Great article Bob!

Anyone know if the gPhone (either model) will have a touchscreen?

Crossing my fingers that Verizon jumps on....Papa needs a new smartphone that isn't Windows Mobile and doesn't have Verizon's sucky interface!

I think, personally, that anything Microsoft does should be evaluated as a possible attempt to do mischief of some sort. That seems to be their nature. I assume you read the findings of fact from the anti-trust trial. I don't follow these things closely, but it seems like they have always been like that, and they still are like that. The only change that can be expected of them is to be more subtle.

I don't think you can make the claim that only Yahoo!, AOL, and News Corp would lose 20% of their productivity due to the disruption of work... I'd say there's a good chance that this has affected Microsoft in the exact same way. They know they can't absorb a company as large as Yahoo! without being affected themselves. And not all of the inevitable layoffs will come from Yahoo! staff.

Mark Stephens (a.k.a. Robert X Cringely - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely) can be very full of garbage, but on this occasion, he makes a good point.
Microsoft embarrasses me as an American - a company run by greed without respect for ethical conduct. Teetering on the letter of the law obliterating its intent.
Go Linux, Go OpenOffice, Go GNU-Cash.
Microsoft - I fart in your general direction.

It seems to me that Google has to opt if it wants the "Microsoft's way" or the "Hewlett Packard's way".
In the MS's way, they develop the soft only.
In the HP's way, they develop soft and hard.

It seems to me that the MS's way is better for Google, but their support of a hardware cellphone will push out the development of others devices. So, both options are plausibles.

Bob, you give Microsoft too much credit. Putting 44 billion on the line just to shake up Yahoo! is more ballsy than even I'd give manipulative MS credit for. Plus, I'd bet this made for more of a problem in Microsoft's own MSN business than it disrupted Yahoo!

I don't work at MSN - and never would - but if I did, my employer offering up this bid would rattle my concentration. As you said last week the bid was a hell of a lot to pay for a name, so they must want the technology - or at least the employees. Microsoft sent a clear message to MSN, "Yahoo! offers us more value than you do." I'd say it's the MSN guys who are wasting more time at the water cooler, leaving MS more disrupted than Yahoo, AOL or News Corp.

Poaching Yahoo? What COMPETENT programmer would want to work for MSFT? Even if you personally did good work, you know the final shrink-wrapped product would suck.

I love how companies try to buy themselves out of failed management. Neither Yahoo or Microsoft can catch Google's development because they are both failing in strategic vision and failing to find, direct and motivate the kind of technology talent they need.

How can two companies with failed management join up and end up with a synergistic outcome? Not happening. What this merger would guarantee is that Yahoo talent will leave in droves. MS teams would dominate rather than the "best of both worlds" and there would be more market share for Google as the disruption, loss of staff, loss of what little focus there is and the affect of "more meetings and more meetings" hamstrings the resulting property.

Louis,
Google is only selling software. Android is built on embedded Linux. The hardware can be ODM or OEM from any number of Taiwan or China phone manufacturers. The hard part is choosing among the suitors.
Google is selling their name. That is all. It is a familiar name that will be recognizable on the front of the phone. They get some $$ from the hardware/carrier, but not much. The real money for them is having a platform to deliver advertising.
The iPhone is a smash hit, no doubt. Google is not competing with Apple for phone sales. Google needs an open platform. Trading on their good name to get one is smart.
Doing the iPhone was brilliant and the product is "insanely great", but it was definitely the hard road to take. Even with the iPhone, Apple has little control of the content you browse. Google will.
Remember, don't be evil!

>What COMPETENT programmer would want to work for MSFT?

A huge salary and insanely good benefits will turn a lot of heads. Not mine. But a lot of people wouldn't have a problem. If you can stomach evil, manipulative management and don't mind never accomplishing anything, there are plenty of lucrative jobs out there in big companies. All it costs is your soul.

I had been wondering the same thing about he whole MS/Yahoo thing .. but if it is a bluff who'd be laughing if Yahoo ends up selling? :)

Bob, your column was late this week. Were you waiting to see if any new news arrived before clicking submit?

Bob, your column was late this week. Were you waiting to see if any new news arrived before clicking submit?

What! Do you mean that I can now use "X." for my middle name!

I am likely the only person in my family that was never given a middle name. Now that I know the secret truth about X; I won't feel guilty stealing it..../ I was going to use "G" (for Great).

