Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google - Who Loves Whom? Pt. 2

Part II
Portals and Web 2.0

In the last installment, we discussed the differences between Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! based on their original marketplace roles.

While it initially focused on its search capabilities, Yahoo! began acquiring other properties unrelated to search very early on, positioning itself as a portal. At one time, Yahoo! even offered internet access, as an ISP. This was early in the WWW's history, as it was still heavily in development - before the "Dot-Com Boom" and throughout the "Dot-Com Bust."

Some of you may be saying, "Well, wait, MD: that's pretty much what Google is doing, right? So what's wrong with that?"

Good question, but here it is: in that day and time, everyone was trying to become a "portal." To relate it to another industry, it's like when all the role-playing game companies began making universal house systems; that's just where the industry/WWW was at that time.

When I started pushing the idea of "Web 2.0," the exact speech I gave said, "AOL is up to version 9.0 - why is it that we have nine versions of AOL, but the Web hasn't changed since 1995!? We need a 'Web 2.0.'"

[An Aside: The whole "Web 2.0" thing was completely improvised and kind of a joke; I was specifically referring to the whole AOL 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, and so forth. I also discussed and related it to AD&D and its many editions.]

The entire idea behind "Web 2.0," as I presented it, was to allow websites to focus on their "niche" and develop a b2b business model where portals retooled themselves, dropping their competitive content and "including" other sites whose primary focus (or niche) was that specific function. The specific example I gave was Yahoo! Auctions: "Why is there a Yahoo! Auctions, when no one can compete with eBay? When I go to Yahoo! and look for an auction, it ought to return results directly from eBay - and both Yahoo! and eBay should be able to figure out an approach which allows for a kind of 'finder's fee,' above, and outside of, sponsored placement. Yahoo! should have an auction search function that says, 'Sponsored by eBay'."

I gave the Beta vs. VHS argument, noting that the difference in the industries is that, when it comes to the WWW, the marketplace had already decided; the websites just refused to accept our decision! We had already chosen eBay as the premiere online auction marketplace, but everytime we turned around, a new auction site was popping-up! Not only were the businesses losing time and money, we consumers were losing our shirts by getting caught-up in the fervor and competition! Due to loyalty to Yahoo!, for example, many who regularly used the portal joined Yahoo! Auctions - after all, the very draw of a portal is having all your functions and features in one place - why would you have everything you regularly access on Yahoo!, then leave it only for auctions? Especially if you regularly work auctions! You want it all in one place and you want to be able to access it all, on a general level, without having to open 10 different windows and surf to eight different sites!

By competing with eBay, Yahoo! strained the entire online auction marketplace. Yahoo! Auctions offered no benefits, functions, or features that eBay did not. What it did do was weaken the marketplace, confuse consumers, and dilute search results.

Now, the issue with Google is that Google has always been a search engine. Yahoo! went right into the portal game; Google just recently started buying-up all these other properties across the Web. And Google's justification for acquiring the properties it has is that they expand the business' search capacities. YouTube is where people go to search for videos, so Google has a valid reason for acquiring that property. This was the same reason Google gave for acquiring Inktomi - also valid. While the marketplace is radically different today than it was in the late 1990s, Yahoo! is still firmly within their role as a portal, while Google is justifying their purchases as expanding their core business (search)... but, oh yeah, they're, like, you know, a portal-thingy, too. If that helps, your honor.

Just because you can search for something doesn't give Google a valid reason to acquire a property. Searching a website is a basic function of all websites - it is a basic function of the Web! Google cannot justify its continued monopolization efforts based on this flimsy idea!

Look at it this way: do they have Gmail because people search for particular messages in their inbox? They have Google Maps because people search for directions? Google News because people search for news; Google Key Locator because people sometimes lose their keys...

Searching for specific information - whether or not it is within a particular structure, function, or feature - is a basic function of the Web, in general, and not a "niche" market. If you allow it to be, then Google could feasibly buy eBay because that's where people go to search for auctions; then they can buy Amazon, because that's where people go to search for books; on and on! Further, how can Google justify some of their more recent purchases, such as Jaiku and the whole DoubleClick deal?

"So, MD, if Yahoo! incorporated Google search into their portal, wouldn't that make them Web 2.0 compatible, exactly as per the model you originally suggested in 2005?"

Ah, yes: there's the rub.

Yahoo! is Web 2.0, precisely as I presented it in 2005. The only problem is that they are still focusing on generating content internally instead of accessing it from other sites; the incorporation of niche market sites (such as Amazon, eBay, MySpace, and others) is a basic tenet of the overall Web 2.0 concept I forwarded.

Go to My Yahoo! and choose "Edit This Page." Choose the Facebook module and include it. See how that works? That is "Web 2.0"; Yahoo! has always been compliant and I have been an ardent Yahoo! supporter since 1996 or around-about. From this module, you can see the status of your Facebook account; the only time you might want to exit the My Yahoo! portal and visit Facebook is when you see that there has been recent activity. Otherwise, you can monitor your Facebook account from within your portal.

See, that is exactly the idea I had in mind from the beginning: a modular design which would allow for the strengths of focused sites to be included within the portal. But it only works if you can actually access those functions, and/or monitor changes, from within the portal itself - if you are simply "redirected" to the companion site, then there is no need for a module supporting it; all you would need then is a link to the companion site!

I apologize if this is confusing - please let me know and I will try to explain it better. It's hard for me to separate "advanced" knowledge from everything else and this is a lengthy and involved discussion, so digressions abound, and I sometimes get caught-up. I don't want to leave anyone behind in this, so if I lost you along the way, please let me know and I'll come back and clear things up.

News came today that Yahoo! will reject Microsoft's offer, so we will get to more of this today and tomorrow, but for now, understand that this is how a portal works. This is extremely important, because Microsoft's own MSN was/is a portal, too - it just isn't a very good one because Microsoft has their "fingers in many sinister soups" and never focused much on its development and maintenance.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008