Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google in Talks to Buy YouTube 157

Posted by Zonk
from the dogs-and-cats-living-together-mass-hysteria dept.
tessaiga writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is in talks to buy YouTube for about $1.6 billion. YouTube users watch more that 100 million videos daily, and the site's market share tops that of similar services offered by Google and other popular Web sites. This comes after a story earlier this morning that co-founder Sergey Brin is pushing for Google to cut back on the volume of products being offered, complaining that 'I was getting lost in the sheer volume of the products we were releasing'. Guess Google Video is one of the products making the approved shortlist."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google in Talks to Buy YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • by ClosedSource (238333) * on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:26PM (#16339569)
    What do you want to bet that the programmers at YouTube would have never made it through Google's interview process?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:44PM (#16339893)
      Why is this 'funny'? 'Insightful' is more like it. Youtube is a piece of technological crap, yet it meets a social need. Much like MySpace. And both are wildly popular. Yet Slashdot persists in its belief that programming is the center of the universe.
      • by pipingguy (566974) *
        In some less important fields of endeavour, the use of computers is really a job creation program.
    • by SilentChris (452960) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:46PM (#16339919) Homepage
      YouTube is another one of those oddities. Like MySpace. Or VHS even. None of them are best in class, but they achieved a critical mass and took it from there.

      Stuff I hate about YouTube:

      1.) Takes forever to load some videos. Google Video is lightening fast.
      2.) Can't really shift to a point on the timeline. Unlike Google Video, it can't seem to pick up midstream. What's the point of even giving the user the option to move the timeline if you can't stream from that point?
      3.) Sometimes you leave comments and they aren't saved.
      4.) Regardless if the comments save or not, the page will completely refresh restarting the video. (No problem, you think -- I'll just fast forward to where I was. Wait, can't do that).
      5.) Sometimes pages flat out won't load. View the historic pages for stuff like "most popular video" and you'll sometimes see this.

      Not to mention the UI guys look like they threw up all over the screen, and the general content (like Google Video) is lacking. If you see one dumbass 14-year old kick someone in the crotch, you've seen them all. (On a sidenote, who are these teenagers that have all day to kick people in their crotch).

      I'm hoping one of these days people will realize, just like Tamagotchies, pet rocks and the Tubthumping song, that the only reason sites like YouTube and MySpace prevade culture are because they're popular. It has nothing to do with great content or inherently good design. All you need nowadays apparently is crap code and a userbase willing to kick people in the crotch.
      • by rednip (186217) * <rednipNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday October 06, 2006 @03:09PM (#16340237) Journal
        who are these teenagers that have all day to kick people in their crotch
        uh, These guys [imdb.com]
        I'm hoping one of these days people will realize, just like Tamagotchies, pet rocks and the Tubthumping song, that the only reason sites like YouTube and MySpace prevade culture are because they're popular. It has nothing to do with great content or inherently good design.
        Tell that to Craig's list as well. It's not 'how pretty', or 'technically advanced' a website is but how many people look at it, and how many people use it for what they want to present, even if it most of it isn't great, some stuff does shine (or at least funny as hell). Sure there are technical problems with YouTube, but they have the eyeballs, and the Google engineers should be able to fix it up quicker than anyone else.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        An easy way to vote for duplicate movies! Quite often I find movies with an identical title, run-length and even preview icon. It would be nice if you could (similar to "flag as in-appropriate") you could flag them as "dublicate of:URL". This shouldn't of course remove the duplicates immediately, as one of them could be higher quality, but if there are enough votes it should group them in search results and combine reviews and ratings.
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "all you need nowadays apparently is crap code and a userbase willing to kick people in the crotch."

        well then no WONDER Microsoft has done so well to date...

        To get Linux on the desktop we need users willing to be crotch-kickers.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Jello B. (950817)
          To get Linux on the desktop we need users willing to be crotch-kickers.

          Nonsense, just set up a cron job.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by faqmaster (172770)
        YouTube is the Paris Hilton of the Web 2.0 crowd.
      • by mshiltonj (220311)
        All you need nowadays apparently is crap code and a userbase willing to kick people in the crotch.