Yahoo has style, passion and willingness to try new things. They may be slow and are still having an identity crisis with their video portal 9 years after buying broadcast.com but they know the web.

Microsoft knows markets and knows the web is the future, but MSN just isn't cutting it.

If MS is shopping for talent they may find few people willing to leave the excitement of silicon valley entrepreneurship for a monolithic corporate drone.

The iPhone is a revolutionary device because it was built with design as the primary component. Google is a master of technology but not design - it is extremely unlikely the gphone will match the iphone.

This article is junk just like the last one.

1 more bad week Cringely and I might have to start thinking up this stuff on my own.

Disclosure (I work for Microsoft)

Robert, I don't buy the principal thesis you put forth here. Microsoft does not need to buy Yahoo to figure out who to hire--nor does any company these days, at least in the technology sector. Anybody that's been around the Valley and knows how to use Facebook and LinkedIn can use their own criteria to quickly establish a short list.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one here. Perhaps Microsoft wants to see the good deeds and image of Yahoo to continue to survive and be relevant, just as it wants its own businesses to do so. Perhaps the best way for that to happen for both Microsoft and Yahoo! (maybe not the only way, but one of the better ways) is for this aquistion to happen.

Is it that difficult to admit that Microsoft is lost, stuck in an ancient world ? And more that that, those guys - and Balmer (even if he always seems angry) at first - are afraid.
I can't see this otherwise than as a BIG BIG mistake ! And btw, I can't stop thinking that Bill Gates was secretly jealous of Steve Jobs and wants his own big come back as well. But the mistake of Balmer is to HUGE. Spend all that money for nothing (strategically thinking) ! They need that money to build a new company that will eat what they have and become the new number one. But for that you don't need to be afraid, you need the willing and the vision of a new world.

A gPhone!?! That's music to my ears. The iphone may be beautiful, but to anyone who doesn't have Cinderella hands, it's just too small to hold. That's one thing against the iphone and the second and third are it's exclusive contract with at&t and the lack of a physical keyboard, respectively. I can type faster using a wii-mote + sofware keys versus using just software keys, because having a mechanism between me and the interface allows for a learning curve and an increase in typing speed. A stand-alone software keypad leaves me at the mercy of how the MAC OSx interprets my pokes.

At&t may have a large user base that has bought into iPhones, but their lack luster customer support (as At&t or cingular) would make anyone think twice before changing networks for a pretty phone.

A gPhone!?! That's music to my ears. The iphone may be beautiful, but to anyone who doesn't have Cinderella hands, it's just too small to hold. That's one thing against the iphone and the second and third are it's exclusive contract with at&t and the lack of a physical keyboard, respectively. I can type faster using a wii-mote + sofware keys versus using just software keys, because having a mechanism between me and the interface allows for a learning curve and an increase in typing speed. A stand-alone software keypad leaves me at the mercy of how the MAC OSx interprets my pokes.

At&t may have a large user base that has bought into iPhones, but their lack luster customer support (as At&t or cingular) would make anyone think twice before changing networks for a pretty phone.

Doubt those smart guys at Google would have any interest in partnering with Verizon NOW given the continued decline of the CDMA wireless standard/market. Any VzW gPhones produced now would be obsoleted when Verizon switches over to GSM/WCDMA for LTE - see link. Presumably, that's also why Google is already talking with AT&T & T-Mobile.

Doubt those smart guys at Google would have any interest in partnering with Verizon NOW given the continued decline of the CDMA wireless standard/market. Any VzW gPhones produced now would be obsoleted when Verizon switches over to GSM/WCDMA for LTE - see link. Presumably, that's also why Google is already talking with AT&T & T-Mobile.

This time with the link:
http://news.vzw.com/news/2007/11/pr2007-11-29.html

Where is the open OS for my car or an equivalent strategy? It is outrageous that no one has ponied up for this yet. No exclusive deals, no open source platforms that can be installed via third party. It just doesn't make sense. Bob, when can I expect my cell phone to integrate with my car like an interactive tabletop pc? All of these technologies are readily available, no feats of science are required and although the general economy isn't screaming for it, this feels like it's right around the corner. Clearly I'm not the first to think of this subject, I got my ideas from outsiders, but this is a topic that is just not covered.
As my chemistry teacher said in class last week, we don't need soda but via all the advertising the companies have utilized millions of gallons of an unhealthy drink are being used worldwide. Similar to that extent, but something extremely more vital to businessmen, limos, celebrities, the rich and eventually anyone driving a car, this should appeal to. It's frustrating to think that our cars are beginning to park themselves, yet we don't have an interactive console. This should have been a successful investment for someone a year ago let alone today or tomorrow.

