of years, I think we are finally going to see real examination of Microsoft’s attempts to enter new markets, its leadership, and strategies. (There cash has dwindled to 26 Billion; Google has 11 billion and is less than half their size; Apple, a company 3.5x smaller, has 12 billion.)

    We’ve come along way from when Microsoft was valued at $400 Billion and had $50 billion in cash, Apple was a $10 Billion dollar company, Dell was the financial powerhouse, and Google had no revenue and was just a search engine. They aren’t the 800 pound gorilla in any financial sense anymore — they still dominate 2 software markets, but that’s it… Yet some people haven’t realized the shift yet… They still think no one has the buying power or cash of Microsoft, that they still have all the leverage and expertise.

    Somehow, I think this purchase will ultimately be key to a perception shift in the market, will have substantial impact on both Microsoft and Google. And in a much bigger historical sense than just the ad/search space. And for this, $3 billion is a steal.

    (I apologize for the essay… I’m sure will think I’m dreaming, smoking crack. I’m seeing this long term and in many ways historically antecedent to the antitrust issues a decade ago which I don’t think people really even appropriately consider the effects of to this day.)

  79. “We will be saying things like Google-Apple”

    And what is Apple doing here? Somehow Google’s dominance will kill Desktop OS but not Mac?

  80. “We will be saying things like Google-Apple”

    And what is Apple doing here? Somehow Google’s dominance will kill Desktop OS but not Mac?

  81. Getting back on topic, seshadri, I think the pros-cons have been laid out.

    CONS
    1. Their is a potential evil perception because of DoubleClick’s past spyware, deep cookie-ing issues. And also moving back into banners/images/videos (They were successful because they avoided them.)

    That’s about it. Google was so successful initially in the ad space by getting away from banner/image ads, but it still represents a large portion of the online ad space. And Google was having difficulty entering it. It’s not a contradiction so much as it becomes a compliment. (Do you want text ads, or do you want banner ads, or do you want video ads (another market difficult for Google now?) This isn’t so much a contradiction or issue now that they are dominant in ads and have lost much of the “don’t do evil” shine. And offering the option of text ads pretty much eliminates the concern of banner ad hell for anyone.

    The only other con is whether or not you consider it paying too much for too little.

    That’s really about it, and the major pro is thwarting Microsoft. Because you want to perceive and see a list of several pros and several cons, doesn’t mean it exists.

    Technologically, people don’t like DoubleClick’s core stuff. But this shouldn’t be a problem to Google. It can either modify it to make it “nicer” or it’s just another option on the menu. The big gain “technologically” is the masses and masses of user and advertiser data that Google is getting. (Despite Google’s algorithm expertise and vast cache of data–this really is a big, substantially nugget… even to Google because it specifically correlates to advertisers, the success/failure of their ads, and their consumers.) And the relationships with these advertisers.

    There is another substantial technological gain in DoubleClick’s new online marketplace for advertisers. The patents and algorithms behind it are prototypical Google-like goodies.

  82. @Seshadri,

    This blog seems to mention some pros/cons of the deal. I agree with you that it’s too early to predict the outcome of this deal. Of course, I like Microsoft (even though I don’t work there) and that may have influenced my opinion.

  83. @Seshadri,

    This blog seems to mention some pros/cons of the deal. I agree with you that it’s too early to predict the outcome of this deal. Of course, I like Microsoft (even though I don’t work there) and that may have influenced my opinion.

  84. Getting back on topic, seshadri, I think the pros-cons have been laid out.

    CONS
    1. Their is a potential evil perception because of DoubleClick’s past spyware, deep cookie-ing issues. And also moving back into banners/images/videos (They were successful because they avoided them.)

    That’s about it. Google was so successful initially in the ad space by getting away from banner/image ads, but it still represents a large portion of the online ad space. And Google was having difficulty entering it. It’s not a contradiction so much as it becomes a compliment. (Do you want text ads, or do you want banner ads, or do you want video ads (another market difficult for Google now?) This isn’t so much a contradiction or issue now that they are dominant in ads and have lost much of the “don’t do evil” shine. And offering the option of text ads pretty much eliminates the concern of banner ad hell for anyone.

    The only other con is whether or not you consider it paying too much for too little.

    That’s really about it, and the major pro is thwarting Microsoft. Because you want to perceive and see a list of several pros and several cons, doesn’t mean it exists.