        That must be Step 2!
      • by Britz (170620)
        Go see a soccer/football game. You will understand why your points don't matter. See what your country (Bush is not the only whacko democratic leader) has voted for. Berlusconi anyone?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Actually, I think what's key in YouTube's early success over Google Video was that they required an older version of Flash, reaching a larger userbase. I remember not being able to open videos in Google Video but succeeding with YouTube, using some version of Konqueror. I assume the same applies to people running older browsers (say, IE5 on Win98), etc. The interface for comments might be quirky, etc (though it has improved recently), but they always excelled at compatibility for their videos -- and the str
        • by pipingguy (566974) *
          By the time that YouTube arrived, Google was already perceived as "establishment" to the kids that wanted to see uncensored stuff. YouTube was "new" and "fresh" and not used by your parents, so it was cool and caught on like wildfire because it was "underground".

          Most people [1] (especially teens) want to feel like they are unique or belong to an exclusive group. Once said group goes mainstream, it's boring and dull.

          [1] Not me of course, I read Slashdot for the scintillating comments at -1 threshhold and
      • If you see one dumbass 14-year old kick someone in the crotch, you've seen them all.

        You sound like someone who says they hate hip hop because it's misogynistic and "it's just talking anyway". Sure, you use YouTube to watch 14 year olds kick each other in the crotch. Other people don't.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NXdCYRppCc [youtube.com]

        The problem with YouTube is the same as the problem with Myspace, though. Its owners are censor-happy. But unlike myspace, you can just take your ball & go home to some other host,

    • if those same programmers own a piece of youtube at time of sale, then it's probably the best interview they've ever flubbed.
  • This story (Score:1, Troll)

    by farker haiku (883529)
    This story bring whole new meaning to nothing to see here :)
  • by WilliamSChips (793741) <full.infinity@g m a i l . c om> on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:27PM (#16339575) Journal
    I didn't expect [slashdot.org] that!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ergo98 (9391)
      I didn't expect that!

      Well you still shouldn't -- while it might come to pass, I'd take this story with a massive grain of salt (mountain sized). The story comes from one unnamed individual, and is then circulated by some people that have a long history of rumors that didn't come to pass.
  • by celardore (844933) * on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:28PM (#16339581)
    Surely they'd only be buying the YouTube name. Google has way more hardware, and an already succesful video product out there. Maybe they are trying to eliminate the competition, and get the ad revenue all for themselves. Is YouTube really worth that much to them though?
    • by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@gmail. c o m> on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:31PM (#16339645)
      I just made this sam argument to a co-worker. If google buys them, they keep the name and start dumping the copy-protected matierial. They can keep the "trusted" brand and then use it to push TV/Movies that you can buy... Apple has iPod/iTunes, MS has Zune/WMP, and Google needs something if they want to compete here.

      My money has Google and MS getting slaughtered by Apple here.
      • by pyite (140350) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:36PM (#16339743)
        My money has Google and MS getting slaughtered by Apple here.

        Google is too smart to walk right into a battle with Apple. My guess is they will try to seek some mutually beneficial arrangement with Apple. Don't forget this [apple.com].

        • by TrippTDF (513419)
          D'oh! How could I forget that Schmidt is on the board??? I'll hand in my geek card later.
      • by Dr. Spork (142693)
        If google buys them, they keep the name and start dumping the copy-protected matierial.

        Yeah, leaving what, exactly? Something worth $1,600,000,000? I hardly think so. There is no way to keep YouTube valuable while filtering the content enough to make sure no one sues you. And with Google's deep pockets, I'm sure the queue to sue would begin on the day of the aquisition. YouTube is a poisoned pill that no company could aquire, much less pay for.

      • With Schmidt at the Apple board, I don't think Google will be worrying to much about getting slaughtered by iPod+iTunes... They'll probably be using it in their favor sometime soon.
        • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          They're not in the same market:

          Google/YouTube: Thousands of downloadable videos, user supplied content, comments system, etc.
          iTunes Video: US Only download system. No idea what's on it exactly (apple won't let me even look) but I believe it's only studio produced content.
    • "Maybe they are trying to eliminate the competition, and get the ad revenue all for themselves."