The deal is probably off, if you go for unattributed rumors from 3rd tier gophers who work at Pacific Northwest Investment Banks (Randy, I'm calling you out).

http://bizcast.typepad.com/clients/2008/02/newscorp-yahoo.html

Bob -- it seems strange that you spend half the column talking about how bad Yahoo is and the other half speculating that Microsoft is trying to poach its employees. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you give the impression that Yahoo is a company that all the good people have already left. Surely there's a disconnect there?

I have to think diddling with Yahoos head to this extent would be a large task with insufficiently defined goals to accomplish anything. While they may want to poach a few employees if they are trying to build it themselves they should have been further along already. Thus I have to conclude they indeed do want YAHOO. This is just a little too high profile also. Its one thing to diddle some 1 billion market cap company. But this one is front page material and CNBC goes on ENDLESSLY about it.

"So conventional wisdom says Google won't sell a gPhone, preferring instead to see the world repopulated with Android phones, instead."

I never can figure out where to put the word "instead" either. I see you've split the difference -- instead.

Before anything, note that I work for Yahoo!, but at the engineering level. I have no insights into the executive decisions.

From overheard conversations to mailing-list postings, the general consensus among the talented (and mediocre) engineers is, “Over my dead body.” People are stating that nothing short of a seven-figure bonus would keep them at Yahoo! should the deal go through, and those exceptional engineers that have stayed out of loyalty are now distributing resumes across the Valley.

A lot — as in a sizable majority — of the engineers work here because of Yahoo!'s active commitment to open technologies; the widespread belief is that Microsoft will not allow such projects to continue.

The prevailing opinion is that Microsoft is where the dregs of engineering end up. When (or if) Microsoft completes its takeover of Yahoo!, the only thing left will be the brand and those engineers unskillful enough to find a better job. Both will suffer rapid attrition.

Bob you've nailed it! I knew those bastards in Redmond were up to no good. This makes perfect sense. MSFT is not stupid but they are as evil as any robber barron that came before. I can totally imagine this scenario playing out. Re gPhone, what the hell happened to the C block auction? Did GOOG drop out? I was looking forward to the day that I tell AT&T Wireless to kiss my freakin arse! Your amigo, Esteban!

Assume you are correct. Is the optimal strategy to bid a high premium?

Last week you were saying Microsoft wants a culture change to shed its old image of playing hardball in the marketplace. Now you're saying they're up to their old tricks.

Can't have it both ways.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head on the Microsoft/Yahoo business. It would surprise me one bit that MSFT is messing with Yahoo collective minds.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head on the Microsoft/Yahoo business. It would surprise me one bit that MSFT is messing with Yahoo's collective minds.

"Microsoft doesn't sell PCs, you may notice, because to do so would step on the toes of their hardware OEMs."

But the relationship of Google to cellphone oems is completely different. It isn't even selling them software.

If there is a gPhone, it won't be because Google has decided to make money selling hardware. Instead its purpose will be to goose the whole cellphone industry into producing phones that can make better use of Google's various online services.

Bob,

You are underestimating the level of hate and mistrust Yahoo engineers have on Microsoft. Check out http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/yahoos-wont-work-for-microsoft

I don't think history can show the way here

Messing with the competition's employees is an old story.

I had an experience years ago where a competitor to my employer flew me in for an interview, but what they really wanted was to find a particular employee who had left my company a few weeks before. They thought I would know where he went!

I was lucky they didn't want me. They folded less than a year later and I continued with my employer for 25 more years.

Nice poll. First time I've skipped it as there is no negative. You either own it or will own it.

Well, it gave me a laught

I see that my comment from last week fits right in with this week's column.

"Let's see, Microsoft makes it look like they want to buy Yahoo, causing Yahoo's best employees to start looking for jobs elsewhere, but offers less per share than they know the board (who will be looking for big exit money) will be willing to accept unless forced. Microsoft gets to hurt them for free, and maybe even fake Google into an unneccessarily expensive purchase.

unitron | Feb 10, 2008 | 7:53PM"

Didn't have to change a thing.

Perhaps. But what if what MS really wants is to put an end to Google?

Any doubt thats what they want? Not here.

Can they pull it off? Doubt it. But this may be an attempt. Can Google ignore it. Not if they are smart... and they ARE smart.

