|
Posted by Big Bill on February 11, 2008, 7:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:06:59 -0800, Tom Impelluso
>
>OK... I can buy that: simplicity.
>
>Now, make I make an argument
>(note to Andrew: I am playing devil's advocate here
>in an attempt to unearth things myself. I am not
>out to destroy you or your relationships with Google.
>And you already plonked me so you should not be
>reading this).
>
>I would agree because google does return things,
>simply.
>
>But, why is Microsoft willing to pay 40Billion
>to buy yahoo.com when they can just as well write
>a search engine themselves.
>
>I mean, it is not like these algorithms are as
>protected as Ze Zecret Formulas of ze cold war,
>right?
>
>Other than being an advertising firm (there are many
>now).
>and
>other than having written one of the first
>more lucid search engines (they deserve credit,
>but in the end, software is software)
>
>and
>other than having a data base of ready to roll sites...
>(and sites change)
>
>I still cannot fathom why a software firm like Yahoo
>is worth 40Bil, other than simply because people
>THINK it is worth 40Bil.
Well, there's your answer. Money's value is relative. A UKP will get
you what someone thinks it's worth.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/ http://www.fat-odin.com/ http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
|