Slashdot Log In
Microsoft in Talks To Acquire Ebay
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 27, 2006 07:38 AM
from the jigga-whaaaa dept.
from the jigga-whaaaa dept.
thatedeguy writes "The NY Post is reporting that Microsoft and Ebay are in talks for the online auction house to join the Microsoft family." That said, the talks aren't going that well at the moment. From the article: " Sources indicate that the talks, while still active, have cooled somewhat in the last two weeks as executives considered antitrust issues. It is unclear what the full impact of yesterday's advertising and search alliance between Yahoo! and eBay will be for talks between MSN and eBay. One source close to the matter suggested the Yahoo-eBay tie-up would not stop Microsoft from pursuing the online auctioneer."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft in Talks To Acquire Ebay
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 235 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
mmmm monopolies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
Does Google have a monopoly in ANY sphere ?
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://etherplex.org/)
That said, I agree with the underlying sentiment of your post - which basically boils down to "Google is in a position of great power." We all know that, and there are no laws against corporations being in positions of great power. This should not (in and of itself) be a cause for concern, because it is the nature of the market.
In the same vein,the reason Microsoft is such an issue for so many people is assuredly not because they have power. No, if that were the only problem, I would have no concern at all. The problem with Microsoft is that they abuse their power in one sphere to gain an unfair advantage in many other spheres, often stifling innovation (crushing smaller companies) in the process. The examples are numerous - the most obvious is IE's dominance purely due to it's inclusion with Windows.
I do not see this with Google. First off, Google doesn't even have a 50% share of the global searches. So your arguments about it being like Microsoft are premature to say the least. There is no indication that they will ever be a monopoly...it is simply too easy to switch search engines. If Google does something I don't like, switching is as simple as typing "yahoo.com" in the address bar of Firefox I would be very interested to hear any argument from anyone on this site regarding how Google would ever become a monopoly in the search market.
How long before google has to start opening up the algo for us to see or has to stat giving us the option to use some other search engines results?
Well, how about never? Why should Google open up their algorithm? It doesn't matter, the results are the results. If for some reason people believe that they unfairly favor some sites over others and the results are therefore less valid than Yahoo's, MSN's, Ask's or anyone else's, they'll just switch to some other engine. As for Google offering the option to see other engine's results? They already do: it's called DogPile [dogpile.com].
Now, Google is in more markets than just search - as you pointed out, they provide free downloadable software. You characterized it as "unfair" for Google to bundle software and release it free. Umm, why? I assume you're referring to RealPlayer, and my reaction is "So what?" RealPlayer was already available free. They're not forcing anyone to download their software...it's not bundled with some other product their selling, and most of all, each piece is available individually. Besides, when installing their bundle, it gives you the option to only install certain parts of the bundle! I'm really not sure where you were going with that argument.
Google is quickly becoming a search monopoly...
Really? I don't see that. I'd like to see evidence anywhere that this is the case. As I said, almost by definition, there will be no search monopoly because the cost of switching is almost zero to the end user. One search engine may one day dominate in the manner of Microsoft with Windows, but the opportunity to abuse that dominance will be very small. The moment people even have the slightest distaste for either the results of their searches or the business practices of the company, they will simply use a competitor. This is clearly not the case with Windows - many people dislike Windows, but they have so much invested in it that it makes it almost impossible to switch for non-geeks, and annoying even for the technically saavy.
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:4, Informative)
It wouldn't have anything to do with Netscape's browser sucking balls or Netscape trying its hand at the portal business at the wrong time or IE actually being BETTER at that time. You ignore alot of facts to supplement your own perceptions.
I do not see this with Google. First off, Google doesn't even have a 50% share of the global searches.
They have a little over 65% global. [hitslink.com] Your stats are for US.
You said a lot of things, but I'm I didn't get any actual critcism out of it.
That's because I didn't criticize. I merely pointed out that Google is well on its way to being the defacto search monopoly. I also gave parallels to what happened to Microsoft and what will happen to google.
There is no indication that they will ever be a monopoly
Its called a trend. [hitslink.com]
it is simply too easy to switch search engines.
It's simply too easy to buy an Apple or get a free Linux distro. The barrier to entry isn't the issue here, its the tendency of the user. The user doesn't want to switch search engines. Do you really think Joe enduser can tell bad search results from good? He is unmoitivated to switch.
As for Google offering the option to see other engine's results? They already do: it's called DogPile.
Google doesn't offer this, InfoSpace does. "They" is innappropriate here as it isn't Google doing it. Now, is there an option, yes. In the same way I have OS options, doesn't make MS any less of a Monopoly. Please don't try to blur the lines with semantics.
As I said, almost by definition, there will be no search monopoly because the cost of switching is almost zero to the end user.
And I said barrier to entry is not the defining point of monopoly, marketshare is. Googles trend since its launch has been increased market share every year. You assume the end user will know that there is a monopoly or will care. Thats alot of assuming to do. A monopoly in this case would be most relevant to the businesses involved with online components, not the end user.
