yahoooo!

[cactushugger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302539/

so, yeah, do you think yahoo stock will go up or down. Anybody?

[pacmania_2001]

Down.

With the number of things that could affect the situation though nothing is certain.

[MrMungus]

Up. They do a lot more than just search.

And Google, which does only search, is doomed. They'll be acquired within a year.

[jeex]

http://www.google-watch.org/

very interesting..

i suggest you all set your default start page as

http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/proxy.htm

[i hope google dies]

[cactushugger]

so it would be a bad idea then to invest in this stock?

[pacmania_2001]

You have to remember that the majority of their revenue comes from search related functions for Yahoo. Anything that puts it in jeopardy, in this case a stronger rival in the form of Google is bad.

Google has, in my opinion, the edge over Yahoo in terms of innovation because of their culture. Yahoo on the other hand is probably more financially sound and is run more like a business than a start-up.

If Google goes ahead with its public float it will also give the company some serious funds to compete with Yahoo. As well it will probably force the company to be more responsible for the structuring and financials of the company then it currently is.

You have to remember that Google isn't the only challenger to Yahoo, you also have Microsoft with a surplus of funds (tens of billions of dollars) that are also looking to acheive search engine dominance.

so it would be a bad idea then to invest in this stock?

I would hold off investing in it for the moment until the situation becomes clearer.

[MrMungus]

You have to remember that the majority of their revenue comes from search related functions for Yahoo. Anything that puts it in jeopardy, in this case a stronger rival in the form of Google is bad.

Google has, in my opinion, the edge over Yahoo in terms of innovation because of their culture. Yahoo on the other hand is probably more financially sound and is run more like a business than a start-up.

If Google goes ahead with its public float it will also give the company some serious funds to compete with Yahoo. As well it will probably force the company to be more responsible for the structuring and financials of the company then it currently is.

You have to remember that Google isn't the only challenger to Yahoo, you also have Microsoft with a surplus of funds (tens of billions of dollars) that are also looking to acheive search engine dominance.

so it would be a bad idea then to invest in this stock?

I would hold off investing in it for the moment until the situation becomes clearer.

Yahoo has many advantages that Google is sorely lacking. Diversified revenue streams (i.e., not just search), professional, seasoned management (lots of people think Google's management isn't up to the task), and a reason for people to keep going back to Yahoo (games, my.yahoo, weather, sports, personals, etc., etc.).

I honestly think Google would be a terrible investment. Their business is too easily copied, they rely on one thing too much, and their algorithm is being played by webmasters like a fiddle.

[shelbyGT]

my homepage is still google, i hate how cluttered yahoo's is. i like simple and quick to load.

[Hardcoreruss]

Good move for Yahoo if you ask me.

[Will Hay]

my homepage is still google, i hate how cluttered yahoo's is. i like simple and quick to load.

ditto.

[pacmania_2001]

Yahoo has many advantages that Google is sorely lacking. Diversified revenue streams (i.e., not just search), professional, seasoned management (lots of people think Google's management isn't up to the task), and a reason for people to keep going back to Yahoo (games, my.yahoo, weather, sports, personals, etc., etc.).

Whilst Yahoo may have all these additional features that Google lacks a figure I find interesting is that the average internet user spends 25.9 minutes a month on the Google site compared to only 10.8 minutes on Yahoo. (www.pewinternet.org)

It's nice having all these extra features but for most users they are pointless as shown by the remarks of Will and ShelbyGT. Google is a success because it maintains its focus on its core business, being a search engine.

You are correct in that Google's management may not be of the same calibre as Yahoo's because like I alluded to in my last post; Google maintains a start-up culture that promotes innovation. That’s the thing that’s going to keep them on top of the search engine ladder and keep their user base locked in. Look at Microsoft for instance, they have a top quality management team yet they still have trouble breaking into new technology areas because they lack the innovation that smaller start-ups have.

If they do continue with their public float as planned they will most likely succumb to a more managed business structure anyway so the point is some what moot.

As for it only having one revenue stream, advertising, you also have to remember that it has licensing deals with 130 other major sites (including AOL) as well as a countless number for smaller sites.

I honestly think Google would be a terrible investment. Their business is too easily copied, they rely on one thing too much, and their algorithm is being played by webmasters like a fiddle.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, only time will tell. Their business may be easily copied and already is but because Google has established a brand and locked in its users I think you'll find it very hard for a new business to establish a foot hold in the market.

Look at Coca Cola and Pepsi, because they've both established such immense brands it makes it near impossible for another company to enter the market and be successful. Anyone can make a cola beverage and try and compete (Virgin tried unsuccessfully) but without serious marketing and funding it's just not going to happen.

