Yahoo and Microsoft to Merge Instant Messengers

Primotech writes "Betanews has word that Microsoft and Yahoo plan to link their respective IM clients again so that users of both can communicate with each other on one, shared network. Facing threats from third-party applications, like Trillian and Skype, the two tech giants will claim 44% of the instant messaging market, analysts predict. They will also go head to head together with the biggest competitor, AOL."

I find that amusing...

[neiffer (698776)]

That's interesting, since they have waffled back and forth on the issue of compatibility with other messenger systems. First they complained because they didn't have access to AOL. Then they closed their systems and didn't let others in. Now they are sharing again...does this mean they will grant access to their closed network to all outside clients? Hmmmmmm?

Re:I find that amusing...

[millette (56354)]

But Gaim's source is already open !

Oh, wait, I see what you mean ;)

Re:I find that amusing...

[Baricom (763970)]

-1 The End of Yahoo as we Know It

I happen to think that Yahoo! is doing some amazing, cool stuff - cool enough to be a major Google competitor. I like it that way, because in my opinion, neither company has a definitive edge, and they keep trying to out-innovate each other because of it. That's an incredibly good thing.

Yahoo! was the first Google - the site that strived to sort the web so mere mortals could get around. I first used it when it was http://akebono.stanford.edu/ [stanford.edu]. The day it gets bought by Microsoft will be a sad day, indeed.

Re:I find that amusing...

[Jaruzel (804522)]

Yes, but Live Communicator isn't a consumer product, it's specifically designed for Corporates, where the problem of interoperability is a BIG issue.

Live Communicator (the IM client) needs Live Communicator Server, plus Active Directory, with either Exchange, or a Schema change to the AD.

Live Communicator Server is the gateway to the external IM networks - the client has no ability to connect to Yahoo!/AIM/ICQ directly.

It's a huge undertaking for a Corporate to install it, and most Corporates are wary of IM in the first instance, and feel the benefits are not yet clear (I don't agree with this, being a Business Chat/IM evangelist).

Sorry, to waffle on, but just wanted to nip the 'Live Communicator does this already' argument in the bud.

-Jar.

Amazing

[dxprog (898953)]

Could this be a step towards a single IM protocol? Not XMPP, but good enough for me :-)

One Word Gaim

[SerpentDrago (703376)]

I could care less , whatever network things use , its all Transparent to me cause i use Gaim

Coming soon to Gaim

[tqft (619476)]

http://gaim-vv.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
LATEST NEWS:
Oct 07, 2005 - Forward potr of gaim-vv 1.2.0 to gaim cvs head is working. I would like to clarify that gaim-vv isn't completely dead, we're working on merging with gaim. There will be no further gaim-vv releases, as code will be added to the main gaim program.

For those who don't know gaim-vv was a friendly fork to get stuff like webcams working - last release allowed users to view webcams from MSN, yahoo

Re:Coming soon to Gaim

[ilyaaohell (866922)]

"You" meaning the "user", or "you" meaning "him" specifically? I'm personally a "user", not a programmer, and I have no ability to contribute to Open Source software. However, when Open Source software is advertised to the masses the way GAIM is, I would like to use it. Just because it's open source, does that mean I waive any right to complain about lack of features or to request features for someone else to include? Are there no users of open source software and only developers?

GAIM has a ton of features (more than the official clients), but it lacks some of those features which many of us find necessary or, at the very least, useful. Webcam support is one of them.

Re:Coming soon to Gaim

[jrumney (197329)]

Just because it's open source, does that mean I waive any right to complain about lack of features or to request features for someone else to include?

As a developer of open source software, I welcome requests for features, but complaining about a missing feature which you were never promised, in software which you haven't paid a cent for nor contributed your own effort to, is not going to get you far.

Re:Coming soon to Gaim

[X0563511 (793323)]

Or you could just set it to ignore all incoming formatting, and send your's without any included. You see what they type, they see what you type, no BS (im thinking dark brown on black - i have a dumbass friend who sends that)

Smilies go out the window as well. Useless.

Re:One Word Gaim

[Seumas (6865)]

its all Transparent to me cause i use Gaim

But, it's not.

Going to Yahoo!, creating an account, dealing with their spam emails and offers all the time in the future and then logging into Yahoo! with that special Yahoo! account is not transparent whatsoever. And not enough people use Yahoo! to justify creating a special account just to talk to them.