Here's the thing, the end user you keep touting is Googles PRODUCT. Google uses search results to get the users and sell them to advertisers. You get a monopoly on that, there are serious issues that need to be discussed.
This is clearly not the case with Windows - many people dislike Windows, but they have so much invested in it that it makes it almost impossible to switch for non-geeks, and annoying even for the technically saavy.
This is only true of businesses, and that is quickly coming to an end with web standards used for integration.
The end user has less than $500 invested in Windows and plenty of options for Operating Systems. The problem is that they don't want to switch. They don't want to learn how to do something another way. That is a tendency of people, not any business practice.
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Microsoft have a de facto monopoly in the operating systems market. If Microsoft bindles a 'free'[1] web browser with their operating system, then they make it much harder for other browsers to compete. This is anti-competitive behaviour. It would have been acceptable for them to produce a web browser as a free download (since Netscape already offered a browser free for non-commercial use) and even for OEMs to bundle Microsoft's browser with their computers. It was not acceptable for Microsoft to penalise OEMs who bundled Netscape's browser.
Likewise, Microsoft now have a de facto monopoly in the web browser market. If they make their search engine the default in their browser, bundled with their OS, then they are using their monopoly position in two markets to attempt to gain a monopoly in a third. This is anti-competitive behaviour and should be criticised. Sure, the user can change it, in the same way that they can change the default browser. The point is that it is much easier for them not to, and the ability to do this is only available for the monopolist, not other members of the market.
Google's page defaults to Google's services, and that's fine. Why? Because Google (as of November 2005 - I can't find any more recent statistics) has 46.3% of the search engine market. While this is more than any of their competitors, it is nothing like a monopoly. If they had 80% or so, then it might be seen as anticompetitive behaviour to encourage Google users to use gmail and Google Talk. Well, except for the fact that these both use open standards and so anyone can interoperate with them.
[1] Free is quoted here since the cost is included in the OS, rather than it being truly zero-cost.
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/)
Re:mmmm monopolies... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
An auction has a legal definition, which eBay doesn't meet - that is : goods have to be available for physical visual inspection for at least 24 hours prior to auction time.
Auctions were used to return or disperse recovered stolen property (or just stolen). Once offered at auction, stolen property is not automatically returned to its owner should it be proven stolen later, unlike other stolen property.
This is why eBay describes itself as : "eBay, the world's largest online marketplace!"
and
Obligatory Joke (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Joke (Score:5, Funny)
doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Has there really ever been an administration that did?
Re:ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost all companies they bought have been startups with a really cool product ( Hilgreave, WebTV, Bungie...). As far as I know, Microsoft has never bought a Novell or a Lotus or a Compaq, they kill competition with hard work and/or unfair practices, but not with company acquisitions.
So when you see Microsoft thinking of buying eBay instead of developing an alternative and slowly increasing their market share( like they did with IE) you know they are very desparate and afraid of Google.
Oh, wonderful. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://jargon-file.org/)
Reminds me of HotMail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:no kidding (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.mjoelkbar.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 20 2005, @09:29AM)
I'm sorry, but I REALLY dont think that is possible.
Investors would freak (Score:4, Insightful)
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce COMPETITION (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://o2kewl.net/)
1) It gives Google _more_ of an incentive to develop GPay and Googles Ebay (G-Bay?).
2) Now all 3 companies that we love to hate are all in one convient package (Pay-Pal, Ebay, MS)
This is Scary because:
Given the excellent security record that Microsoft OSs' have do we really want pay-pal tied into the OS? OR even worse if Microsoft thinks* you are not using a "Geniune" copy of it's OS, will it put a lock you your paypal account and/or deduct the amount straight from your account.
AND EVEN WORSE: This will make it _very_ easy for MS to start charging $xx/(day/week/month) for using Windows.
OMG the sky is falling! =)
Should make for interesting times.
(The Chinese proverb: "May you live in Interesting Times" is apt I think)
Microsoft already charges $xxx/mo (Score:5, Informative)
(http://iamsam.org/)
That fee includes free upgrades, so if I sell you a Windows license at $5/mo., you would automatically get Vista when it comes out. It's actually a very reasonable program, or at least it appears to be.
That explains this new category (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 13 2005, @02:25PM)
PayPal? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.robertjohnkaper.com/)
Wow, I misread that... (Score:4, Funny)
I need some coffee.
Microsoft getting ebay would be a nightmare. (Score:1)
(http://inquisitor911.deviantart.com/)
Possible Merged Company Names (Score:1, Offtopic)
M$'s eYahoo!
M$baYahoo!
eYahoo$oft!
