tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.comments2011-12-07T05:47:31.818-08:00Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-83580691755628791502011-12-07T05:47:31.818-08:002011-12-07T05:47:31.818-08:00This is very true. I completely agree with youcasino en ligne francaishttp://www.casinoenligne555.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-51522214878164097992010-02-28T11:26:18.544-08:002010-02-28T11:26:18.544-08:00I am curious to hear your follow-up to this since the release of the iPad info. It is obvious that Apple is indeed, like you said, trying to keep its mojo. Do you see the direction they are intending to go in regarding the iPad the correct one?librarianrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-59359842825773494052009-10-21T15:24:49.659-07:002009-10-21T15:24:49.659-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-38438479539733118462008-10-17T14:40:00.000-07:002008-10-17T14:40:00.000-07:00Forexthinker, you make a good case for Microsoft's interest in Yahoo! I think Microsoft clearly wants access to those hundreds of millions of registered users to push its own web services--in particular, search. However, the main issue here is the price tag. At what price are the benefits of Yahoo! assets no longer worth it? $20/share? $30/share? Or would you make the case that Microsoft should pay any price that's humanly possible? It's certainly a valid stance if you assume that Yahoo! is MS's only shot at making inroads in the online space.Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-54096329624301160812008-10-17T05:53:00.000-07:002008-10-17T05:53:00.000-07:00Microsoft will certainly do well if it acquires Yahoo. Some of the reasons are: A great brand name on the Internet that is well established since the mid 1990s, users like me who are accustomed to doing a Yahoo search in addition to doing searches using Google, MSN, Ask.com and other search engines, and a Web site with popular features like geocities, Yahoo games, and chat. In addition to 275 million Yahoo e-mail users around the world.forexthinker.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-67389071011138567532008-10-16T16:23:00.000-07:002008-10-16T16:23:00.000-07:00You're right, Yahoo! would be crazy to turn down the cash, which Yogi Berra keenly points out is "just as good as money." <BR/><BR/>I heard that Yahoo! could axe as many as 3,000 employees to reach their margin targets. One option would be to turn to the cash-hoarding overlords--as you put it--but it's no foregone conclusion that they'll keep all remaining employees on board. There's a lot of overlap between services, infrastructure, and management positions that could make Microsoft take a scalpel to both merging companies.Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-47552522949602242942008-10-16T16:08:00.000-07:002008-10-16T16:08:00.000-07:00Yahoo's investors and Yahoo's board are crazy to refuse $33(now $20) a share. Considering the climate, it would be a smart move to take shelter in MSFT's cash horde. <BR/><BR/>Now that the sound of layoffs are getting louder and louder from Yahoo, their employees might even welcome their new cash hording overlords.John Rotherayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10475735212342148200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-89694174664057693952008-10-12T08:42:00.000-07:002008-10-12T08:42:00.000-07:00Jessica, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for making the world a happier place. I didn't know it was your handy work :)<BR/><BR/>I agree, that the G1 should compete well with the Blackberry. However, not having used the Android platform, I can't say for certain that its initial success (based on pre-orders) has to do with anything but Google brand power. <BR/><BR/>As for domination of the information field, many estimations would have them doing that already. They already dominate search, which is the most powerful informational function...period. If Google can continue to dominate in mobile search--and also expand on its relevancy--they will control not only more and more of the information field, but will also have an increasing share of the worldwide ad market. <BR/><BR/>Some find this very likely prospect scary. I remain ambivalent. Although I'm leery of great concentration of power in any one organization, I think Google is still the best company out there when it comes to making information freely accessible--and advertising economically accessible--to the masses. So, in the meantime I welcome any strides they make in what they do.Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-62078567430314073872008-10-11T10:01:00.000-07:002008-10-11T10:01:00.000-07:00I am a Mac addict, and I use google on my iPhone, and I used google on my BlackBerry because it makes the world a happier place. Honestly, it does. <BR/><BR/>I find their soon to be released phone impressive and I think that in coming years it will be able to compete effortlessly with BlackBerry. It almost has to though if you consider how much has gone into developing the Android, they built an entirely new OS. I&#39;d love to find out how much the R&amp;D cost was. I pose a theory, if Google does well with this cell phone venture what will they branch into next? Are they setting themselves up to dominate the information field?Jessicajess.jarovic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-11463715278541291372008-07-30T08:55:00.000-07:002008-07-30T08:55:00.000-07:00I never thought I'd say this, but kudos to that cyber squatter. If you have the temerity to take on Google in search, you should do your homework and make sure that you've taken care of the most important defensive domains. More importantly, you should make sure you have a tested product before you launch. (Cuil doesn't even show up when searching for 'cuil.') <BR/><BR/>I am even more convinced now that Cuil simply wanted to ride the wave of hype to justify a huge valuation when getting courted by rich suitors like Microsoft. Heck, Microsoft has already shown its willingness to buy non-functional search engines for serious bank.Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-74547592523048883772008-07-29T09:34:00.000-07:002008-07-29T09:34:00.000-07:00Thought I should follow up on the name thing. I have a tolerance for web 2.0 names only to an extent. Flickr? Ok. Digg? Ok. Notice that all these names can at least be pronounced. I ain't ever took no fancy business larnin's in the schoolhouse (I am simply a software developer) but I would think that if you have to tell me how to pronounce the name of your company and core web address, you've got severe marketing problems. How many folks heard chatter about 'cool.com' and went there only to find a domain squatter (though note that in a hilarious bit of 'internet-speed' response, cool.com has turned itself into a faux-search engine).whazzmasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15565904650777995397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-87217312064995289462008-07-29T08:06:00.000-07:002008-07-29T08:06:00.000-07:00Thanks for that insight into the Valley perspective. I must admit my ignorance of that culture. (I haven't even been to that part of the country.)