Yahoo + Microsoft still not good enough match for Google

VenturBeat redirected me to Jason Calacanis's blog and I totally agree with his comments.

Yahoo was once the No. 1 search site on the Internet, but no one remembers now. That’s because the company farmed out its search engine, the core of its brand and largest source of its traffic, to upstart Google. Yahoo’s increasingly cluttered home page shooed Web users away to the faster, cleaner Google interface which delivered the same search results more quickly and effectively. 

In 2009, Yahoo didn’t need to make the same mistake again with Microsoft. In fact, it’s Microsoft that needs to grow the audience for its expensive Bing search engine. Instead of outsourcing, Yahoo should have done what Microsoft did: Acquire a bunch of core technologies and build a Google rival. But no, Yahoo took their eyes off the prize by ceasing to innovate and trying to bizdev their way to success. That’s why the founders of Flicker and del.icio.us, prize Yahoo acquisitions of innovative Web 2.0 sites, have left the company, as did chief scientist of search Marc Davis last week. Microsoft, meanwhile, invested in building the search engine Yahoo should have developed. 

Carol Bartz is a competent dealmaker and operator, but not a product genius like the Google kids. Without innovation, Yahoo will now die on the vine. The End.

This deal may be good for Microsoft and will cause big problem for yahoo in long run. Don't know how much people remember from 2000-2004 Yahoo search was powered by Google then Yahoo built its own search technology but people moved out with Google. same will happen if Microsoft search is good enough. if not people will move to Google. Eitherways Yahoo is the loser.

And Microsoft has no focus no strategy and keep following the new popular kid in town. It was AOL, Yahoo, and now its google. with big cash from windows + office business they are tring to do everything and anything but nothing good. and I feel best of Microsoft is behind them.

Yahoo... oho.. out of the game ??

Yahoo "blew it", claims Wired in a lengthy expose. Company bounced back in the past five years, only to drop even deeper as it fell behind Google, the story alleges. It's hard to argue with the raw data. Google's revenues have taken a decisive lead over Yahoo's.

Yahoo made two monumental mistakes: it failed to acquire Google in 2003 instead they allegedly brushed off the $5bn asking price, bidding a measly $3bn and it never properly integrated the 2002 Inktomi acquisition, a provider of pay-per-click advertising. The Inktomi deal is scheduled to be wrapped into the Yahoo business later this year, which is an embarrassment by all standards. The Inktomi dilemma is important, because Google has shown that good technology allows you marry the right advertiser with the right consumer/user.

But Yahoo also is betting on content much more than Google is. The firm is trying to be a destination rather than an information broker. Creating content is far more expensive than pointing people towards it.

Fact is: do a search on Google for anything. Anything at all. Then do the same search on Yahoo. One guess as to who comes up with more relevant data. One clue. It's not Google. Come to think of it, Ask.com also has a better search than Google, and I know it's not politically cool to say this on one of these sites, but so do MSN and AOL.

But Yahoo is falling behind, and if it allows this to continue, it risks becoming an acquisition target and Google is laughing all the way to the bank.