Yahoo! probably realized this and gave up the ship.

You'd be surprised

[Trejkaz (615352)]

Recent usage statistics actually look a bit like this:

• AOL (sum of ICQ, AIM and AOLIM) = 41.6 million
• Yahoo = 19.1 million
• MSN = 14.1 million

Of course, there is also Jabber which was 10 million at last count which was a couple of years ago but more than likely growing. There is also QQ messenger, which supposedly has over 100 million users, but every news story like this conveniently ignores.

Re:One Word Gaim

[by Anonymous Coward]

you couldn't care less

COULDN'T CARE LESS

Godamn it. I hope you fall down some stairs.

Re:One Word Gaim

[lav-chan (815252)]

The phrase supposedly started in America a few decades ago, but it's spread to the rest of the world by now. The etymology isn't entirely clear (some people think it could've been intended to be sarcastic, or that it was misread in print), but it's probably the simplest one -- it's the same reason people say 'case and point' and 'for all intensive purposes' and 'supposively'. People say it so often that eventually some of them become ignorant of the actual meaning and just repeat it however.

I don't think most people actually intend to say it incorrectly but, in my experience, they also refuse to change when they are told that it's wrong. I guess they just... couldn't... care less....

Trillian?

[USSJoin (896766)]

Trillian isn't its own protocol, of course. This is what is somewhat odd about the article: it can't decide whether it's talking about the networks (MSN and YIM combining protocols and having interoperability) or whether they're jointly developing a multi-protocol client (like Trillian, although Trillian does a lot more than just those two).

Re:Trillian?

[Penguin Programmer (241752)]

Speaking of implementing multi-protocol clients...

How long until Google implements Jabber's nice transport features in Google Talk? This would allow people to use Google Talk to IM their MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AIM buddies. While they would still have to have an account with each service, at least the client would be centralized, and to most people, that's the same thing as having one account. Google would gain huge market share (even though people are still using other protocols), and it would basically cos

Trillian is irrelevant. Jabber is the future.

[Baloo Ursidae (29355)]

MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AIM buddies

Disclaimer: I run the ursine.ca Jabber server.

The yahoo transport sucks donkeyballs. It's unreliable and crashes for no reason, usually while I'm trying to get other work done. As evil as Microsoft typically is, they're doing us a favor: Now Jabber only has to maintain two or three transports and none of them involving some bletcherous hack from jabberd's transports if you're using the otherwise far easier to deal with ejabberd. Microsoft has to have their way, so you can pretty much kiss the YIM protocol good bye and everybody with a YIM ID suddenly having @yahoo.com Passports instead, and good riddance. Now there's only two proprietary protocols left: Oscar (AIM/ICQ) and MSN.

The 80 gajillion Google fanboys are suddenly able to access the rest of the IM landscape that isn't stuck in the last millennium with their Google Talk JID. Google users and the rest of the Jabber network rejoice, AOL shits itself seeing headlights coming from both directions.

Microsoft and Time Warner are going to strike a deal that will be kind of like AOL announcing that October 1993 would effectively follow January 2005 [ursine.ca] on the Usenet [ursine.ca] calendar. Except instead of AOL continuing to exist, Time Warner flushes AOL like an unwanted fetus on prom night, selling it out to Microsoft. Microsoft has to have their way, so you can pretty much kiss the Oscar protocol goodbye. Everybody with AIM IDs suddenly get @aim.com passports. Everybody at ICQ gets @icq.com passports.

And then there was one. MSN Messenger fights to the bitter death, losing mindshare bit by bit until 10 years from now, Microsoft's holding an empty bag and wondering how the hell they missed the boat on IM. Everybody loves Google, and many will switch to Google Talk on basis of name recognition alone. Thank God that they don't abuse that power.

(And in other news, the Portland Winterhawks probably won't make the playoffs this year. Again. Dammit.)

Re:Trillian is irrelevant. Jabber is the future.

[toddhunter (659837)]

Thank God that they don't abuse that power.
Oh ye of too much faith. Google is a company. Wait till their share price starts dropping and then we'll see if we thank them for not abusing their power.

Re:Trillian?

[urlgrey (798089)]

Ya know... I used to use the MSN Messenger client exclusively, then because of a need to communicate with one person who used Yahoo!, I tried Trillian. HOLY HECK.

