Posted April 25, 2008 9:16 am by with 7 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

I thought about naming this post with "Pilgrim’s Picks" but it’s not really the same format. Picks are reserved for news that didn’t quite make the cut. Instead, this post exists because I have client meetings and just simply don’t have the time to write anything longer.

So, you should be able to get up to speed with today’s news in just 60 seconds of reading. 🙂

  • Interesting that Microsoft’s Q1 earnings can have two completely different interpretations. While CNET chimes "Microsoft earnings hit the mark," BusinessWeek’s not as impressed, "Earnings Show Microsoft Needs Yahoo." While it seems that Microsoft needs Yahoo, as much as Yahoo needs Microsoft, I’ll ask again: "Do two losers, make a winner?"
  • Is Google making a transition to a "normal" mega-corporation? Naming Morgan Stanley’s Benjamin Fried as your next CIO would certainly send that message. No offense to Fried or Morgan Stanley, but it’s kind of like learning Radiohead will name Michael Buble as its next lead singer.
  • So the US Justice Department has allegedly launched an investigation into the partnership between Yahoo and Google. Sometimes I think there’s too much government intervention in business. After all, as long as the public has a choice about which search engine they use, why worry about it? What happens if Google obtains 90+% market share without any merger/acquisition deals? Will the DoJ step in and force Google to hand some of it on a plate to Microsoft and Yahoo???
  • I’ll admit to actually installing the new Seesmic video comments plugin. But, after testing, it just messed up the entire comments section. Now I’m glad I uninstalled it as RWW makes a lot of sense when talking about the reasons why video comments suck.
  • Adding Google Maps Street Views is one way a "For Sale By Owner" real estate company can add value to its customers.
  • Why two different takes on the same data. There are many other interpretations as well, and spin doctors as well as fanatic anti and for bloggers all throwing their hats into the ring. When you are as big as MS and Yahoo, you are bound to get such coverage. Yes, two losers joining hands together can indeed take on other losers!

    Nicole’s last blog post..Wanna Buy Computer Accessories and Peripherals

  • “Yes, two losers joining hands together can indeed take on other losers!”

    +100 Agree to all!

  • Jordan McCollum

    It’s possible that Google could become a monopoly by itself—and if there’s any evidence that they’ve used unfair practices to get there, or if they ever make a wrong move after they’ve gotten there, the government can break them up, just like Microsoft was.

    As you can see, it’s an extremely effective method of dealing with that market weakness…

  • the google question is one i’ve been wondering about for a while.
    how would we define a monopoly on the internet? it’s not the same kind of monopoly that forced the break up of AT&T, for example. in that situation, the consumer had no choice. in the case of google, anyone can at any time surf on over to a different search engine. and there will be a need for other search engines. i mean, just the other day i was finding CRAP on google and then went to yahoo, msn, and ask. (i got CRAP from all of them. lol). i’m not sure a website can be broken up. it wouldn’t even make sense. how do you break a search box up? search could be separated from the other operating units but that’s just a “show”; there’s no real impact. i’m pretty sure our antitrust laws can’t even address the internet. very much a square and round hole situation…

    messels’s last blog post..My Business Model for Investing: Covered Calls or ?always profitable? (at least imho)

  • PS3

    What exactly is Google “street view” – I tried to find out using the link but all I got was “loading map”?

  • I wonder how the government would break the Googler up – doesn’t seem like they could do much. Maybe they’d make Google pay for anti-Google advertisements or redirect 25% of their traffic?

  • exactly. and a government enforced redirect would come across as comand-economy, so i see little chance of that happening. i’m just not sure current anti-trust laws can even address an internet based monopoly. the internet is the antithesis of the physcial restrictions defining our current paradigm of a monopoly. there’s simple an indeterminate number of competitors but it’s irrelavent if people simply choose to “not go there”. bookmarks, rss-feeds, etc all create a volition of content avoidance rather than an inablity to access content. worst case senario is the government forces google to break up the different opperating units…honestly, i think that would end up benefiting google anyway. (smaller is better when it comes to the internet…also a paradigm shift from “industrial” markets).

    messels’s last blog post..My Business Model for Investing: Covered Calls or ?always profitable? (at least imho)