MS wants to embrace and extend. So far, with Google it hasnt worked. If anyone is doing the embrace and extend, its Google. The combination of the Google apps (mostly free) and Open Office and Apple or Linux means, suddenly who really needs MS? Certainly not me.

And MS knows that. So MS has to stop it or they are doomed. MS knows that. Google knows that. So its serious stuff. Could it be a fake out? Sure... thats the fall back MS will take if they fail... they will win by having Yahoo and Google expend resources.

But if google continues to embrace and extend MS... especially if say, they get a decent data base (MySQL? Perhaps make a deal with Sun?) and some business apps... MS is doomed.

So I think this is the real deal.

Wouldn't it be great if it were that easy. Take that Intuit deal. We spent $45 mil and all we got was a bunch of crappy engineers. It would have been cheaper to give them a mil a piece and been done with it. Instead the deal not only didn't go through but we lost a bundle on that crappy MS Money which they produced. We haven't had such a loser since Bob. Sorry honey but it's the truth.

Keep trying Bob. I hear Kennedy conspiracies are making a comeback.

-love bill

I think you're giving Microsoft more intelligence than it has.

Face it, Steve Ballmer has no idea about anything except how to throw chairs.

Hope you're right that Microsoft is not serious; I would hate to see them turn into a dull company like GE. Mind you, if Yahoo is staggering, why don't they call Microsoft's bluff and accept their very generous offer? For that matter, if this really is a classic Microsoft bluff strategy for wooing employees from other companies, why did they not make an offer (bluff) on Google? :-)

Sounds like something Microsoft would do but it's dumb as hell. Why does Microsoft have so much time to waste on things like this? How many people do you need to write some software anyway? Microsoft hardly ever comes up with new products and when they do they're initially crappy and only get better when people tell them what to change. Fact is they haven't accomplished one thing in the last ten years worth a damn. How many programmers did they hire in India and China during that period? What the heck are they doing? The best thing for Microsoft to do would be basically for the whole vested generation to leave and before they cash out dispurse all their cash through a dividend. They would be left with a smaller company made of younger people hungry for ass like Bill and Steve used to be.

This is ludicrous - companies don't make $44bn bids to poach people! Makes for an interesting column but one of the silliest ideas I have seen in Cringely for some time.

Er, sorry but "problematical" is not a word. Or were you being "ironical"?

" "problematical" is not a word."

Yes it is, look it up.

-jcr

Gee Bob, you didn't mention the incestuous relationship between the Apple and Google boards (well, third cousin, twice removed relationship). Google software technology is the driver for their entire business and we've yet to see any hardware product (even Amazon has made some attempt). Why would they start with the most difficult and competitive device type out there? They might need a demonstration or concept device, but what is the point of building a consumer device that undermines your Android partners? Unlike Apple (or Nokia), Google does not have the design or hardware expertise. Unless Steve Jobs is setting up Sergei Brin for a fall, something is missing.

It *might* make sense to partner with OLPC for a phone for the developing world, but I'd prefer they just offered educational aid.

BTW, you are well overdue in talking about 23 and Me. Now there is a new business that is about to catch fire. It'll be as big as the diet industry.

If Yahoo were a windows company, then your thesis might be correct.

However, Yahoo is an open-source (php, mysql, linux, bsd) company. Yahoo is windows technologies all the way.

How can they hope to effectively poach programmers? What kind of inside information might be interesting to them that they done have that already relates to systems?

Microsoft's sites aren't slow and plodding.

Me? I'm an open source programmer. The Dot Net framework to me is a piece of alien technology. If i'm gonna learn another technology soon, it will be open-source. I'd bet my farm that that is the thinking behind your typical Yahoo programmer as well.

It's amazing how much techies drool over the prospect of a gPhone and dismiss the iPhone, when Google has barely a fraction of the credibility to produce a good phone than Apple did when they developed the iPhone. Remember this quote from Palm's CEO Ed Colligan: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in." Well, Apple already had the hardware and software expertise in making (the leading) highly functional portable devices. All they needed to learn about was GSM/EDGE. Google has none of that. They may partner with Samsung or HTC, who have hardware expertise, but they're generations behind when it comes to software integration.

for those who keep saying google doesn't have the expertise to build a phone - the founder of Danger.com now works for them - if that's not expertise, what is?

I won't buy a gphone or an iphone. I am one of the minority that only wants a phone when buying a phone.

