Yahoo! Rejects Microsoft's Bid - Pt. III

Part III - Why This is Bad

Now we know what some of the basic roles of websites are and how Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google fit into those roles. We also know what the original concept behind "Web 2.0" was and how it has been effectively put into practice. In this installment, we are going to discuss why this merger is bad for us, the end-users, and how the WWW is going to forever be changed by the offer, no matter what happens.

First of all, Yahoo! rejected Microsoft's bid early this morning, just as rumors suggested they would and we reported yesterday. Yahoo! said this was not meant to indicate that they would reject any bid at any price; the price Microsoft offered was just too low.

The reason I, and many others, are against the Microsoft/Yahoo! merger is very simple: just as Google said, Microsoft has a history of unfair trade practices. In fact, the Windows company has faced many lawsuits around the world because of this and is still involved in several. And even though Google mentioning this is a simple matter of the pot calling the kettle black, there is truth to their accusations.

In a perfect geek world, there would be no need for most programs; browsers, in particular, would be a thing of the past. Most of the functions we currently use several programs to access would be integrated into one, overall "shell" program. In fact, your "desktop" would be a basic command center. Internet access would be completely integrated into the work environment and when you searched for anything - file, image, news item, website, et. al. - you would query through a single window which would instinctively parse your search and apply it to the most likely source.

For example, if you searched for *.txt, your computer would realize that your computer is the starting point for such a file search and would display those items first. It would then prompt you for further search options or parameters, such as "Search Web?" or "Narrow Search?" We are slowly starting to see this approach come into play, but this seems like such a simple idea that you may wonder why it didn't happen sooner.

The answer is: Microsoft.

When Windows 95 was released, Microsoft unfairly integrated the Internet Explorer browser into the operating system. This meant that, if you wanted to use a better browser (at the time, Netscape was the browser of choice), you could, but you could not uninstall IE without completely hosing your Win95 OS. If you did not have enough room on your hard drive, or enough RAM, or other resources, to run both browsers, you suffered performance issues or were simply forced to use IE. Microsoft was sued for this and had to change it... like 10 years later.

The damage to the marketplace had been done. Netscape lost "the browser wars" because MS played dirty. Further, the wording of the ruling against MS basically meant Internet browsers (Internet Explorer) had to be separated from internal browsers (Windows Explorer), which means that we have to open at least two programs to do one thing. Thanks, Microsoft!

This is just one instance of MS' monopolistic behavior. We don't even need to go into the shit they pull with their OS (why has there never been a price-cut on Win98? XP has been out for 8+ years now and MS no longer even supports 98!). The point is that MS continues to employ unfair (read: illegal) business practices as part of their business model and approach and we do not want them bringing that online - especially not to Yahoo!, as many of us have accounts there.

Google doesn't want them doing that either, but that's because Google doesn't want the competition; Google is doing the very same thing online that Microsoft has been doing offline for years now. I explained how the original concept behind "Web 2.0" was the incorporation of other websites. Yahoo!'s original approach to competition was to directly compete (Yahoo! Auctions vs. eBay; YIM vs. AIM; etc.), but they have since decided to become Web 2.0-compliant; Google's approach to competition is to buy them out, lock, stock, and barrel.

Remember, Google also has a history of unfair business practices - and their transgressions are far more recent than Microsoft's. Google is an online bully that needs to be stopped and MS' merger with Yahoo! is definitely a step in the right direction as far as that goes. Unfortunately, creating another online bully to combat the first is not a good idea and will lead to the same troubles down the road; nothing will change but the name.

The flip-side of this is that Yahoo! has already mentioned it may "team-up" with Google to fend-off Microsoft's attempts to overtake the company. I have to admit, that would be even worse! Imagine the juggernaut this alliance would create! And, at the end of it all, Google would simply cannibalize Yahoo!, incorporate its best features into its own infrastructure, and then use the brand name to move into the portal market legitimately. Such an alliance would literally cement Google's monopolization of the WWW.

What Google is doing is assuming control of the Web's most basic functions: searching and hyperlinking. In essence, Google is attempting to brand the very tools of HTML and other online languages; the offline equivalent would be DC Comics trying to "brand" dialogue balloons or Marvel Comics copyrighting panel gutters!

Either way this turns out, it is going to be very bad for us and is going to retard the development of the WWW.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008