      I hope if Google bought Youtube, google sticks with the brand name 'Youtube' instead of renaming it to 'Google Video'.
    • by Kelbear (870538)
      I'd like to hear their reasoning too.

      What is YouTube doing that makes them so much more popular than Google Video? If they can identify that, they could just compete with them instead of buying them. Is it just the network effect of having a large user base building on itself? Or is YouTube clearly a better service and is more successful as a result? They all seem pretty much the same to me, but I'm only watching videos, I've never tried posting any.
      • Yea, YouTube is also a social network. You create accounts that you can post videos to other people, reply to videos posted, add friends and whatnot. Its like MySpace without the crappy badly done webpages.

        • Its like MySpace without the crappy badly done webpages.

          Well, excepting the fact that YouTube itself is a crappy badly done webpage.
          If you think YouTube is a well-designed website, you should maybe start getting your eyes checked. Then, just make sure to stay far, far away from any web-related programming or design.
          • Good point, the user pages though look fairly nice. They still arne't intuitive. Really nothing is intuitive on youtube. But maybe that can be fixed.. Its a good idea otherwise.
    • by Hennell (1005107)
      From the orignal article [wsj.com]:
      "YouTube commanded 46% of visits to U.S. online video sites in August, according to market research firm Hitwise. That compared to a 23% share for the video activities of News Corp.'s MySpace social-networking site, and 10% for Google Video."

      I wouldn't go as far to say a 10% share for Google video was unsuccessful, but getting a 50%+ share of the video market would be far more successful. So in that sense I say it would be worth quite a bit. I'd agree I can't see why they need t
    • by vertinox (846076) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:49PM (#16339963)
      Is YouTube really worth that much to them though?

      Maybe their "Don't be evil" clause also means keeping YouTube out of the hands of Newscorp.
      • by bigpat (158134)
        Maybe their "Don't be evil" clause also means keeping YouTube out of the hands of Newscorp.

        Even showing interest in YouTube will drive up the eventual price Newscorp would pay. Which benefits google if it forces Newscorp to pay millions of dollars of money that they would have otherwise been able to spend beefing up the service.
    • I bet they have a plan. Maybe take all the copyrighted material and show it to the company that owns it, then say you got an ad you want to throw on it. Then take all the videos that are copyrighted and put some ads on them before showing the video.
    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Worth? I'd imagine it's worth about $100 million, with the other $1.5 billion being put in escrow to pay the inevitable copyright suits. You know there are people camped outside YouTube just waiting for it to be worth their time to sue it.
    • I don't know if it's worth that much, but it sure is worth a lot [alexa.com]...
    • Google hasn't really promoted the brand of any previous acquisitions, such as Writely... Seems to me they've mostly just ditched an acquisition's brand name and assimilated its tech.

      This then poses an interesting brand question: YouTube has, oh, about 10^4 times more brand equity than anything else Google has snapped up before, so how would we see this branded? Google YouTube? Google Video Powered by YouTube? YouTube powered by Google?
      • by jfengel (409917)
        I wonder if Google thinks that Google Video is having a hard time getting traction because of YouTube's strong brand name. I see a lot of links passed around to YouTube when Google Video has the same vid, in better resolution, and I think that people just think "YouTube" first.

        Still $1.6 billion seems an awful lot to pay for something with no solid income stream and a vicious lawsuit waiting to happen. Google might just redirect youtube.com to video.google.com, or it may turn it into youtube.google.com with
  • Well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by valkabo (840034) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:28PM (#16339585)
    Its funny how every day the lines between google and microsoft blur. If microsoft tried this an unholy hell would be released..
    • Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CheeseburgerBrown (553703) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:31PM (#16339641) Homepage Journal
      ...it's amazing how not sucking works wonders for the way people interpret your actions and qualify the possible repercussions.

      • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:52PM (#16340007) Journal
        MS-DOS didn't suck too badly compared to CP/M.

        Xenix didn't such compared to other UNIXes.

        OS/2 didn't suck, and neither did Windows NT next to desktop UNIX or DR-DOS+GEM

        Microsoft Word 2 didn't suck next to any of its competition.

        Microsoft have released more products that don't suck than Google (although, to be fair, I suspect most of us have been forced to use more of the ones that do suck). Google search has gone downhill a lot in recent months; I'm frequently finding searches fail to return any useful information, or if they do it's buried on page 3-4 of the results. Google is a young company, and they haven't had the time to screw up as badly as MS yet.

        • by Rogerborg (306625)
          I'm pretty sure the grandparent meant "not sucking" in the sense of not setting out to crush the competition with dirty tricks, and then illegally abusing a monopoly position. He's kind of a filthy maple-tree hugging hippy that way.
        • by Dr. Spork (142693)
          Yeah, and I don't remember anyone complaining about those products. I could think of several other things MS made which don't suck, but they made a lot of things over the years, and we shouldn't be straining so hard to compile such a short list!

          Once MS locked up the desktop OS market, it seemed like their MO was to suck. They absolutely stopped caring about sucking less and more about pumping us for money and destroying competition (sometimes by deliberately sucking more). They may be a little better now

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kwerle (39371)
          MS-DOS didn't suck too badly compared to CP/M.

          But it did suck compared to some of the multitasking DOS clones.

          Xenix didn't such compared to other UNIXes.

          Not sure on the timeframe or truth of that. Wasn't I using Dynix back in the day, and was that better than Xenix? I just don't know.

          OS/2 didn't suck, and neither did Windows NT next to desktop UNIX or DR-DOS+GEM

          Compared to NeXTstep, they all sucked. (OpenStep by the time NT came out)

          Microsoft Word 2 didn't suck next to any of its competition.

          When was Wor
          • But it did suck compared to some of the multitasking DOS clones.

            These were released some years after DOS, however.

            Not sure on the timeframe or truth of that. Wasn't I using Dynix back in the day, and was that better than Xenix? I just don't know.

            It may have been better, but I doubt it was sufficiently better to be able to say Xenix sucked in comparison. Oh, and Dynix was released four years after Xenix.

            Compared to NeXTstep, they all sucked. (OpenStep by the time NT came out)

            True. Most things still

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647)
            Compared to NeXTstep, they all sucked.


            Compared to NeXTstep, they all didn't require a $10,000 computer.
            • by kwerle (39371)
              Compared to NeXTstep, they all didn't require a $10,000 computer.

              True, but nor did NS, once the slab was out.
        • by pipingguy (566974) *
          ...most of us have been forced to use...

          How many jobs that exist today are there that *totally* rely upon computers and software? I'm biased and obsolete, as I can still operate pencil, paper and a straightedge competently and also effectively communicate relatively complicated concepts by drawing pictures without electricity.

          Oh wait, I forgot that death will take care of that problem.
    • Its funny how every day the lines between google and microsoft blur. If microsoft tried this an unholy hell would be released..

      If MS were doing this, they'd already be talking about how they'll use this to kill Google.

  • It makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:28PM (#16339591)
    Google Video is probably the first example that comes to mind of the emergent Yet Another Half-Baked Google Technology phenomenon. By buying YouTube, they get a best-of-breed player on their side without diverting more in-house R&D resources. Given their (Google's) cash reserves, it's the right thing to do.
    • by AvgGatsby (983102)
      $ 1.6 bn for a best of breed player...I'm sure tha shareholders would appreciate that
    • by Nimey (114278)
      best-of-breed


      -1, Buzzword.
    • By buying YouTube, they get a best-of-breed player...

      Oh, please. This has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with expanding their user base and their foothold in the online video market.