    Technologically, people don’t like DoubleClick’s core stuff. But this shouldn’t be a problem to Google. It can either modify it to make it “nicer” or it’s just another option on the menu. The big gain “technologically” is the masses and masses of user and advertiser data that Google is getting. (Despite Google’s algorithm expertise and vast cache of data–this really is a big, substantially nugget… even to Google because it specifically correlates to advertisers, the success/failure of their ads, and their consumers.) And the relationships with these advertisers.

    There is another substantial technological gain in DoubleClick’s new online marketplace for advertisers. The patents and algorithms behind it are prototypical Google-like goodies.

  85. “And what is Apple doing here? Somehow Google’s dominance will kill Desktop OS but not Mac?”

    I’m not putting Apple in this space. I am saying Apple and Google’s financials, power, marketshare in the disparate but growing market segments (consumer electronics, media distribution, consumer software, online advertising, web services… all of the areas that Microsoft sees as its potential for growth) will be far more considerable and relevant. (I primarily paired the two because they are often viewed as the primary Microsoft competitors and they are quickly approaching the smae financials as Microsoft if you add them together.)

  86. “And what is Apple doing here? Somehow Google’s dominance will kill Desktop OS but not Mac?”

    I’m not putting Apple in this space. I am saying Apple and Google’s financials, power, marketshare in the disparate but growing market segments (consumer electronics, media distribution, consumer software, online advertising, web services… all of the areas that Microsoft sees as its potential for growth) will be far more considerable and relevant. (I primarily paired the two because they are often viewed as the primary Microsoft competitors and they are quickly approaching the smae financials as Microsoft if you add them together.)

  87. Oh, and I’m not saying that either Google or Apple or a combination kills the desktop OS. I am saying that their strengths in new markets can be leveraged into other, not yet imagined markets for future-future growth. Whereas Microsoft gets hemmed in, lacks growth, and is left with 2 markets it can no longer leverage into new markets. This does not “kill” their marketshare, but it does “kill” their financial, market power. Absolutely. In many ways, it’s already happened.

  88. Oh, and I’m not saying that either Google or Apple or a combination kills the desktop OS. I am saying that their strengths in new markets can be leveraged into other, not yet imagined markets for future-future growth. Whereas Microsoft gets hemmed in, lacks growth, and is left with 2 markets it can no longer leverage into new markets. This does not “kill” their marketshare, but it does “kill” their financial, market power. Absolutely. In many ways, it’s already happened.

  89. Goebbels: for Microsoft they need massive opportunities to see even slight growth. That’s the problem with being so big.

    They see the $300 billion advertising industry as offering far more growth potential than selling another copy of Office or something like that.

    Pretty much explains why the stock price has been flat. Actually it’s been going down, if you remove the effect of stock buybacks have had.

  90. Goebbels: for Microsoft they need massive opportunities to see even slight growth. That’s the problem with being so big.

    They see the $300 billion advertising industry as offering far more growth potential than selling another copy of Office or something like that.

    Pretty much explains why the stock price has been flat. Actually it’s been going down, if you remove the effect of stock buybacks have had.

  91. Oh, I know, Scoble… The question was more… considering the entire landscape was Johnson’s statement really their best strategy with few other opportunities… or were they just distracted by Google’s stock ascendancy like a shiny object, and they proceed with the assumption that they can do anything?

    I think where in agreement… I’m just wondering: now that I think they are thoroughly “cockblocked” out of the ad space, do you know what else Microsoft perceives as an opportunity> Have any of your own ideas?

  92. Oh, I know, Scoble… The question was more… considering the entire landscape was Johnson’s statement really their best strategy with few other opportunities… or were they just distracted by Google’s stock ascendancy like a shiny object, and they proceed with the assumption that they can do anything?

    I think where in agreement… I’m just wondering: now that I think they are thoroughly “cockblocked” out of the ad space, do you know what else Microsoft perceives as an opportunity> Have any of your own ideas?

  93. “They see the $300 billion advertising industry as offering far more growth potential than selling another copy of Office or something like that.”

    They just want a slice of the pie. It’s not like they’re putting all their eggs in one basket. It actually matters more to Google. Google can’t afford to lose in this market.

  94. “They see the $300 billion advertising industry as offering far more growth potential than selling another copy of Office or something like that.”

