I think the proposed merger is a bad idea simply on business terms – these things rarely work out. But there are some interesting, broader persepectives floating around.
TechCrunch is saying it’s all going to be fine, arguing the deal will both create more competition (good for consumers) and… er… reduce competition (good for smaller players). If that confuses you now, you may not feel much more enlightened after you’ve read it. They’re probably right about Google being afraid, though. And I really can’t be arsed with Flickr protestrs unhappy at Microsoft’s shareholders, rather than Yahoo’s shareholders, owning their photo-sharing services. You are so p0wned, as I think the kids like to say, either way.
Meanwhile, the Subtraction blog is making the point that design couldn’t save Yahoo, which might come as no surprise to most. But the post does remind us that many bits of Yahoo are, indeed, wonderfully designed… which is not something we can say about many bits of Microsoft. It’s interesting that design has played a huge role in Apple’s revival, yet Yahoo’s leadership in web design has apparently gone unrewarded.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Good grief, Yahoo
- » Clinton campaign may be in more trouble than it knows
- BROWSE / IN Current Affairs Digital revolution New Media Web/Tech
- « Good grief, Yahoo
- » Clinton campaign may be in more trouble than it knows
COMMENTS / ONE COMMENT
JohnofScribbleSheet thought this on Feb 05 08 at 3:01 pmThe question is, is it better to have 1 dominant leader and 2 follow ons or 2 dominant leaders? Its a tough one.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated. I'll delete unpleasantness. Email me if you spot a comment that crosses the line.











Your comments