    • Just think of the Google adsense revenue they will be saving. Google paid nearly a billion dollars to Newscorp for the ad rights for myspace. Buying youtube at almost twice that will therefore make it a deal.
  • compared to myspace (Score:2, Interesting)

    by krotkruton (967718)
    IMO, this offer really seems to add credibility to the "myspace sale was a scam" [slashdot.org] theory.
    • Care to elaborate on this? I don't really see how google being in discussions to buy YouTube has anything to do with MySpace or News Corp or any kind of scams. Although I may be missing something here. But for future reference, please don't make crazy claims without providing any reasoning or facts to back it up.
  • by ClosedSource (238333) * on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:30PM (#16339627)
    "cut back on the volume of products being offered"

    Didn't we learn last week that you can work on anything you want at Google?
    • I think most people would agree that letting developers run loose is just asking for a bunch of poorly thought out ideas than will get dropped and left incomplete as soon as the next 'big thing', buzzworld explosion or cool piece of technology comes along.

      It looks like the Google management team might be trying to bring a bit more focus to their efforts which is probably a good thing IMO.
    • by pembo13 (770295)
      I'm pretty sure that what is developed is different from what is offered.
      • I'd say even the most self-indulgent programmer is going to lose interest in a company it they know their work will never see the light of day:

        Guy 1: Where do you work?
        Google Guy: At Google.
        Guy 1: Wow, that's impressive. Which application did you work on? Search? Gmail?
        Google Guy: I worked on something that they decided not release.
        Guy 1: Oh, that's too bad.
  • Only a moron... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by patrixmyth (167599) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:32PM (#16339655)
    Gotta love the related story on this one. Only a moron would buy Youtube, indeed.

    YouTube links are the only "You gotta see this." links that I get that I actually open on occassion. I think Google is making a great move here, if it's true. Given the other recent story about Google allowing google home page elements to be posted in websites, YouTube is a natural eyeball catcher to pull in people off personal websites.
    • by gosand (234100)
      YouTube links are the only "You gotta see this." links that I get that I actually open on occassion. I think Google is making a great move here, if it's true.

      I jump on links friends send me from YouTube as well, because I know that I'd better watch the videos before they get pulled from the site. I know after a recent PPV event (Ultimate Fighting Championship), a friend sent me a link to one of the fights that was up on YouTube. It got pulled a day later. I know that there used to be those types of vid

  • I can't pass this link around to my friends -- the1r elliturit.

  • by tekkguy (1006917) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [sedohrc]> on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:34PM (#16339707)
    In other news, Google has voted successfully to change the company's motto from "Don't be Evil" to "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!"
  • Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by merreborn (853723) on Friday October 06, 2006 @02:37PM (#16339757) Journal
    How'd that yahoo-facebook deal [slashdot.org] go? Not a single verification of the story in 2 weeks?

    Whaddya know. Not all rumors are true. Last time, it was 'industry executives', this time it's 'a person familiar with the matter'.
    • by Brobock (226116)
      "We do not comment on rumors and speculation," Google spokesman Jon Murchinson told CNN.
    • This is the Wall Street Journal reporting this. If they say it's a rumor, it's a rumor. In this case, they don't. In all the years I've read the WSJ, they've never been wrong on this sort of thing.
  • Being the big gorilla when it comes to a repository of videos fits with their strategy of doing search well - having all media (and related searches) at their fingertips will really help them propel that aspect of their business forward. I totally agree with Sergey. While I can see why they might want to release spreadsheets and word processing to compete with MS / Office, having all those products doesn't help them do what they do best. I think they should stick with their core strength - improving the w
  • What, didn't Googles legal team already have enough work with the on-line book thing?
  • by Chacham (981)
    from the dogs-and-cats-living-together-mass-hysteria dept.

    What? It hasn't even been a year since the last time [slashdot.org].

