I have to confess that, despite being in the software field, I haven't paid much attention to the Microsoft-Yahoo merger/takeover. When I did think about it, the combination seemed peculiar: a brand (Microsoft) that has never really figured out the Internet acquiring a brand whose best days seem far in the past (the Internet past, that is). What would Yahoo have that Microsoft would want: antiquated search, a lot of e-mail accounts? They may be profitable, but their valuation seemed a little low for the price Microsoft was willing to pay.
So I will defer to Greg Glockner at Dwaffler for his explanation (in the post Microsoft: Crazy like a fox). You can read his reasoning for yourself, it seems quite sound to me, both in the reason for the acquisition (quick summary: keyword-based advertising patents) and the possible implications in the future. Good read.
So I will defer to Greg Glockner at Dwaffler for his explanation (in the post Microsoft: Crazy like a fox). You can read his reasoning for yourself, it seems quite sound to me, both in the reason for the acquisition (quick summary: keyword-based advertising patents) and the possible implications in the future. Good read.
No comments:
Post a Comment