1.)First, the commenter known as V-O-R strikes me as a craven hypocritical brat. If you are such a big fan of openness by "outing" "Cringely" on Wikipedia and supporting open source and free software platforms and whining about Microsoft, why don't you sign your actual name? Because you are a punk coward. I sign my name, I don't hide behind a handle, I accept praise and criticism and own up to errors and fallibility (and when my sources burn me, I accept the responsibility for passing on their info without verifying or double-checking).
2.)I enjoyed this week's column, yet, I'm still in the camp that believes Microsoft really does want to buy Yahoo, all of Yahoo. This isn't a talent or product search, this is an out an out takeover, and it's being masterminded by Microsoft's CFO, Chris Liddell. Somehow, Liddell's come up with a set of numbers and a believable plan that Ballmer approved to acquire and digest, er, merge Yahoo!. It's gonna' be ugly, but it's going to happen, unless a judge or Justice Dept atty. blocks the deal or a really insane CEO from Texas thinks they can outbid Microsoft and prolongs the process.
3.)The Google branded mobile phone is at this time pipe smoke. The main agenda is distributing Android platform to the point it is ubiquitous. How it succeeds depends on the hardware makers and competing wireless phone services acceptance. Linux logically should have supplanted Windows a long time ago, but it is still barely making inroads on the desktop. Google is not hardware, or software in a box but services on the web. The goal is not to bury Windows, OS X, Palm OS and other competing Linux platforms but make them irrelevant. Android is an interesting sideshow at best, at least for now.

The gPhone sounds like a placeholder, just like Microsoft's Zune player. Google is just dipping their toe in new waters; it would be unwise to dive right in...

Google is not THAT stupid to manufacture a phone! Google is a web/internet SOFTWARE company. It wants its Android operating system to be deployed by Nokia, Samsung, LG etc. on THEIR name brand phones.

The gPhone is no more than a DEMONSTRATION sample to show the networks and phone manufacturers how the Android software would actually work. By letting the phone manufacturers believe that Google MAY come out with its own phone, Google puts pressure on the manufacturers to adopt Android. Hence, Google lets the rumor continue because it benefits Google.

This is the same reason why Microsoft does not make its own computer. If Microsoft came out with its own computer, there would be a SWIFT, MASS migration away from the Windows OS toward Linux and its derivatives, therefore Microsoft won't destroy its steady, reliable OS income stream.

And, the self-manufactured Microsoft Zune, does NOT apply in this case. Microsoft received very LITTLE revenue from portable media players. It risked very little loss of revenue by coming out with its own brand portable media player. Even so, Google must see that Microsoft gained very little revenue with the Zune, spent a great deal of money to bring that product to the end users, upset the companies that were using Microsoft's portable media software, and has a long, hard road to travel in that market.

This is the same reason why Microsoft does not make its own computer. If Microsoft came out with its own computer, there would be a SWIFT, MASS migration away from the Windows OS toward Linux and its derivatives, therefore Microsoft won't destroy its steady, reliable OS income stream.
Oh Blah Dee Blah Dah

Actually, Microsoft DOES have a computer on the market that has sold in the millions, though at this time it is masquerading as a game machine - the XBOX will hopefully be the Media Center that will include the Zune and other hardware and software services. One software update, add a keyboard or Logitech remote and BOOM!, Sony, Apple, Dell, Nintendo, etc., would feel very uneasy tremors. Somehow getting all its Live services, Music Store, etc., in a row to work with XBOX is either not a priority, or something the company has decided to abandon for now.

Apple, as we all know, is trying to get in such a position with Apple TV (Take Two), hoping that the idea of downloading rentals and a stand alone unit without a PC/Mac hookup, will make it more enticing for consumers. I don't see it happening yet. If Apple had a media center that masqueraded as a great game machine with bitchin' titles, then it would get that penetration. Yet, for whatever reason, Jobs is NOT interested, YET, in getting into the high stakes multi-billion dollar gaming industry. Perhaps he thinks it's not in Apple's best interest, he may find gaming beneath Apple OR he has something going on in lab that's not ready yet (MERELY SPECULATION, NOBODY TOLD ME ANYTHING ABOUT NOTHING!). I think Apple TV, Tale Two is going to be another bust. But, if you added joysticks, Apple Airport, wireless devices, a pumped up graphics card, software upgrade and game offerings that'd blow peoples' minds, it'd move faster than iPhones and iPods and iAnything combined.

