So Microsoft has tendered a bid to buy Yahoo! for $44.6bn.
I understand that Microsoft has to do something to build on its web strategy/presence. No-one uses Live Search, Live Spaces, or any of the rest. (OK. About one percent of people do). To build up any future trade for advertising, web services or development platforms, they have to increase market share.
I understand that Yahoo! has to do something. Their share of the search market is pitiful compared to the almighty Google. Their share of the search marketing budget is about 20% compared to Google’s 70%. And they’d just been forced to lay off a load of staff.
So if they combine forces, they end up with a market competitor?
I don’t think so.
Microsoft’s problem and Yahoo!‘s has been that they have not been able to identify what they do well. Microsoft used to do operating systems and business productivity software. They were quite good at that. YMMV.
Yahoo! used to have this great directory of editor-approved, quality websites. Then they diversified. They tried to make yahoo.com all things to all wo/men. That failed disastrously because there’s no such thing. They brought on some cool people and acquired a load of cool sites like del.icio.us, flickr and upcoming. But still it didn’t work for them because advertisers don’t buy cool; they buy results. Yahoo! announced 1400 job losses just last week.
Why didn’t it work and why isn’t MS able to make any inroads on the web?
Because neither of them have a core value proposition when it comes to the web. You couldn’t sum up what either of them do on the web in one sentence. If a business can’t do that, then they are in trouble, normally.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bits within both companies’ web presence that have considerable value. Flickr is a cool photo site. Microsoft’s technet is actually very good, IMHO. Live Spaces is arguably a much better platform than Blogger or Vox.
However, for end-users, if you want good search, go to Google. For businesses, if you want SEM, go to Google. What exactly would you willingly go to a Yahoo or MS website for?
Microo! doesn’t appear to me to provide a compelling alternative to any of that.






















Great post Ian.
It’s only from their email / IM platform that I can see Microo building a compelling value proposition on the web. The resulting hotmail, messenger, Yahoo email / IM market share of the web email market would be significant and would dwarf Gmail & Gtalk.
If Microo then went back to first principles around such a dominant web communications user-base, it could build out a compelling web strategy from there, possibly around the evident future of continuous partial attention that Twitter has benefitd from.
They probably won’t of course. But you never know, Ray Ozzie might have a plan…
[…] post by twopointouch Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]
[…] Well-argued skepticism by Ian Delaney from Two Point Touch […]
[…] Two Point Touch?Ian Delaney???????? […]