    Oh my.
  • by kbox (980541)
    I always said google were "morons".. Great big, Filthy rich, billionaire morons.
  • or do youTube your Google
  • Not only do the YouTube owners get $1.6 billion for their organization, but they also get out of the recent copyright allegations [slashdot.org].
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)
      nevermind that - though that's important.

      there's also a spat of censorship cries going on over a bunch of videos of soldiers in Iraq and the associated groups getting banned/deleted/whatever they do. which is probably just due to a broken rating and offensiveness system and terrorists abusing the system, but thats neither here nor there.
  • Copyright (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Arwing (951573)
    Well a few things here
    1. Google is buying out their biggest rival in google video, by adding the huge library and viwership, google video will be the place to go for anything related to videos online and give the already high traffic on google related services a boost

    2. But it still doesn't solve the copyright problems google is going to face with RIAA and MPAA

    3. This tatic (buying out competitor) sounds a lot like something MS would do, is this a sign that google is finally in a stage of major corpora
    • This tatic (buying out competitor) sounds a lot like something MS would do, is this a sign that google is finally in a stage of major corporation like MS?

      Maybe, but when has Microsoft aquired a defacto monopoly in a particular area by simply buying out its biggest rival in that area? I can't think of any example off the top of my head (one could argue that they tried to with the MS/Intuit deal that the DOJ nixed).
  • by sam991 (995040) on Friday October 06, 2006 @03:20PM (#16340395) Homepage
    Google video may be the technically superior service, but it is almost completely lacking in social interaction. Youtube encourages you to have a vlog, to post video responses etc. Google video (at least from the standpoint of a Youtube user) is a little cold.

    Google may well have the hardware, but they've a lot to learn about what makes a site popular. Myspace has to be one of the ugliest sites around yet its popularity is ever soaring because it is social. Google video just is not.

    At the end of the day, Youtube is synonymous with the online video hosting/sharing community and that is what Google are paying £850 million for. That and the ability to integrate with existing Google products (Google calendar & vlog combined? That's some powerful stuff right there.)
  • Last week Mark Cuban made comments along the line that anyone that buys YouTube is insane. His reasoning was that YouTube is going to get hammered with copyright lawsuits once someone that can pay out buys the company. I really think he's correct. I don't know how many copyrighted news stories, etc, I've watched on YouTube but it's a lot.
  • Uh oh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clickclickdrone (964164) on Friday October 06, 2006 @03:45PM (#16340743)
    Google look like their joining that happy band of companies that grew so big and had so much cash burning a hole in their pocket that they started buying insane companies for insane prices.
    1. Invent Google algorithm
    2. Invent Adsense
    3. Profit!
    4. Profit!
    5. Buy loss making company for huge amount of money
    6. No more profit!
  • collect all the videos ever made of young girls dancing around and lip synching to POP songs.
  • This is one buyout that doesn't surprise me at all. Google put a lot into Google video, and just as it opened up, YouTube's popularity exploded, stealing Google video's thunder. Personally I think Google is to blame for the failure of Google video-by requiring users to upload via software instead of the web, they added in one more step, which is one step too many for the masses of people out there who can barely manage to compose a movie with the tools that come in the OS.

    So now Google's about to spend 1.7
  • Good for Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xyde (415798) <<slashdot> <at> <purrrr.net>> on Friday October 06, 2006 @04:02PM (#16340943)
    Weren't there some (probably unsubstantiated) rumors floating around about iTV having direct access to Google Video? If so, Steve must be rubbing his hands together in glee about this. :)
  • If Google purchases Youtube they would be able to capitilize more of the advertising market.
  • People think of the YouTube name first in video. How many people even realize Google is a source for video? I didn't realize it, but Google is hosting the national archives, and has a variety of other 'serious' content up.

    If Google did buy out YouTube, it could simply rebrand its Google Video site with YouTube icons and the MySpace kids wouldn't even notice.

    Google faces significant risks from rushing in behind YT, because Google has money and is eminently suable. They can't afford to simply let copywrit

  • I think that this is just a rumour and that it will not happen. It might be a ploy to drive up the bidding price by other companies that are actually looking at YouTube.

    A few reasons why:

    1. When was the last time Google spent a billion dollars on any takeover -- the answer, I think, is never. They've made small purchases here and there of $50-200M, but this would be the largest and most complex by far. (Unless the price being rumoured is wrong too, which is possible). Why rock the boat with large outsid
  • ... for Google to go the Microsoft way : If you can't beat them, buy them!

You have mail.

Working...