I think the main question of this post was to gauge whether or not Yahoo would be a company worth investing in. For the above reasons and others I would say no it isn't because it’s in an industry that is anything but certain and has just gained a major rival.

[pacmania_2001]

And Google, which does only search, is doomed. They'll be acquired within a year.

Doubtful, though it raises an interesting point, who would be the buyer?

Logically it would be a good buy for a cashed up Microsoft but with their current on going anti-trust issues I don't think it would be likely to happen.

AOL Time Warner would also be a logical buyer for the company but again, regulatory issues would come into play I would think.

[MrMungus]

Yahoo has many advantages that Google is sorely lacking. Diversified revenue streams (i.e., not just search), professional, seasoned management (lots of people think Google's management isn't up to the task), and a reason for people to keep going back to Yahoo (games, my.yahoo, weather, sports, personals, etc., etc.).

Whilst Yahoo may have all these additional features that Google lacks a figure I find interesting is that the average internet user spends 25.9 minutes a month on the Google site compared to only 10.8 minutes on Yahoo. (www.pewinternet.org)

It's nice having all these extra features but for most users they are pointless as shown by the remarks of Will and ShelbyGT. Google is a success because it maintains its focus on its core business, being a search engine.

You are correct in that Google's management may not be of the same calibre as Yahoo's because like I alluded to in my last post; Google maintains a start-up culture that promotes innovation. That’s the thing that’s going to keep them on top of the search engine ladder and keep their user base locked in. Look at Microsoft for instance, they have a top quality management team yet they still have trouble breaking into new technology areas because they lack the innovation that smaller start-ups have.

If they do continue with their public float as planned they will most likely succumb to a more managed business structure anyway so the point is some what moot.

As for it only having one revenue stream, advertising, you also have to remember that it has licensing deals with 130 other major sites (including AOL) as well as a countless number for smaller sites.

I honestly think Google would be a terrible investment. Their business is too easily copied, they rely on one thing too much, and their algorithm is being played by webmasters like a fiddle.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, only time will tell. Their business may be easily copied and already is but because Google has established a brand and locked in its users I think you'll find it very hard for a new business to establish a foot hold in the market.

Look at Coca Cola and Pepsi, because they've both established such immense brands it makes it near impossible for another company to enter the market and be successful. Anyone can make a cola beverage and try and compete (Virgin tried unsuccessfully) but without serious marketing and funding it's just not going to happen.

I think the main question of this post was to gauge whether or not Yahoo would be a company worth investing in. For the above reasons and others I would say no it isn't because it’s in an industry that is anything but certain and has just gained a major rival.

I don't see how spending more time on a website translates to business success. You could easily read that to mean that it's easier to find what you're looking for on Yahoo's website...

Search is becoming a commodity. If *anyone* can build a search engine, Google's pool of competitors is a lot bigger than Yahoo's. Competition offering a commodity product is bad if your product is a commodity, especially if, like Google, you have no reason for visitors to keep coming back to your site other than to get that commodity. It would be like me running a store that sells only DVDs and thinking I'm going to be able to survive *only* because I make it easier for people to find the DVDs they want while the Target or WalMart in the same neighborhood sells DVDs *and* gives people other reasons to shop there. The quality of search results are not *that* important to most users. It is to webmasters, but most users use whatever is most convenient because they'll eventually find what they want, with the specialty search (like the specialty DVD store) being their second choice.

Your cola analogy is faulty. It's way easier to get a new search product online than it is to get a new product in the stores. For example: Google.

[MrMungus]

And Google, which does only search, is doomed. They'll be acquired within a year.

Doubtful, though it raises an interesting point, who would be the buyer?

Logically it would be a good buy for a cashed up Microsoft but with their current on going anti-trust issues I don't think it would be likely to happen.

AOL Time Warner would also be a logical buyer for the company but again, regulatory issues would come into play I would think.

Nope. All Google does is search so there would be no conflicts with what any of those companies are doing. Yahoo could buy them just to take them out and get their techs. Same for MS which does this routinely. Lots of potential buyers.

[pacmania_2001]

Stickyness is a large factor in a website that relies on advertising. The longer the user is on site the more advertising they can view. I think the figure is especially telling seeing that Yahoo (as you stated) has all these additional features yet still chalks up less user time a month.

If the average user spends more time on a site than a comparable site then it, in my opinion, shows that the site is doing a better job of locking in its customer base.

If *anyone* can build a search engine, Google's pool of competitors is a lot bigger than Yahoo's.

Keyword "anyone", most people don't realise the resources needed to match that of Google or Yahoo or any of the other big search engines. Just because you have alot of competitors doesn't mean you are in a bad or unprofitable industry, it just means you are going to keep innovating and differing yourself from your competitor.