With the choice of skins and what not, what a relief. For me the MSN interface has just become this weirdly bloated thing.

Trillian though... what a great piece of software IMHO. And best of all (unlike Messenger), it doesn't create those competely bogus hooks into OE that prevent you from closing the app because it's dependent on the other. Bah.

Re:Trillian?

[labratuk (204918)]

With the choice of skins and what not, what a relief. For me the MSN interface has just become this weirdly bloated thing.

This line is full of hilarious irony.

Common enemy

[gmuslera (3436)]

More than Trillian, Skype and others, i bet that they are more against their common foe, Google/Gmail/GTalk/etc. Maybe against each separate component they can have a chance, but when you start to combine them the potential for growing and taking away their markets is probably too big.

Good

[Solr_Flare (844465)]

Normally stuff like this from MS makes me shudder with dread. But the lack of a standard communication IM protocal has driven me crazy for years. Trillian and other programs are ways to get around that, of course. But, having a single standard would go a long way, and this is a nice step towards that.

Compete in features you offer in your IM clients, but for heavens sake unify the networks.

Re:Good

[aussie_a (778472)]

Compete in features you offer in your IM clients, but for heavens sake unify the networks.

That's a good point, but there's a problem. Microsoft and Yahoo aren't going to agree upon an open standard for their merged IM protocol (assuming it is a merged protocol they're talking about and not a trillian-type deal). They will then use their closed protocol to work on shutting out non-Microsoft-Yahoo approved clients (i.e. every other client not made by the two companies). If everyone agreed to only use one IM protocol, then it's going to have to be a closed standard because (based on past performance), Microsoft isn't willing to agree on an open standard, at least not for it's IM program. They will be able to use that to make it more difficult for the competition, the only competition they'll allow are Microsoft approved(TM) competitors (yup, if Microsoft has control of the standard they'll be able to decide who compete's with them) and keep changing the protocol in an attempt to lock-out non-approved competitors. And Microsoft's dislike for the GPL ensures they won't approve any GPL clients to use their protocol.

In the past both Yahoo and Microsoft have shown a habit of locking out third party clients, so this combination makes sense for them.

If Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else were willing to agree on an open standard for IM communication, then that would be great and I'd whole heartedly support it. I just can't see Microsoft doing that anytime soon.

Lack of a standard IM protocol?

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

Like Jabber? XMPP is an open specification IM protocol with support for all kinds of neat features (encryption, for one, network bridging for another). The problem isn't in having a protocol, but in convincing everyone to use it and support it. (Yeah, I know, the spec was only finalized more recently than the MSN and Yahoo! networks were created. The point stands, though.)

Good news

[reiggin (646111)]

I have no buddies on MSN. Most are on either AIM or Yahoo. But I hate the fact that Yahoo seems to not want to develop for Mac OS X anymore. The Mac MSN client is pretty darn good, though, so it would be great to be able to use the MSN client to chat with my Yahoo buddies.

Download Adium.

[Inoshiro (71693)]

It's a version of the GAIM source designed to work within the framework of MacOSX. It will integrate with your address book, supports MSN/Yahoo/ICQ/Bonjour/AIM, and is generally pretty darn spiffy.

I haven't had any of the problems I've had with other clients. It's the closest I've come to Kopete on MacOSX, plus it has some of the problems of Kopete fixed.

Re:Good news

[Phroggy (441)]

But I hate the fact that Yahoo seems to not want to develop for Mac OS X anymore.

I spoke to an engineer from Yahoo a couple months ago and asked him about that. He couldn't give me any details, but did say that despite appearances Yahoo is actually very interested in the Mac platform, and that this is the reason they acquired Konfabulator - they weren't interested in the software, they just wanted to hire Mac developers to work on exactly this sort of thing.

Seems pretty obvious

[ReformedExCon (897248)]

There isn't much money to be made in instant messengers. Maybe a little revenue from advertising in the window corners, maybe a few bucks from premium games, but in all it's mostly a net loss. And you also have the problem that your users may be drawn away from your IM client to another one because of an established group of friends with the other one.

Bringing these two IM clients into compatibility isn't a way to make a stronger IM network, but rather to eliminate the drain that both companies must be feeling. It also helps that it marginalizes AIM and its premium services, which benefits both Yahoo and Microsoft.