    They just want a slice of the pie. It’s not like they’re putting all their eggs in one basket. It actually matters more to Google. Google can’t afford to lose in this market.

  95. “they are quickly approaching the smae financials as Microsoft ”
    67 & 63 : Apart from the ‘competes with MSFT’ plank there’s no way AAPL and GOOG can be bracketed together (however you may want to spin it).

    It’s like saying Me and Bill Gates have billions of $$$ between us.

    In fact the hardest hit guy when GOOG decides to do some sort of consumer software would be Aaple.(think a $500 laptop with just a maxthon browser, google wi-fi and Google apps)

    It’s interesting that people so easily discount an entity that is atleast 3rd in about 10-15 different segments.

  96. “they are quickly approaching the smae financials as Microsoft ”
    67 & 63 : Apart from the ‘competes with MSFT’ plank there’s no way AAPL and GOOG can be bracketed together (however you may want to spin it).

    It’s like saying Me and Bill Gates have billions of $$$ between us.

    In fact the hardest hit guy when GOOG decides to do some sort of consumer software would be Aaple.(think a $500 laptop with just a maxthon browser, google wi-fi and Google apps)

    It’s interesting that people so easily discount an entity that is atleast 3rd in about 10-15 different segments.

  97. “It’s like saying Me and Bill Gates have billions of $$$ between us.”

    Not really, but if you want to believe so.

    “It’s interesting that people so easily discount an entity that is atleast 3rd in about 10-15 different segments.”

    It’s easy to do when Microsoft loses money on 8 of them.

  98. “It’s like saying Me and Bill Gates have billions of $$$ between us.”

    Not really, but if you want to believe so.

    “It’s interesting that people so easily discount an entity that is atleast 3rd in about 10-15 different segments.”

    It’s easy to do when Microsoft loses money on 8 of them.

  99. “Saran: when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future”

    Which pretty much explains why Johnson is no longer in charge of sales.

  100. “Saran: when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future”

    Which pretty much explains why Johnson is no longer in charge of sales.

  101. @60 uhhhhh…Huh? I’m guessing you don’t hang around F100 Enterprises too much.

    A. No Operating system

    ummmm… never heard of AIX? MVS?

    B. No web portal or internet strategy to speak of

    err…not heard of their Websphere line of products?

    C. no hardware line anymore

    I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the iSeries, the pSeries, the xSeries, or any of IBM’s UNIX or Linux servers? or any of their other Intel or AMD based servers? Their intellistations? Their SAN’s, or NAS’?

  102. @60 uhhhhh…Huh? I’m guessing you don’t hang around F100 Enterprises too much.

    A. No Operating system

    ummmm… never heard of AIX? MVS?

    B. No web portal or internet strategy to speak of

    err…not heard of their Websphere line of products?

    C. no hardware line anymore

    I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the iSeries, the pSeries, the xSeries, or any of IBM’s UNIX or Linux servers? or any of their other Intel or AMD based servers? Their intellistations? Their SAN’s, or NAS’?

  103. @66,

    The answer is simple, as I outlined above in post #38:

    block all ads when browsing. It’s simple to do and you enjoy an ad-free Internet.

    I don’t like being marketed to, and therefore, I refuse to have ads shoved in my face.

    Windows users can use Firefox with the adblock extension or download Privoxy, while Linux users can use FF or Konqueror, which has adblock pre-installed.

    Why do I want to help someone else make money. Another thing you can do is to block referrer logging, so your cookies are not tracked from one site to another. Accept only cookies from sites you visit. Also turn off pre-fetching.

  104. @66,

    The answer is simple, as I outlined above in post #38:

    block all ads when browsing. It’s simple to do and you enjoy an ad-free Internet.

    I don’t like being marketed to, and therefore, I refuse to have ads shoved in my face.

    Windows users can use Firefox with the adblock extension or download Privoxy, while Linux users can use FF or Konqueror, which has adblock pre-installed.

    Why do I want to help someone else make money. Another thing you can do is to block referrer logging, so your cookies are not tracked from one site to another. Accept only cookies from sites you visit. Also turn off pre-fetching.

  105. #46,48.
    MS don’t have any product to integrate such big Ad.business acquisition. As per Mr. Kevin, If MS really had such clear vision, they should have bought it 2 years ago when DoubleClick was worth of below 1B. Online business can have clear strategy for more than 2 months ahead of time?, Dr.Eric told in press conference “No big deals ahead” in earlier march 2007. but now 3B+ deal.