Yahoo also has alot of serious competition and rising as ISP's and local start-ups start offering customers online portal sites.

Competition offering a commodity product is bad if your product is a commodity, especially if, like Google, you have no reason for visitors to keep coming back to your site other than to get that commodity.

Google does have a reason for people to come back and has proven it can withstand competition. Look at the field of competitors it has yet through its strong brand and continual innovation it still shows growth in the customer base.

Users on the web also aren't as quick to jump ships as most people make out, even when the competitor may offer (or claim to) a better service. An example is www.myway.com, it offers the same services as Yahoo basically without annoying adverts etc yet it still has failed to capture market share. Why? Because Yahoo has built a brand and a customer base that doesn't easily shift.

It would be like me running a store that sells only DVDs and thinking I'm going to be able to survive *only* because I make it easier for people to find the DVDs they want while the Target or WalMart in the same neighborhood sells DVDs *and* gives people other reasons to shop there.

If you owned a specialty DVD store and were running it properly one would assume that you would (a) have a greater range of stock and/or (b) more knowledgable staff who could answer questions that Walmart and Target staff can't. A real life example is happening in Australia now, EzyDVD (www.ezydvd.com.au) is a specialist DVD store and has shown great growth both online and now offline opening multiple brick and mortar locations around the country. It's right next door to a K-Mart and Big W (Australian Walmart) yet still does good business.

Your analogy is somewhat flawed in that your store and your resources would pale in comparison to that of say Walmart. In the case of Google it has more than enough venture funding as well as potential funding from a public float to compete with Yahoo.

The quality of search results are not *that* important to most users. It is to webmasters, but most users use whatever is most convenient because they'll eventually find what they want, with the specialty search (like the specialty DVD store) being their second choice.

I think you're understating the importance of relevant search results. Google's (and Yahoo's in part seeing it formerly licenced Google technology) sucess is based on the quality of the results it returned. What use is having a search engine if the results you get back are garbage? I think you'll find relevance is very important to academic and business users.

As for being convenient I actually think Google beats Yahoo in this concern. Open up Yahoo and you have a very cluttered page that regularly features flash animation ads compared to Google which is plain and simple. Sure, if I want to use all the extra features I might prefer Yahoo but if I want to just do a web search then I'd go Google.

Your cola analogy is faulty. It's way easier to get a new search product online than it is to get a new product in the stores. For example: Google.

Not really, you forget the amount of venture funding that goes into a company like Google. Sure I could start my own search site using my PC as a server and some home written web crawlers but do I stand a chance competing with the Google's and Yahoo's of this world? No.

It's like cola industry, whats to stop me from mixing up cola syrup in my bath tub and selling it to the local outlets in the neighbourhood? That's very similar to the origin story of Coca Cola is it not? But in this modern environment and the funds that Coke and Pepsi put into marketing etc the chances of me some day rivalling them is slim to none.

[MrMungus]

I think you're understating the importance of relevant search results. Google's (and Yahoo's in part seeing it formerly licenced Google technology) sucess is based on the quality of the results it returned. What use is having a search engine if the results you get back are garbage? I think you'll find relevance is very important to academic and business users.

As for being convenient I actually think Google beats Yahoo in this concern. Open up Yahoo and you have a very cluttered page that regularly features flash animation ads compared to Google which is plain and simple. Sure, if I want to use all the extra features I might prefer Yahoo but if I want to just do a web search then I'd go Google.

I think we'll have to disagree on most of this.

I'm approaching this from a business standpoint. If someone asked me if I wanted to invest in a company that has diverse revenue streams and repeat customers based on customization that competitors would be hard pressed to emulate and compete with, or a company that has, basically, one product and one or two revenue streams (selling search and selling ads) with a commodity product with little customer loyalty that is easy to emulate, I'd pick the former.

[cactushugger]

"Paid inclusion is one of the key ways Yahoo plans to make money from its search platform. Under the program, Yahoo charges companies for more rapid and frequent inclusion in its index.

Yahoo also plans to make money from licensing its search technology to third parties. It already has a jump on this business through the acquired contracts of Inktomi, which licenses to MSN in one example, as well as those of Fast Web search and Altavista.

Its third, and most valuable source of revenue will come from Overture's sponsored advertisements, which frame search results on the top, bottom and left-hand side. Overture also licenses its sponsored listings, which advertisers bid for, to third parties, including MSN."

Now here we are, talking about which site is BETTER, and which site will people go to more, but it's not like people will suddently not go to yahoo. The question really should be, "which one will make the most money?", or, "which one will see a rapid increase in stock prices?"

that's really what I'm asking here. Nothing is for certain, but that's the point. If it was certain, then innumerable people would put money into it and there would no longer be any point of investing in it.