If you were a Yahoo! employee, would you rather defect to Microsoft, to Google or the next web upstart (considering similar pay and conditions)? Just wondering.

First, the M$/Yahoo deal is distracting Microsoft too. Just check out Mini-Microsoft and you'll see by how much.



Per Google developing a gPhone. Yep, they'll do it. And for those of you that think Google is just a software company - think again. They already sell some hardware - search appliances, primarily for businesses to be able to search their internal systems using Google's algorithms - and, last I was aware, they used Dell to manufacturer those.



Needless to say - Google will do what's best for Google, and that means creating an open platform. They'll only be able to get the US Carriers to follow if they produce something themselves towards an open platform. Android will only be seen as significant if they back up it up with real hardware that they make - otherwise everyone will look at it as just a reference, and pass on it. So they need to force the carriers to follow - so you will see a gPhone.



And, for the record, I do not have any inside information on any of the above.

If I had a dollar for every time Cringely predicted a hardware or software coup from Google, I could buy myself a nice steak dinner. This phone stuff is really hard work, and there are only a few companies in the world capable of pulling it off successfully. Google is not one of them.

Microsoft going after Yahoo! has no rational explanation other than Steve Ballmer and Ray Ozzie are clueless.

Google is DEFINITELY capable of pulling this off (disagreeing with Jonny, above).

Google isn't some "mastermind" trying to dominate mobile hardware and software on their own. Instead, they are using their customer-centric approach to put themselves in the center of the mobile universe. The Open Handset Alliance has dozens of members, all working to make Google's Dream come true.

I don't think you will see a "gPhone" per se. I thought this thought process had been abolished long ago? Wouldn't that create some tension between various hardware manufacturers in the OHA? I think Google will work closely with as many manufacturers that want to on creating hundreds of "gPhones" as they suggested with their YouTube video announcement of Android.

Check out http://www.phandroid.com for more information on Android.

What about the Google/Apple board connection. If Google does a branded phone, what's to keep them from using the manufacturing backchannel of Apple for production and ride the coat-tails of Apples agreement with ATT? It gives them plausible deniability for anti-trust, Apple sets the standard on hardware, and ATT finally becomes a real threat to Verizon wireless.

Seems to me a gPhone will not go against android phones, and in fact may assist them with brining more market share this direction. I am a bit disappointed with the Samsung decision for manufacture since of all the phones I have used over the years theirs had the lowest reception and overall quality. On the other hand, their interface was easier to learn and use making it a tough choice when it came time to upgrade. With Android it seems reasonable to assume the interface will be 'tunable' to work the way you want it to. How does this compare with the skype phones gaining traction? And will the iPhone ever have voip on it?

How did this article go from a Microsoft/Yahoo discussion on corrupt recruiting to a Google gphone discussion?

Dear Cringely:

Well, looks like you've stirred up the hornet's nest, once again! Cherry-picking talent is nothing new, and a business model based on at will employment encourages companies to fight for the finite resources of exceptionally talented programmers or techies. I'm glad to be out of the business of IT support these days, and in the business of writing about it from the sidelines. I'm excited to see what Google has in store next, as almost everything it has touched turns to gold. I am, however, also aware that the company is finally "maturing" and its very own talented minions are being lured away by other startups, for a change.

check this out

Microsoft + Yahoo! =/= Google-buster or #1 in anything.

Think 1986 when Numbers 2 & 3 in the IT industry combined:
Burroughs + Sperry => Unisys

Supposedly they would crush IBM (then #1), even if they gained no synergies. Instead, they bombed.

Share price peaked after 18 months and is not yet back to pre-merger levels.
They did $5.5Bn turnover in 2007, versus IBM's $148Bn.
Alive, but irrelevant.

The merger failed, spectacularly - because of management failure and a smug but toxic corporate culture...

Unisys was as well placed as IBM to ride the PC & mid-frame revolution - and the later Internet & Services.

Bob explores an interesting conjecture: What if there was a sane reason for the bid?

MSFT management hasn't distinguished itself in the last 10-15 years - so why would now be any different?

I can't see any sane reason for the bid: Ballmer and Co know the map of the future doesn't include their 90+% Gross Margins and probably falling sales of PC's (vs appliances or games machines).

MSFT management have been franticly spending increasing amounts of money looking for Brave New Frontiers they can dominate and 'own'.

If they don't get YHOO, they'll look for another Big FixIt.
To me, there is an increasing sense of desperation in their moves...