Ca$h
I will stop (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I will stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me where in PayPal's user agreement it shows that your money is FDIC insured? Their ridiculous "FDIC passthrough protection" doesn't count because it doesn't protect you in the case of PayPal becoming insolvent, only the bank they invested your money in. Believe me, if PayPal declares bankruptcy you'll be the LAST person with a claim on getting your money out of those bank accounts. Don't be a fool.. if you have more than $50 (or some small amount you're willing to lose) in a PayPal account you're asking for trouble. I even unlinked my checking account from them a few days ago because I am simply not comfortable with such a fucked up company being able to drain any of my "real" money. The only thing I allow as a source of funds now is a credit card so I can fight fraud charges through the CC company. Sure, this mean's I'm "unverified", which is ridiculous since they verified my account via my bank account once, it should stay verified no matter what payment method I choose to use.
Ebay is a Sun Solaris site (Score:3, Insightful)
We all remember (don't we) how long it took MS to convert Hotmail?
So either MS runs a Solaris based service for the forseeable future or breaks Ebay for months while they try to get it right.
Buy Yahoo! Now! (Score:1)
(http://blog.hthite.com/)
Hi cost to stop illegal MS Windows sales on ebay (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Friendster (Score:1)
BSOD (Score:4, Funny)
In the new Vista, after a crash, you have to have the winning bid before getting your crash dump.
Hey, it's in the New York Post.... (Score:2)
Chris Mattern
Antitrust concerns a bit late! (Score:1)
At the face of it, shouldn't it have come to mind BEFORE even beginning any talk? Is this a kind of trial baloon to test how compliant the authorities might be? Are they trying to prepare the minds for a different buyout that will appear more "reasonable" in comparison? MS should already have been split in different operations by now, OS and software, not that this is an absolute remedy, considering what happened with the Bells...
No interest in a content company? (Score:1)
(http://myatomic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 19 2006, @12:31AM)
From the article:
This was confusing because "content" as an adjective means pleased. It is also sometimes used to refer to works of authorship other than computer programs. But in that case, what is Microsoft Game Studios if not "a content company"?And how long would it be (Score:1, Flamebait)
Good god - if you think Ebay is mostly unusable now just wait and see what happens when the entire operating platform is switched to Microsoft products.
Microsoft has too much money (Score:2, Informative)
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
You can... (Score:2, Funny)
MS-Ebay (Score:2)
(http://www.arakon.net/)
Skype on alternative platforms (Score:2)
(http://jesusislife.net/micah/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @02:09AM)
And no, I will NOT install Windows.
And the first thing MS will do... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:09AM)
...is track down anyone trying to resell Windows or selling pirated copies of Windows. Once they eliminate that threat, they can safely declare victory.
If you can't beat 'em... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday July 06 2004, @01:24PM)
Too bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Skype (Score:1)
(http://www.bluefiberoptics.com/)
MS (Score:1)
(http://www.chasepaymentech.com/)
Never happen (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://jasonditz.com/)
$45 per share in cash
or
2.5 MSFT shares per 1 ebay share
Which means Microsoft is either going to have to issue $30 billion in debt and spend all their existing cash, or relinquish 30%+ of the ownership of the combined company to eBay shareholders.
I find it hard to believe they're willing to do either.
Now, if they want to buy Skype from us or something, that's a different matter.
Consider the source (Score:2, Informative)
It would be fitting (Score:2)
They deserve each other (Score:1, Flamebait)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
eBay has earned a reputation for having the world's worst customer service, not refunding charges when they should, and for unjustly cancelling users' auctions. They have been so atrocious that they have earned the moniker "feebay" from a large group of customers.
Therefore, in my view, Microsoft and eBay deserve each other.
There's a definite plus side to the buyout.... (Score:2)
The problem will really come when Microsoft tries to port eBay into
There's far more to it.. (Score:1)
(http://blog.skudd.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 10 2005, @09:28PM)
The sale will go something like (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok (Score:1)
Special eBay features for IE users only? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh my... (Score:2)
Bill & Meg are at the opposite ends of spectru (Score:1)
(http://convergence.in/blog)
Bill's merger with Meg would make MSFT priceless.
No Microsoft, you can't have Ebay. Not Yours! (Score:1)
(http://www.bushidohacks.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:44PM)
As a client of Ebay, I REFUSE to have my personal information in the hands of a company whose antivirus program lets in more viruses, worms, spyware, and solicitors, than it keeps out.
In fact, both Ebay dropped using Microsoft Passport (now Windows Live ID) a long time ago.
The only thing on Ebay that is not for sale is Ebay.
Only M$S platforms would work after awhile (Score:1)
Stop cursing eBay with the M word! (Score:1)
(http://conveniencecomputers.com/)
Re:God dammit Microsoft... (Score:1)
No they aren't (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.scronline.com/)
Google doesn't make an Operating System. Google doesn't make an office productivity suite. Google doesn't make a game console.
Under Ballmer's lead Microsoft is starting to fall apart. It's losing direction because of obsessions with beating Google for whatever reason. So what if Google has taken some of Microsoft's talent. That's the way it is in business. Particularly when employees smell the rot that is starting to consume Microsoft.
Either rate, Google isn't the needle to Microsoft's balloon, Ballmer's obsession with Google is.
Re:God dammit Microsoft... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 30 2007, @08:29PM)