<BR/><BR/>You make a really important point, that the hype may be a self-fulfilling prophecy if it gives them enough capital to make the necessary changes to their sub-par search results. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, I agree on the name, too. "Cuil" reminds me of the way seventh grade girls try to spell "cool" in a new way. Yeah, not too "kewl." <BR/><BR/>As for your blog, it's crazy that something that's been around since 2002 can't even be recognized by its own name. If your blog's in their index, it does nobody any good if they can't retrieve it. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughtful comments!Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-33698842984858172882008-07-29T00:28:00.000-07:002008-07-29T00:28:00.000-07:00Sup man-- Thanks for the heads-up tweet; I actually have a view on this. I've been out in the Valley for the last week and a half doing some high priority work for my company. I saw Cuil (fucking stupid name) break on Slashdot this morning, then saw a bunch of tweets about it, then saw a front-page story on the SF Chronicle's web site. Later this afternoon I got a call from a Product Manager at my company asking if I had seen it and what was my opinion as a developer. THEN while playing poker tonight with a bunch of developers from different companies it came up right away in conversation. Long story short: the shit hit like a tidal wave out here. And yet still I don't really care, for precisely the reason you state. <BR/><BR/>I think the Valley is getting so worked up because they WANT someone to challenge Google, if only to see if it can be done. Myself? Even as a developer interested in that kind of crap I really just care about the search results. And if Cuil (STUPID WEB 2.0 NAME!!!) can't deliver the goods then I won't bother.<BR/><BR/>Here's another example: I've had a blog since 2002 (I didn't even call it a damn 'blog' when I started it). I just searched Cuil on my domain name/blog name/user name (all the same word) and got back no results with a link to my blog. I got results with zazzle.com (!) but not my blog. I don't know what their equivalent of page rank is but it's balls right now.<BR/><BR/>I won't be switching anytime soon-- we'll see if their hype steamrolls them into enough VC funding to improve their shitty search to the point where they can start picking up market share.<BR/><BR/>hi (and lois) from san franscisco.whazzmasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15565904650777995397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-2921746458825992902008-06-30T17:36:00.000-07:002008-06-30T17:36:00.000-07:00Whazzmaster, <BR/><BR/>Excellent point! I would expand on your point to say that natural search already exists to a certain extent with Google's great keyword search technology. Even further, much of the keyword content on the web is in natural language format. For example, FAQ-style text on websites is already primed for common queries on Google. I usually find what I need, too, without the help of some fancy start-up technology like Powerset's. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point is this: Microsoft needs to distinguish itself. Even if the strides they make don't <I>improve</I> on Google's service, MS would do well to at least signal a difference from Google's run-of-the-mill search. <BR/><BR/>With that said, Google is trending toward a natural monopoly over search. I won't bet on Live Search making ground with or without Powerset. However, it's Microsoft's duty to at least give it a shot. $100 million is a small price to pay for that shot, even if it's a long shot. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thoughtful comments! <BR/><BR/>Best, <BR/><BR/>TomThomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-33877807818874345662008-06-30T14:49:00.000-07:002008-06-30T14:49:00.000-07:00A contrarian opinion: natural search doesn't matter since Google does a good job of teasing out your intent from caveman-like queries. Depends on the specificity of your search, I suppose, but I don't think the <1% of the people that may choose natural language search over raw power will tip anything in Microsoft's favor.whazzmasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15565904650777995397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-88598844729228265152008-06-13T00:45:00.000-07:002008-06-13T00:45:00.000-07:00"but it musn't spoil our the overall image of the internet"<BR/><BR/>figured I'd let ya knowLathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01342741706436740679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-25245852030522318762008-05-31T08:30:00.000-07:002008-05-31T08:30:00.000-07:00That's the spirit, Charles! Too bad the "Monster Milk Truck" game is already off limits...Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-1966716447607056122008-05-30T18:13:00.000-07:002008-05-30T18:13:00.000-07:00This is great! Opening Google Earth api to developers is going to create a whole new level of mashups. <BR/><BR/>Now it's time to think of a business that can be started using it...Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-20421052358295652212008-05-29T10:35:00.000-07:002008-05-29T10:35:00.000-07:00I'm not confident that Microsoft will bid any higher than its latest offer of $33, but Jerry Yang certainly would be in a big heap of legal trouble if he accepts a bid lower than the initial $31 offer he summarily rejected. For this reason alone, Microsoft wouldn't (shouldn't) even waste time with a low-ball offer. <BR/><BR/>What I see as more likely is a search partnership between the two companies, or a sale of Yahoo's search operations to Microsoft.Thomas Carmonahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447760738324210905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6084772767066817336.post-7849839773086663622008-05-28T11:43:00.000-07:002008-05-28T11:43:00.000-07:00I agree with your views on Microsoft. However, the market is expecting an acquizition and this has been priced into yahoo's stock price.<BR/>I am confident that if Microsoft acquires yahoo it will be less than the intial offer.Vimal Nairnoreply@blogger.com