    The result of this acquisition is a wait and see game, Google do not get immediate pay back, may face business alignment/Privacy problems similar to MS, till this time MS Is struggling with 2 similar product line up (msn vs windows live) and privacy issues in UK. Even If MS have bought, would be an Ad-business learning phase, privacy issues(DoubleClick uses cookies) and long time pay back.

    Yahoo had a chance to compete head to head with Google, they have missed it (is it a too big amount to you Y?)

    I would recommend to MS&Y that don’t copy/paste Google Ad-Business model, there are lot of places still to be explored. for ex: “Advertisement as a Service” (more freedom to advertisers, especially in Enterprise space). How Google complementing MS business?, everything at ‘Cloud’.

    Generally, Microsoft willing to buy technologies, but not coming forth to buy content or users, I don’t know why(what are you going to do with 30B cash?)

    Personally, I hate to see large companies are going on the direction to grow via acquisition instead of R&D / Innovation.

    Kind rgrds
    Saran

  106. #46,48.
    MS don’t have any product to integrate such big Ad.business acquisition. As per Mr. Kevin, If MS really had such clear vision, they should have bought it 2 years ago when DoubleClick was worth of below 1B. Online business can have clear strategy for more than 2 months ahead of time?, Dr.Eric told in press conference “No big deals ahead” in earlier march 2007. but now 3B+ deal.

    The result of this acquisition is a wait and see game, Google do not get immediate pay back, may face business alignment/Privacy problems similar to MS, till this time MS Is struggling with 2 similar product line up (msn vs windows live) and privacy issues in UK. Even If MS have bought, would be an Ad-business learning phase, privacy issues(DoubleClick uses cookies) and long time pay back.

    Yahoo had a chance to compete head to head with Google, they have missed it (is it a too big amount to you Y?)

    I would recommend to MS&Y that don’t copy/paste Google Ad-Business model, there are lot of places still to be explored. for ex: “Advertisement as a Service” (more freedom to advertisers, especially in Enterprise space). How Google complementing MS business?, everything at ‘Cloud’.

    Generally, Microsoft willing to buy technologies, but not coming forth to buy content or users, I don’t know why(what are you going to do with 30B cash?)

    Personally, I hate to see large companies are going on the direction to grow via acquisition instead of R&D / Innovation.

    Kind rgrds
    Saran

  107. They should be able to tie this in with youtube and the (soon to be enormous) online video market.

    If I had any, I’d put some money into adobe (flash). :)

  108. They should be able to tie this in with youtube and the (soon to be enormous) online video market.

    If I had any, I’d put some money into adobe (flash). :)

  109. @60:
    “Has anybody at MS thought of growing in the Enterprise sector?
    Like NOT making out of box kiddy software and actually making some huge custom software and support deals?

    That would be far too painful for them I fear.
    So the rest of us keep making money off of that.

    Comment by Chris — April 14, 2007 @ 11:44 am”

    Um. Enterprise sector is a huge source of MS revenue. AD, Exchange, SMS, MOM, SQL, HIS, MIIS, ISA are a quick list of products that there is a ton of in that space. In terms of custom LOB software there is the Dynamics stuff. Then you got support and consulting services which (although smaller than IBM) is still a significant revenue stream.

    As ever, you obviously haven’t got a clue Mr Beer.

  110. @60:
    “Has anybody at MS thought of growing in the Enterprise sector?
    Like NOT making out of box kiddy software and actually making some huge custom software and support deals?

    That would be far too painful for them I fear.
    So the rest of us keep making money off of that.

    Comment by Chris — April 14, 2007 @ 11:44 am”

    Um. Enterprise sector is a huge source of MS revenue. AD, Exchange, SMS, MOM, SQL, HIS, MIIS, ISA are a quick list of products that there is a ton of in that space. In terms of custom LOB software there is the Dynamics stuff. Then you got support and consulting services which (although smaller than IBM) is still a significant revenue stream.

    As ever, you obviously haven’t got a clue Mr Beer.

  111. “when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future.”

    Is that what he really told you or what you wanted to here?

    Personally I think it’s very depressing that a company like Google have to rely on advertising as their only real source of income. And I find it even more depressing that bloggers & journalists always need to bring Microsoft into every story relating to Google, Apple, Linux etc, just to make things more interesting and of course bring more traffic to their site.

