Yahoo's Big Miss Further Demonstrates That Competing Requires More Than Just Copying
from the sounds-familiar dept
Yesterday, we wrote about how, despite Microsoft's technology advances (in some cases better than Google), it hasn't been able to keep up with Google in terms of market share. The same story could be said for Yahoo as well. In fact, Wired News is running an entire article on how Yahoo "blew" their opportunity. After deciding not to buy Google in 2002 for $5 billion (they felt the price was way too high), the company proceeded to buy Inktomi and then the key piece of their strategy, Overture. The idea was to recreate what Google had done internally. It wasn't hard to figure out what Google had done, but despite the supposed simplicity of "copying," Yahoo discovered that it's not so easy to just make your own Google. They ran into all sorts of strategic problems as they moved forward. Again, the technology part wasn't the real issue. Copying what Google has done is possible -- but doing so in a way that actually beats Google in the market is a totally different problem, and it's not one you solve by simply copying the leader.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yahoo is not really a copy of Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kipling had it right long ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turn it around and it argues for copying as road t
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: turn it around and it argues for copying as ro
A few things. First, despite what the article says, Google did not "copy" Overture. It took a very different approach. At the time Google launched, Overture's approach was extremely different. So it's hard to say they "copied" them.
If anything, what they did was invent a better solution -- one that Overture *should* have done from the beginning.
The fact that it was much better is what won them the market, not the copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Road to Riches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo sued Google for infringing Overture's patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Yahoo had picture sharing but you had to pay extra to share anything more than 640x480. They only had mediocre file sharing. Google is working on GDrive and even allows you to share Word and Excel documents in real time.
- Yahoo had great mail service (that I was willing to pay for) but I had to constantly login (whereas Google doesn't constantly ask me for my password when I tell it to remember it). Now Google has more storage space for its non-paying customers than Yahoo has for its paying customers.
- They had my domain but charged a fortune for DIY web hosting.
- Their search page takes forever to load compared to Google
- They are missing newsgroup searching
Honestly.. Yahoo has ALOT of potential but it will never succeed until someone gets behind the helm and gets that company moving. Too bad i'm not a CEO. I could really do amazing things with that organization if given the chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo!'s death
By the time the young people of today, who used yahoo! when we were kids, are in thier thirties/forties, we will most likely be using it as the example of a failed company, which waas good, but never quite innovative or lucky enough to stay ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo on it's way out like Excite
(sung by the yahoo yodeler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does copying mean if not this?
I think this argument is silly. We're talking about huge corporations with similar markets and who's making more money. And you're trying to compare this to something like copying an iPod?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Yahoo Microsoft AltaVista Excite
But, even more dramatic is about 4 to 5 years earlier, Google was attempting to sell their technology to AltaVista and Excite for One Milliion dollars and no one accepted
And in 2003, Microsoft attempted to buy Google, or form a partnership, but was refused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does copying mean if not this?
Ummm, no.. Try WebCrawler which was eventually purchased by AOL.
"Yahoo had e-mail"
While Hotmail may not have been the first.. it was certaily around before Yahoo had email..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, not first but well before Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forget this thread!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]