I always thought Microsoft would get around to doing this one day. It just seemed the logical next step. Hopefully their next next step will be the ability to have different statuses for specific people in your contact list, and be able to contact people even though you appear offline. Back in the day (get off my lawn, you crazy kids) ICQ had this feature, but since ICQ has been dragged down into a hole by AOL, it's been on my IM wishlist.

What incredible innovation!

[shma (863063)]

Microsoft and Yahoo are set to announce on Wednesday a blockbuster interoperability deal that will reshape the landscape of the fragmented instant messaging market.

I can't wait to message all my friends with gaim to tell them the good news.

blah...

[evil_marty (855218)]

This is gonna put alot of pressure on Google and Jabber. I mean Google just entered the market, with MSN and Yahoo and Possibly AIM, there wont be a need for a new contender. I dont think its bad coz that will bring more ppl close together and save installed 100s of IM apps just to talk to all your friends. I do wonder how they will connect them all and whether you will use screennames or e-mail address or whatever.

Typo

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

I can't believe the editors let this one slip by. Yahoo and MS exchanging massages is big news. Maybe MS will finally get laid.

Re:Typo

[2674 (661934)]

What do you mean Maybe MS will finally get laid. They have been getting laid for a long while now. Or is screwing someone not the same as getting laid?

Re:Typo

[Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330)]

Maybe MS will finally get laid.

What do you mean FINALLY? They've been fucking people for years.

FAQ: "What's a messanger?"

[melquiades (314628)]

mess-an-ger [from MESS + ANGER]: The emotional state induced by using any of a series of software products suffering from feature bloat, as typified by Microsoft Word. An "instant messanger" is a piece of software so obnoxious to the user that it induces rage immediately on contact.

And I'll bet you all just thought that Slashdot's editors don't spell check the articles! Silly readers.

Google IM project

[MavEtJu (241979)]

Do the Google IM servers already know how to talk to other Jabber servers or is it still an open protocol in a closed environment?

Re:Google IM project

[strider44 (650833)]

At the moment you need to get permission from them first to interoperate (federate) with their server. According to the developer faq [google.com]:

4. What other communication services will you federate with?

We plan to support open server-to-server federation. We do believe, however, that it is important to have the safeguards in place to ensure that we maintain a safe and reliable service that protects user privacy and blocks spam and other abuses. We are using the federation opportunity with EarthLink, Sipphone and other partners to develop a set of best practices by which all members of the federated network can work together to ensure that we protect our users while maximizing the reach of the network. We are also eager to hear from other people in the industry about how best to build a federation model that is open, scalable, and ensures best-in-class user experiences. If you have thoughts on federation or suggestions for how we can better enable open communications, please share them with us at the Google Talk Interoperability Google Group.

5. I am a communications service provider and want to federate with the Google Talk service. How do I proceed?

Please contact us at [e-mail].

Apps like Trillian...

[GiorgioG (225675)]

make this type of stuff completely irrelevent for techies anyway.

I own a copy of Trillian 3.1 Pro and I can say that it's the best thing since sliced bread ;-)

44% of the IM market?

[liangzai (837960)]

Is that the _domestic_ market?

Since what I see here in China, who has the second largest internet user population in the world after the USA, the vast majority uses QQ, which is basically ICQ adapted to a full-fledged Chinese client (all Western IMs have questionable language support and transparency).

This could turn out to be bad

[Admiral Burrito (11807)]

If they can get AOL in on this too, it could be very bad.

Everyone being able to talk to everyone else would be nice, but there are big downsides if it's a closed network. If it ends up that 9X% of users are on a single A/M/Y-IM network then it would be very hard for anyone else to break into the market.

Google is in very direct competition with Yahoo, and Microsoft sees Google as the biggest threat to their dominance. Now, a couple of months after GTalk's release, Yahoo and MS are ganging together. They aren't doing this because they want their users to benefit (if they really cared they would've done this a long time ago). This is MS and Yahoo trying to keep Google from gaining a foothold in IM.

I really hope Jabber will take off, but this move makes it less likely. With everyone split up over AIM, MSN and Yahoo, Jabber could at least offer a means of unification. Now it's looking like we could get stuck with a single closed network.

If a handful of players lock up the network, innovation will die.

