Their sales team is a pack of money grubbing sore losers. I have had friends and business associates that used Yahoo's services (including DNS hosting). When one of them moved to another hosting provider, the contract spelled out that the DNS zones would move in two weeks, Yahoo shut them off after 4 hours, leaving his whole business in jeopardy because his servers were not accessible to his customers (potentially for two weeks).
When we called them to find out what happened, all we got was stone-walled. Thankfully, for my friend, I got him up and running in three hours using DNS zones with the same name but different TLDs a few hours later. However, it took seven hours and a slew of emails with new links to his customers got his business up and running again.
Yahoo is evil and it needs to be destroyed.
Whoever buys its needs to fire most of its management and vastly improve its customer service. Other incidences I have experienced with Yahoo have always involved exceptionally poor customer service. I would never recommend Yahoo to anyone.
As for Google, Google is too big and MS is trailing so far behind Google for the Yahoo aquisition to make too much of a difference. Yahoo and AOL also trail Google. If all three combined, despite what the last two commentators say, they would still be trailing Google.
I actually fear Google these days, more then I ever feared Microsoft.
Google is bleeding customers and revenue away from many companies, small and large, by aggregating information from their websites and news feeds. This in effect moves the customers from those wesites to Google, effectively making those sites financially unsustainable.
This is all in an effort at drawing in more "viewers" for its enormous Ad-Engine. All of Google's acquisitions are based on adding more casual viewers to its Ad-revenue.
Google is not an innovator like some people believe, its just a giant advertising singularity. One in which the advertiser with the deepest pockets can buy a great deal of influence at the top of Google's ad-engine.
If Google is such an innovator as some believe, why is the only thing they can actually sell and make a profit from is their search-related advertising engine????
Everything else they are "innovating" is designed to support the core business, advertising. They didn't innovate web-based mail... they didn't innovate Instant Messenging, they didn't even innovate Search-Engines (Yahoo did). All Google has done was to take well-known technologies, like clustering and distributed processing and use it on an enormous scale.
Hell, even professional advertisers have a major beef with Google. Read the news... (and not the filtered by Google kind, please).
Google is not the kind gentle giant some tech-heads *wish* it was.
Its leadership is *not* bent on world domination, nor was Microsoft's as some believe, but it is falling into the same slippery slope when large companies become giants and they horribly throw the eco system askew.
Let MS and News Corp buy Yahoo... perhaps they can fix Yahoo's crappy customer service and provide some credible alternative to Google's dominating influence.
NONfinis - 16 years ago
I would have to agree with "matro".
Having Yahoo, a company with a vastly different culture than Microsoft, owned by Microsoft can't be good for Yahoo's creativity and growth, nor the products that they currently offer. Certainly it's hard to imagine. It has been years since I could recall them (Microsoft) putting out anything remotely creative or inspirational. I avidly use Yahoo's Flickr, and shudder at the idea of it being controlled by Microsoft. At least with AOL, Yahoo would hopefully retain some semblance of themselves, and still offer the much needed competition with Google and Microsoft that drives innovation.
If we are worried about the death of competition, wouldn't it bode well for the market to have three companies competing instead of just two?
matro - 16 years ago
Spoiler alert: I cannot believe that so many people think it's okay for Yahoo to merge with MS. To quote MS:
"Any definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands,"
The same idea follows with any internet dominance. AOL is the smartest choice. Let MS excel by being creative and relevant, not a money drunk bully.
Acutally, Yahoo is a horrible company.
Their sales team is a pack of money grubbing sore losers. I have had friends and business associates that used Yahoo's services (including DNS hosting). When one of them moved to another hosting provider, the contract spelled out that the DNS zones would move in two weeks, Yahoo shut them off after 4 hours, leaving his whole business in jeopardy because his servers were not accessible to his customers (potentially for two weeks).
When we called them to find out what happened, all we got was stone-walled. Thankfully, for my friend, I got him up and running in three hours using DNS zones with the same name but different TLDs a few hours later. However, it took seven hours and a slew of emails with new links to his customers got his business up and running again.
Yahoo is evil and it needs to be destroyed.
Whoever buys its needs to fire most of its management and vastly improve its customer service. Other incidences I have experienced with Yahoo have always involved exceptionally poor customer service. I would never recommend Yahoo to anyone.
As for Google, Google is too big and MS is trailing so far behind Google for the Yahoo aquisition to make too much of a difference. Yahoo and AOL also trail Google. If all three combined, despite what the last two commentators say, they would still be trailing Google.
I actually fear Google these days, more then I ever feared Microsoft.
Google is bleeding customers and revenue away from many companies, small and large, by aggregating information from their websites and news feeds. This in effect moves the customers from those wesites to Google, effectively making those sites financially unsustainable.
This is all in an effort at drawing in more "viewers" for its enormous Ad-Engine. All of Google's acquisitions are based on adding more casual viewers to its Ad-revenue.
Google is not an innovator like some people believe, its just a giant advertising singularity. One in which the advertiser with the deepest pockets can buy a great deal of influence at the top of Google's ad-engine.
If Google is such an innovator as some believe, why is the only thing they can actually sell and make a profit from is their search-related advertising engine????
Everything else they are "innovating" is designed to support the core business, advertising. They didn't innovate web-based mail... they didn't innovate Instant Messenging, they didn't even innovate Search-Engines (Yahoo did). All Google has done was to take well-known technologies, like clustering and distributed processing and use it on an enormous scale.
Hell, even professional advertisers have a major beef with Google. Read the news... (and not the filtered by Google kind, please).
Google is not the kind gentle giant some tech-heads *wish* it was.
Its leadership is *not* bent on world domination, nor was Microsoft's as some believe, but it is falling into the same slippery slope when large companies become giants and they horribly throw the eco system askew.
Let MS and News Corp buy Yahoo... perhaps they can fix Yahoo's crappy customer service and provide some credible alternative to Google's dominating influence.
I would have to agree with "matro".
Having Yahoo, a company with a vastly different culture than Microsoft, owned by Microsoft can't be good for Yahoo's creativity and growth, nor the products that they currently offer. Certainly it's hard to imagine. It has been years since I could recall them (Microsoft) putting out anything remotely creative or inspirational. I avidly use Yahoo's Flickr, and shudder at the idea of it being controlled by Microsoft. At least with AOL, Yahoo would hopefully retain some semblance of themselves, and still offer the much needed competition with Google and Microsoft that drives innovation.
If we are worried about the death of competition, wouldn't it bode well for the market to have three companies competing instead of just two?
Spoiler alert: I cannot believe that so many people think it's okay for Yahoo to merge with MS. To quote MS:
"Any definitive agreement between Yahoo and Google would consolidate over 90 percent of the search advertising market in Google's hands,"
The same idea follows with any internet dominance. AOL is the smartest choice. Let MS excel by being creative and relevant, not a money drunk bully.