JustSayNo

One wonders when Yahoo will wake up and smell the cat food. (Microsoft's cat food, that is, to contort a musical sub-reference into a tech marketing quasi cliche.)

Naturally, Yahoo had to at least nominally (and oh so predictably) reject Microsoft's initial offer, but as the days of speculation drag on, the discussion seems about as serious as considering another Nader run for the presidency (okay, never mind the fact that Ralph is actually taking that idea seriously).

Sitting in the green room at Fox the other day and watching the Yahoo-Microsoft banter (which included the possibility that some of the largest Yahoo shareholders could sue if management doesn't take the deal), I could not help noticing that no one's heart was really in it. What everyone wanted to say but simply couldn't say on the air is that this deal is done. It's logical, obvious, and necessary for both parties. It's even a necessity for Google (they desperately need the competition or they'll die like Woody Allen's shark, and it will blunt the growing anti-trust problems Google faces).

And the idea that has been floated of melding AOL and Yahoo is such a terrifically terrible idea (and the source of endless jokes in New York), it only serves to underscore the fact that the Microhoo deal is all but done. The preposterous AOL idea--let's give Time Warner Yahoo so that it drive it straight into the ground like its other online endeavors (as if that would preserve Time Warner's core businesses)--illustrates in high-contrast colors that Yahoo has no other option than to accept the Microsoft offer. Joining with AOL is almost as crazy an idea as letting Mr. Potter "help" George Bailey (hello, Google?).

The cynics among us, of course, are going to point to the rather half-hearted rejection from Yahoo as being utterly disingenuous. There wasn't even any indignation in the tone, they'll say, which has been standard operating procedure in dealing with Microsoft proposals for over a decade and a half. A lack of indignation means you (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) really want to be acquired.

So, Yahoo's apparent rejection reminds me of those wonderfully subversive Nancy Reagan era "Just Say No" buttons that when tilted said "Yes!" Maybe someone should get a box of the buttons and send then to Yahoo HQ. 

Those who want to bet on when Yahoo will officially accept a Microsoft bid can post their bets in the comments section here....

Update: Apparently some major Yahoo shareholders agree that this is all but over. See The Deal's Legg Mason: Yahoo! in a "tough spot."

FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM 

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The recent hostile bid by Microsoft for the flagging Yahoo is taking on "It's A Wonderful Life" proportions. Unfortunately for the world's search engine, Google is casting itself in the role of Mr. Potter.

Henry_Potter

Witness one of the funniest blog postings of the last few hours by Google svp David Drummond, who enumerates dire warnings about a Microsoft--Yahoo marriage. Dripping with irony (dripping? he's soaking in it), Drummond complains that, gee, Microsoft is really big, it once had some like legal problems, and, well, heck, between Yahoo and Microsoft they have a way lot of IM and e-mail users.

In the words of John McEnroe: You cannot be serious.

Of course Drummond didn't say a word about how Google has a worldwide stranglehold on Web advertising, which is what all this is about. And he didn't mention that Google reportedly called poor little Yahoo (Mr. Potter-style) to offer its assistance in fighting off the Microsoft bid. (One can just imagine that conversation and how long it took George Bailey, er, Yahoo to realize it was about to be tricked into shutting down the old building and loan.)

All this hand-wringing, slapstick, and hilarity from Google over the mere possibility that it might, maybe, possibly, finally get some competition and have to hitch up its britches makes Google CEO Eric Schmidt look more paranoid than Dick Cheney. Maybe he's having nightmares about his days back at Novell.

FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Time Warner was unable to deliver the Fox channel in high definition during the Super Bowl Sunday night in one of its biggest and most lucrative markets, New York, home of the New York Giants.

Flooded with complaints, the cable provider was unable to resolve a long-standing problem with its HD service. Customers who jammed the company's technical support lines were not offered a refund or credit. Instead, the cable provider lamely offered those who hung on for over 30-minutes on the phone a free premimum channel for one month. (And the problem with Fox persisted.)

No word yet on lost revenues due to the outage with the biggest, most expensive advertisements of the entire year on the line. However, doubtless Fox's Murdoch will be looking for some payback from the collapsing cable firm. As for customers of Time Warner, they have endured outages on the cable company's HD service for at least 8 months, yet Time Warner has been unwilling or unable to correct the problems.

Such technical imcompetence on the part of Time Warner calls into question the company's ability to deliver everything from digital phone service to high-speed Internet service. If it can't even deliver a televison picture, one wonders how on earth the company can ever hope to hijack the Internet and defeat the net neutrality movement.

No word on how many New York Super Bowl parties were blown out by Time Warner's fumble.

PS: Time Warner's HD service for the Super Bowl also reportedly crashed in the Cleveland area.

PPS: Time Warner also reportedly botched the Super Bowl in the California towns of Twentynine Palms , Yucca Valley, and Barstow.

FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Among the many items, releases, and gimcracks arriving at our office of late, the funniest one has to be from the folks working on the Windows Home Server account.

It came in the form of a childrens' picture book entitled, "Mommy, Why is There a Server in the House?" I kid you not. It's actually a tongue-in-cheek explanation of the purpose of a home server (an explanation for adults is here). And it did make everyone at J-Q.com take notice and chuckle. (Best line: "Offices are why big people get grumpy, [sic] and say bad words." No kidding.)

Server This!

It's worth mentioning that I've also run across several people who have purchased HP's version of the Windows Home Server, dubbed the MediaSmart Server. Every one of them has been quite pleased with the experience so far.

So, snaps to the person who thought up the kid's board book idea. It's not likely to replace "The Lorax" in my daughter's library any time soon, but it's very amusing, and it did remind us how useful the Windows Home Server is...and make us write about it one more time.

 FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Whew!

Microsoft has been after Yahoo for a while now, but this week the folks in Redmond made it official: They really, really like Yahoo. But do we really, really like the idea of a $44.6 billion purchase?

For tech veterans, the knee-jerk reaction would be to scream antitrust (remember when Microsoft was about to be broken up, and for good reason, until that journalist went and blabbed). However, if one is concerned about privacy issues, unfettered use of personal data, and an almost complete  lack of price competition in the online marketplace, Google is more of threat these days than Microsoft. Just take a look at how Google manages Adsense--or rather doesn't manage it.

A Microsoft-Yahoo merger (er, I mean purchase) would provide some much needed competition for Google. While Google is innovative, it can also be flaky and tends to lack focus (notice how Google Earth, a great idea, crashes systems at the click of a mouse). On the other hand, Microsoft is steady, but it's never been that innovative (e.g., Web-based mail, custom online databases, online blogging software, online mapping software, heck, even its Web browser have all been me-too products). So competition from a Microhoo could force Google to focus and deliver better hands-on service to customers. It might even relieve fears that the online ad world will become a monopoly. And who knows? Microhoo could become a more innovative force in the online world.

Bottom line: "Woo-hoo!, It's a great idea."

FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM

Read and post comments | Send to a friend