Microsoft makes $44.6 BILLION dollar offer for Yahoo!

Over the past couple of years, Yahoo! has been disappointing investors by always missing the targets on earnings and profits. Earlier this week, Yahoo! announced it would have to lay off thousands of employees in an attempt to win what seems to be an uphill battle that just won't end. With its stock much lower than it used to be, Microsoft immediately jumped in with a $44.6 Billion dollar takeover bid, and if you have opened any news site today, then you will likely have heard about it already.

The interesting thing about how the media is handling this news is the speculation from every angle. The story isn't just the offer, but it is the stories behind that headline that are interesting.

On one hand, the Guardian, which is a pretty good British news source, asks "What would a Microsoft-Yahoo deal mean for web users?". What they want to know is who, among MSN/Live users and Yahoo! users, would end up having to switch to the other service? Which chat would become most popular, which email, which search, etc?

Then in a separate article, by a different journalist also at the Guardian, they ponder over "The problems of merging Microsoft and Yahoo". This article goes over the differing technologies that each company uses. Not surprisingly, Microsoft makes use of all of its own software, from ASP for web page development to Windows on the Hotmail / Microsoft Live email servers. Yahoo! however, uses FreeBSD as its operating system and PHP for its web pages, both of which are open source, and therefore free to the public. Attempting to merge everything together into one functional system would require enough money to make Bill Gates skittish.

In the meantime, reporters at Forbes are offering their own opinions, beginning with "Why Yahoo! Can't Fix Microsoft". The writers believe that Microsoft has failed as a web company and should stick to their software packages. The article states that the world would be a better place if Microsoft just spun off all of its web properties and SOLD them to Yahoo!, instead of buying Yahoo! and increasing their responsibility in web property. They think that Microsoft isn't suited for the web and for that reason, shouldn't expand across it.

And finally, in another article, Forbes reports that "Microsoft Admits Yahoo! Isn't In The Bag". In a conference call, Microsoft admitted "that 'any number of companies might have an interest' in also acquiring Yahoo!. EBay, News Corp. (owner of Fox, MySpace, and Dow Jones), AT&T, and Comcast have each previously been speculated as possible Yahoo! buyers." (Forbes.com) Of course, Google, already owning 56% of the market, would not be legally permitted to buy Yahoo!, so Microsoft isn't worried there, but even with MS and Yahoo! put together, Microsoft would only maintain 32% of the market, still trailing Google by over 24%.


According to MarketWatch.com, which was owned by Dow Jones (the publisher of the Wall Street Journal) until the December 2007 Dow Jones buyout by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., analysts have been shaky on the deal all morning, not knowing whether a potential merger would actually do any good for either company.

Egypt & India: Where'd the Internet go?!

Reuters and the New York Times reported today that most of Egypt and India found themselves without Internet access today as one of the major underwater cables leading into Egypt was mysteriously cut, possibly by recent storms in the area.

The cable was a major throughput for Internet activity in the Middle East and surrounding countries, and while some connectivity has been partially restored by rerouting through other cables, Egypt does not expect to have connectivity fully restored for 10 to 15 days.

My useless opinion? I hope you weren't planning any major raids with players from that region of the world on your favorite MMORPGs this week. Those connections that have been restored are said to be moving slower than dirt due to the increased congestion.

Scientists create strong, easy-on / easy-off "Gecko Tape"

In a simultaneous press release from the National Science Foundation and the University of California in Berkeley, researchers have announced a new adhesive based solely on the ability of geckos to climb most any surface without every getting stuck in place. Researchers developed tape containing millions of nanofibers that, when pulled across a surface, hold many time tighter than the average piece of tape. When the tape is pulled directly away from the surface, however, it is released freely.

Berkeley researchers spent several years studying the way geckos were able to climb and stick to surfaces with an easy release and hope that this new technology could be used in "a range of products, from climbing equipment to medical devices." (Press Release)

The only problem being worked out thus far, is the need to massage the tape into place, allowing the sides of the nanofibers -- the parts that do the actual sticking -- to make as much contact as possible before the tape begins to work.

The research team was "specifically tasked in 2003 with developing biologically-inspired synthetic gecko adhesives," by the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense..." (NSF.gov - NSF at a Glance)

World to America: "You're not the boss of me!"

An interesting hypothetical look at the future of global politics based on the current stand of world powers can be found on the New York Times website today.

What if, 8 years from now, the United States found itself quieted by the rest of the world? What if nobody cared what the U.S. Government had to say anymore?

I believe, in agreement with the article, that we've certainly begun heading in that direction. The world is tired of us bossing everybody around and stubbornly refusing to accept global attempts at peace and environmental protection. Nobody cares if Bush wants to be a little brat at a global summit to determine how we, as a planet, will move towards greener practices. Bush stood with his arms crossed and the rest of the world was this close to telling him where he could shove it.

In the interests of full-disclosure, I voted for Bush the second time around. And to keep that disclosure going, it is a decision that I now regret. It is my opinion that Bush is too stubborn to listen to anybody else any longer. He is going to do what he set out to do, even if it is blatently obvious to the rest of the world that he is an idiot. I imagine the cabinet room being one of, "I don't care what you have to say! My name is PRESIDENT George W. Bush!"

Strong enough to go to war? Yes... Smart enough to listen to the advice of others? Absolutely not. Let's hope our foreign policy can change enough so that we learn how to share responsibility for the world with everybody else, instead of trying to hoard it all for ourselves. Let's surround ourselves with good advisors, namely the rest of the world. Otherwise, we might just find ourselves outcast from a world of people who have felt outcast for far too long. It's time for the bully to grow up.

WSJ.com will remain a paid service, Murdoch says

In an article that has disappointed me greatly, the New York Times has reported that Rupert Murdoch, billionaire owner of the media conglomerate known as the News Corporation has decided to renege on his original claim to allow free web access to the Wall Street Journal website. Murdoch and his News Corp. completed the buyout of Dow Jones in December, 2007. Dow Jones is the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, Barron's Magazine, and Dow Jones Newswires.

Murdoch began his attempt to buy out Dow Jones around May of 2007, amidst much controversy, with the media making great claims to the potential of turning the Wall Street Journal into a tabloid, like much of Murdoch's oversees papers, or of turning it into a pro-republican news source much like Fox News.

After making many promises to the Bancroft family, long time majority shareholders of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch was able to secure the deal and completed it in the fourth quarter. One of his first promises was to allow open access to the Wall Street Journal online, at no charge, but last week he came to the decision that the $99 per year subscription fee could not be beaten by sheer ad dollars on a free website. That being the case, those of us who want to read WSJ articles online without forking over the fee will still need to access WSJ.com via our mobile phones, which is a free service thus far.

Murdoch began his media conglomerate as the son of an Australian newspaper owner. When he took over the family business, he quickly began buying out competitors as well as papers in other markets. To this day, the News Corporation is one of the largest news sources in the world. News Corp. is also the parent company of MySpace, PhotoBucket, Beliefnet, IGN Entertainment, DirecTV and Britain's BskyB (British Sky Broadcasting) Satellite Television Service and has recently launched the Fox Business Network on cable and satellite to compete with CNBC. Fox Business has one upper hand on CNBC, its core business news competitor, which is its now close relationship to the WSJ and to Dow Jones, allowing the free movement of business news content to and from the Wall Street Journal. In an attempt to compete, the New York Times has recently reached an agreement with CNBC (January 7, 2008) to share content freely between both entities.

Though Murdoch has made stern promises to keep his hands clear of the editorial processes at the Wall Street Journal, some sources are still skeptical, though I think it will take time to really see the effects of Murdoch's influence on the WSJ, if there are any.