How about involvolvement by IBM?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Feb 05, 2008 7:24 AM EDT |
Sure, these days IBM is predominantly (and arguably) a hardware and services company. OTOH, IBM certainly has a large outlay of capital, they have not exactly been best buddies with Microsoft for quite awhile now, and there may be fewer legal anti-trust issues with an IBM involvement with Yahoo than with a Google's. One could see this possibility of IBM's involvement as DRASTICALLY raising the stakes for Microsoft's current offer for Yahoo and its future designs on the same. With the direct involvement by IBM, would Microsoft's offer in such a case be 1) to double or triple its current offer (i.e., acquiring Yahoo at ANY cost), 2) to just surrender trying to acquire Yahoo outright, 3) to engage in other hostile takeover tactics, 4) to engage in other clandestine or transparent strategies ?? |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 05, 2008 7:42 AM EDT |
Maybe they could just make MSN better? Edit: It's obvious I forgot to put the sarcasm tags on this one. Sarchasm: n. The gap between the sarcastic statement and the individuals who didn't get it. |
| gus3 Feb 05, 2008 7:59 AM EDT |
How? By shutting it down? |
| dumper4311 Feb 05, 2008 8:01 AM EDT |
@Bob:
When have you ever seen MS willingly improve a product or service just to be able to compete effectively? The only time they'll put out a new service (or improve an existing one) is when they believe they can CRUSH the competition with it. Everyone knows (including MS) that this isn't the case with MSN resources, so we've moved on to tactic #2 - acquire the competition. In and of itself, I don't even have a problem with that. It's just that MS is so deeply and consistently unethical about the process. Even with the first option (compete), they usually do so by stealing someone elses stuff in the first place. Then they'll get caught, say they're sorry (in court), and pay a hefty settlement. But by that time, the damage to the competition has already been done, and market share is a delicate thing. |
| flufferbeer Feb 05, 2008 9:22 AM EDT |
from vv
"How about involvolvement by IBM?" @vv I would think that your probable title is more along the lines of How about INVOLVEMENT by IBM Please do note the corrected spelling. No doubt originally due to a typo. Besides a buyout and competing bids for Yahoo, there could be much better and indirect ways for IBM to get "involved" with Yahoo. Or get more "involved" with Google, for that matter. @ Bob_Robertson sarchasm=sarcastic+chasm Do not think it that likely (myself) that IBM will reach its hands into this mess of an M$ buyout of Yahoo. |
| tracyanne Feb 05, 2008 11:56 AM EDT |
I can't see IBM getting involved (or even involvoed), they don't have a good business reason to do so. |
| Abe Feb 05, 2008 12:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can't see IBM getting involved (or even involvoed), they don't have a good business reason to do so. I think they have a good business reason NOT to be involved. They want to see MS hung themselves. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 05, 2008 12:33 PM EDT |
I was told this morning by a guy who tracks these things, that Microsoft would have had to borrow and sell bonds in order to raise the money for the Yahoo purchase. Hearing that, I'm all for it! > They want to see MS hung themselves. :) I'd rather see them hang themselves, but with modern cosmetic surgery anything is possible. |
| theboomboomcars Feb 06, 2008 6:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:I can't see IBM getting involved (or even involvoed) But what if IBM likes Volvos? |
| hkwint Feb 07, 2008 8:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:But what if IBM likes Volvos? Than the customers can expect quality, an IBM driven boardcomputer in a Volvo should offer superior quality compared to a Microsoft boardcomputer in a Fiat. Quoting:Maybe they could just make MSN better? Probably I'm one of the little few MSN user here, because it's the IM protocol 95% of my country uses (though I haven't been on it for the last six months or so), but if you're still talking about MSN you sure missed a thing. MSN _has_ already been shut down. Sure, there still is the website - which Microsoft calls a portal but it's more a link farm - where Microsoft pathetically links too if Explorer can't find what you typed in the URL-bar or if you log out of "Windows Live Mail", which is the only reason why it's ranked five at Alexa. However, Hotmail and MSN Messenger have been renamed recently, all is 'Windows Live' now. For those who didn't follow Microsoft news (there should be a fair amount of those people out here): Microsoft had very high expectations of Windows Live. It was the no. 1 platform to make Microsoft the biggest name when it comes to 'cloud computing', as how Bill Gates likes to refer to it. Even Microsoft admitted however, that it didn't met up to the expectations. Another way to say so is 'Microsoft admits it sucks'. So there you have it. Microsoft is too incompetent to follow suit when it comes to software as a service. So is Yahoo probably. When you add 0,3 and 0,3 you still don't have one. Therefore, I doubt if there's a reason for IBM to get involved. What if they bid and Microsoft doesn't raise its bid? Then IBM might end up with a company it doesn't want and need - and also loses money every day. That would be a dangerous game if the only goal was to transfer more money from those who lend money to Microsoft to Yahoo's current shareholders. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!