A brief and largely incorrec summary of things

[cgenman (325138)]

A brief and largely incorrect summary of the current state of things:

MS Messenger: Ships standard on all Windows PC's. Pops up every five minutes asking you if you would like to sign up for service. Causes your computer to explode if you try to uninstall it, or indeed just try to get it to shut up. The fact that this still isn't the #1 instant messaging client should tell you something. I have the most luck with voice chat through firewalls on Messenger.

Aim: Comes automatically with AOL, or you can download it free from aol.com. Also comes free with LOTS and LOTS of ads. Ads pop up on your screen. Ads are built into your client. Smart a$$ movie executives send you ads directly. Sex chatbots try to lure you into filthyness before posting the transcript on Fark. Everyone's personal icon is loud, animated, and obnoxious. In short, AIM is a lot like the internet. And like the internet, nearly everyone uses AIM.

ICQ: Still the greatest communications medium of all time. Really. Greatest ever. (There, I said what you wanted Mr. 3098014563. Now give me my family back, like in the deal.)

Yahoo: No really, Yahoo has a chat medium. I was shocked too. Isn't Yahoo just adorable sometimes? On a side note, I've had better luck getting webcams through firewalls over Yahoo. This leads to great situations where I'm videoconferencing with someone over Yahoo, but the audio stream is in MSN and the chat is happening in Jabber.

Google Chat: Google chat is based on Jabber, the open source next-generation world dominating chat protocol of the fut-- hey, why are you laughing? No seriously, Jabber, which can communicate with AIM and MSN through... Yes it says so on the box. No, I don't care if almost never works. Ok, fine, Jabber, which can sometimes communicate with AIM and MSN through server-side plug ins, is the basis for Google Chat. Unlike all of the other protocols Jabber is an encrypted medium, meaning that even the server doesn't know what is being said. psi [affinix.com] is the jabber client of choice, though there are a lot out there. It's also the only reason to buy Trillian Pro. What was that about Google Chat again?

Now if I remember correctly, AIM, as a condition of its merger with Time Warner was required to open its chat network to everyone. It then proceeded to shut out all 3rd party clients and other protocols that had the nerve to try and connect with it. MSN tried to connect to AOL without permission, but kept refusing 3rd party clients that tried to connect to it. We thought Yahoo was shutting out 3rd party clients as well, but it turns out they just broke their system a few times. Oops. Jabber will sleep with anyone, and Jabber servers will sleep with other Jabber servers. Jabber servers will even sleep with AOL and MSN, but only if they're really happy or really drunk. ICQ... I refuse to say anything about ICQ on the grounds that ICQ users are even more insane than Apple users.

All of this is very close to e-mail, circa 1992... Back when AOL, Compuserve, and all of the rest of the providers thought that locking their users into their system would keep the most people. Then AOL bought them all, and the whole thing seemed kind of moot.

Jabber networks and Google, the future too

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

As long as we can all communicate and don't have to pay to do so, then I really can't see too much of an issue with this.

What I would like to see is active adoption of Jabber by the big players. Jabber for the most part is still like Ogg Vorbis: "interesting, but who's using it?". Google using it is certainly helping push its adoption, but at this point in time I haven't heard of any ISPs, or Fortune 500 companies, actively taking it up and connecting. Apple has also chipped into the effort, by providing a Jabber server as part of MacOS X, but how long before we see that rub off I am not sure.

Voice chat and video chat are the next two aspects that need to become part of the Jabber portfolio and adopted.

Looking at the road ahead voice chat is going to be migrate into telephony, but before it does certain things must happen first. Telephony needs to support emergency services, until then players like Google will state 'this is not a telephony service', in order to avoid FTC type regulations. The steps I see are:

• building a large 'voice chat' network, with no single player controlling all the communications
• working out a way for nodes to identified geographically. Remember the geographical identification should be controlled by the user, so that they can decide when to advertise their location
• incorporate emergency service support
• Declare that yes the are now indeed a telephony servce

We can't predict what the future will hold, but we can influence the journey getting there.

1,2,3,4 - I Declare IM War

[Mr.Progressive (812475)]

Just so you know, Drunkenbatman [drunkenblog.com] had this pegged.

Within the last few weeks, there appears to have been a meeting between MSN, Yahoo and AOL. They'd all been talking amongst themselves -- and sparsely with each other -- about how to respond to Google, but were still trying to make up their minds...