  112. “when I worked at Microsoft Microsoft’s president Kevin Johnson told me (and others) that almost all of its growth would come from advertising-based revenues in the future.”

    Is that what he really told you or what you wanted to here?

    Personally I think it’s very depressing that a company like Google have to rely on advertising as their only real source of income. And I find it even more depressing that bloggers & journalists always need to bring Microsoft into every story relating to Google, Apple, Linux etc, just to make things more interesting and of course bring more traffic to their site.

  113. He not only told ME that stuff, he told the entire group I work with (1200 people) that.

    The advertising industry is about 10x as big as the software industry.

    Why is it depressing to rely on advertising? Thousands of newspapers around the world rely mostly on advertising too. So do TV and radio stations. Outdoor advertising companies. And more.

    Microsoft +is+ part of nearly every technology story whether you like it or not. Microsoft makes more than a billion in revenue every year on advertising TODAY.

  114. He not only told ME that stuff, he told the entire group I work with (1200 people) that.

    The advertising industry is about 10x as big as the software industry.

    Why is it depressing to rely on advertising? Thousands of newspapers around the world rely mostly on advertising too. So do TV and radio stations. Outdoor advertising companies. And more.

    Microsoft +is+ part of nearly every technology story whether you like it or not. Microsoft makes more than a billion in revenue every year on advertising TODAY.

  115. Wanna put Google, etc., out of the ad business really quickly?

    If I were craislist, I would allow ads on the local metro/area craigslist pages and only charge a dollar for the ads to be shown, or im some cases, allow advertising for free. craigslist would still make a fortune and could keep it real at the same time.

    craigslist could save money on bandwidth by forcing the ad owner to link to his own site and use his own bandwith.

    I’d do this in a heartbeat if I were craigslist, just to take the bottom out of the ad industry. I’d love to see this happen, if only to drastically alter the ad landscape. I’m already pleased as punch that craigslist has really nailed the newspapers, etc. with their business model.

    I hate ads, but to level the playing field, it be fun to see what the outcome would be.

    Anyone could set up a craigslist-like site and do this. Free ads for the first month, and then a couple of dollars thereafter. You’d make a fortune and get the joy out of undercutting the big players.

  116. Wanna put Google, etc., out of the ad business really quickly?

    If I were craislist, I would allow ads on the local metro/area craigslist pages and only charge a dollar for the ads to be shown, or im some cases, allow advertising for free. craigslist would still make a fortune and could keep it real at the same time.

    craigslist could save money on bandwidth by forcing the ad owner to link to his own site and use his own bandwith.

    I’d do this in a heartbeat if I were craigslist, just to take the bottom out of the ad industry. I’d love to see this happen, if only to drastically alter the ad landscape. I’m already pleased as punch that craigslist has really nailed the newspapers, etc. with their business model.

    I hate ads, but to level the playing field, it be fun to see what the outcome would be.

    Anyone could set up a craigslist-like site and do this. Free ads for the first month, and then a couple of dollars thereafter. You’d make a fortune and get the joy out of undercutting the big players.

  117. I don’t mind a little ad, however I think the internet is now full of irrelevant ads, so much that the information that you might be looking for may turn out to be an ad instead!

    I guess for Google to buy over DoubleClick is to further strengthen their online advertising strength. Hope that things don’t get monopolised by one big giant.

  118. I don’t mind a little ad, however I think the internet is now full of irrelevant ads, so much that the information that you might be looking for may turn out to be an ad instead!

    I guess for Google to buy over DoubleClick is to further strengthen their online advertising strength. Hope that things don’t get monopolised by one big giant.

  119. I don’t see a new thread on the Google acquisition, so I’m going to post the link to the NYT’s article about Microsoft likely filing an antitrust complaint here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/technology/16soft.html?hp

    I literally spit the coffee I was drinking when I read that. MICROSOFT accusing someone of antitrust violations? RFOL!

    Methinks Goebbels should be paid for participating in Scobleizer.

  120. I don’t see a new thread on the Google acquisition, so I’m going to post the link to the NYT’s article about Microsoft likely filing an antitrust complaint here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/technology/16soft.html?hp

    I literally spit the coffee I was drinking when I read that. MICROSOFT accusing someone of antitrust violations? RFOL!

    Methinks Goebbels should be paid for participating in Scobleizer.