3 ms·

I wasn't in any way trying to claim Google is the end-all-be-all of the Internet either. Sorry if the word 'brilliant' made it seem that way. I wish people woul

I wasn't in any way trying to claim Google is the end-all-be-all of the Internet either. Sorry if the word 'brilliant' made it seem that way. I wish people would stop assuming that anything that doesn't outright slam Google implies that whoever wrote it is a fanboy. Google has a lead, and usually to overcome a lead by an established player in a market, you need to be brilliant. If you have been around here and sipped some of the startup kool-aid you would know that. I'm not even sure what "being Google's baby" means... but I'm definitely not trying to be one. My point was that simply merging isn't going to magically create ideas and execution (good engineers). All it creates is a distraction, while the two sets of management elbow for position and a ton of employees flee. So maybe MicroHoo doesn't need brilliant ideas and engineers, but it needs some of each, and merging isn't going to create any of either, and will most likely scare away quite a few of the great engineers that both companies already have.

wheels 19y ago
Sorry for the tone; there is a lot of Google fanboi-ism on HN, so my reaction was as much to the general phenomenon as your post. I think brilliant (well, clever is usually the word I would use, brilliance is much more rare) ideas are what make 4 guys in a garage able to take on a market leader, but when you've got a merger of companies with a combined market capitalization of over $300 billion, blunt force often does the trick. This is sumo wrestling, not fencing. :-) And in the world of blunt force, the combined forces of the most profitable company in the technology market and the most popular site on the internet could pack a pretty hefty punch. I don't think that's a particularly good strategy for MS to pursue, but I wouldn't misunderestimate them.
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  > This is sumo wrestling, not fencing. Very good point. I still think big companies can fence. Granted, Amazon's market cap is only like 1/10th of that ($32 billion), but it's AWS products are fairly innovative and leading their space at the moment. So big companies can innovate, they just seem slow and totally random about it. I guess I'm just not seeing what there is to 'blunt force' in the market. You can't force people to buy your ad space. I guess if they could demonstrate clearly more eyeballs and higher CTR than adwords, advertisers would flock... is that what you envision?
  - wheels 19y ago
    Big companies can innovate, but the whole MS / Yahoo debacle seems to be about a clash of titans in entrenched spaces. MS has a bigger warchest than Google and with the combined MS / Yahoo they'd have more eyes too. They could run that segment of their market at a loss for a while to try to steal some of Adwords' thunder. Think of MS's entrance into the game console or MP3 player markets. While, again, I don't think it's a great strategy to plow into entrenched markets like that, compared to creating new markets (a la your Amazon example), MS has certainly demonstrated a willingness to do so. In fact, I'd say that's almost they corporate modus operandi; almost their complete history has been bulldozing their way into markets using sheer brawn.

wheels 19y ago

Sorry for the tone; there is a lot of Google fanboi-ism on HN, so my reaction was as much to the general phenomenon as your post. I think brilliant (well, clever is usually the word I would use, brilliance is much more rare) ideas are what make 4 guys in a garage able to take on a market leader, but when you've got a merger of companies with a combined market capitalization of over $300 billion, blunt force often does the trick. This is sumo wrestling, not fencing. :-) And in the world of blunt force, the combined forces of the most profitable company in the technology market and the most popular site on the internet could pack a pretty hefty punch. I don't think that's a particularly good strategy for MS to pursue, but I wouldn't misunderestimate them.

Xichekolas 19y ago
> This is sumo wrestling, not fencing. Very good point. I still think big companies can fence. Granted, Amazon's market cap is only like 1/10th of that ($32 billion), but it's AWS products are fairly innovative and leading their space at the moment. So big companies can innovate, they just seem slow and totally random about it. I guess I'm just not seeing what there is to 'blunt force' in the market. You can't force people to buy your ad space. I guess if they could demonstrate clearly more eyeballs and higher CTR than adwords, advertisers would flock... is that what you envision?
- wheels 19y ago
  Big companies can innovate, but the whole MS / Yahoo debacle seems to be about a clash of titans in entrenched spaces. MS has a bigger warchest than Google and with the combined MS / Yahoo they'd have more eyes too. They could run that segment of their market at a loss for a while to try to steal some of Adwords' thunder. Think of MS's entrance into the game console or MP3 player markets. While, again, I don't think it's a great strategy to plow into entrenched markets like that, compared to creating new markets (a la your Amazon example), MS has certainly demonstrated a willingness to do so. In fact, I'd say that's almost they corporate modus operandi; almost their complete history has been bulldozing their way into markets using sheer brawn.