The Cow Abides

New from Microsoft and Yahoo!

[Proc6 (518858)]

Double Your Privacy Invasion, Permanent Chat Logging, User Profiling and Targetted Marketing for the Same Low Price!

Hurry, While Supplies Last!

Fix the programs first, Y! and MSN

[Khyber (864651)]

Or at the very least, fix your webcams streaming and audio, guys. Audio's generally fine (minus Yahoo's sudden stopping if it detects a period of constant volume level, so sometimes I'm playing my guitar with hands-free on and the damned program stops streaming my audio,) but when I want to videochat with my mother, I don't want super mode dropping out on me, suddenly, without any reason or cause, and we both know we've touched nothing that would make it stop.

MSN fares no better with it's astonishingly fast 3-6 fps. Screw that. Camfrog [camfrog.com] does this better. IM, voice, video, and even has some pretty awesome video chat rooms. It's good enough for deaf people to speak using sign language on cam. Does that tell you how good it is? You two should strive to be more like that program, Yahoo and Microsoft. It's small, (compared to Yahoo's 10 meg install size and MSN's 11.5 meg install,) it's fast, and it WORKS. Camfrog's only downside is it's 2k/XP only, though I understand there may be an OSX version in development.

MSN's audio sucks even more. MSN needs to be like Yahoo, and add a PUSH TO TALK BUTTON. Nothing is more annoying than feedback in my headphones, thanks to my Logitech's mic/webcam combo (quickcam messenger) having an uber-sensitive microphone. It's almost at it's lowest possible level and it's still getting feedback off of my headphones, with me sitting about 4 feet from the microphone.

Can we fix our programs first, guys?

That's right

[mattbot 5000 (645961)]

This merger will only affect those browsing on the intarnet.

Re:Just great . . .

[Mongoose (8480)]

Yeah, just me and some of my friends that are PhDs and also game developers use Yahoo IM. What's your degree in, and who do you work for...? =)

YIM works on the most mobile phones, and it's nice to use with giam if you also use yahoo mail. Also it's not MSN, ha! =)

Re:now, more widely reported...

[Phroggy (441)]

I would _really_ prefer a widespread jabber net, complete with client->server and client->client encryption, but that seems to be a pipe dream.

All hope for this lies with Google - if enough people start using Google Talk, Google will extend the protocol to make it support the features people want, and third parties will update their clients to add support (and then other third parties will update their servers to add support for the new features in the updated clients). If Google Talk doesn't take off, Jabber will continue to suck.

Jabber is not the transports

[Trejkaz (615352)]

I think you're mixing topics a bit here:

1. A widespread Jabber net is already in place, it just needs the users to come to it. As more users come to it, the network will grow;
2. Client -> Server encryption has been around for as long as I can remember. It used to be just plain TLS negotiated over port 5223, but turned into STARTTLS over standard port 5222. Every client supports this in one way or another, or more accurately, a client which doesn't is a joke;
3. Client -> Client encryption has been here for ages now. The fact that people don't seem to want encryption or can't be arsed setting it up, doesn't mean that there is no encryption. OpenPGP works over Jabber already, and has been implemented in multiple clients, though by no means all. And finally;
4. Transport stability has NOTHING to do with Jabber stability. Repeat after me: Jabber is not the transports. Transports actually impede Jabber progress in by giving newbies the false idea that Jabber is a means for connecting to multiple networks at once. They then proceed to dismiss it as an option because "I already have Trillian."

Re:Suddenly I like.

[MysteriousMystery (708469)]

It depends in the area and quite frankly in certain cases the age of the users. Yahoo! seems to have an older (in terms of age) user base than does AIM. Also I've noticed in certain areas one client is more popular than others. I was part of a now defunct web based chat system that had a large number of users from a few towns in Indiana (not that I am from there) which spread via word of mouth, a large majority of them seem to have migrated over to Yahoo! messenger (there is a way on the now defunct site to

Re:Even Further Proof of...

[carlivar (119811)]

Please explain:

-Why Yahoo's search "sucks". Please give examples of a specific Google search outperforming Yahoo.

-Why Google maps won't print right.

-Why Yahoo has traffic on their maps when Google apparently invents every new feature on the Internet.