 |
 Microsoft Approaches Facebook For Buyout, Maybe Window Shopping?
As Microsoft's Yahoo deal falls flat, The Wall Street Journal reports that the software giant reportedly is sending signals to Facebook for a possible acquisition.
Microsoft is at it again. The barrel hasn't gone cold and Microsoft has sent out feelers to Facebook for a possible acquisition.
If its last reported 'war chest' of $47.5 billion for the failed takeover of Yahoo is lying unspent, its has lots to spare for Facebook, valued at $15 billion. But that valuation was last reported in October of last year. Microsoft had taken a stake of $240 million in Facebook. That's a 1.6 per cent stake. That time, it was an attempt to solidify an advertising deal between the two companies and block the growing challenge from Google.
Google still remains Microsoft's bête noire but now few months down the line Facebook could be worth a trifle more as its popularity has soared. It is now one of the hottest properties on the Internet with a user base population of 70 million. Mark Zuckerberg has always been disinterested in selling the company instead preferring IPO's.
The talks were first reported by Web site All Things Digital, owned by Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones. Facebook and Microsoft have both declined to comment.
It seems that the battle to rival Google is not going to be over till the fat lady sings.
-
Great breaking news. Time to start a group in Facebook, "Say No to Microsoft" :) There is one already here. -
We will surely know Mark Zuckerberg's interest if he shuts down the group :-)
-
While I can picture the revolt at Facebook if Microsoft buys it out, Facebook members shouldn't be surprised. Buying a 1.4% stake was a sign of Microsoft dipping its toe into these waters, and it only makes sense that Microsoft would want to go the whole nine yards if the Yahoo deals didn't pan out.
-
Microsoft has billions of dollars burning a hole in it's giant pocket and it's itching to spend.
I hear critics saying already: Why not invest in building an OS that works instead of a social network?
-
@ Chris Hogg
Microsoft has billions of dollars burning a hole in it's giant pocket and it's itching to spend.
I hear critics saying already: Why not invest in building an OS that works instead of a social network? I would be one of those! Operating systems that work are not that hard to write. All one needs is a few programmers that actually know what programming is. -
@ Chris Hogg
Microsoft has billions of dollars burning a hole in it's giant pocket and it's itching to spend.
I hear critics saying already: Why not invest in building an OS that works instead of a social network?
Because with the state of Vista as it is, an OS would have to be built from the ground up. Facebook on the other hand is now ripe for the picking! :-) -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
I would be one of those! Operating systems that work are not that hard to write. All one needs is a few programmers that actually know what programming is.
Does Microsoft have any of those? Apple has them for sure... -
@ David Silverberg
While I can picture the revolt at Facebook if Microsoft buys it out, Facebook members shouldn't be surprised. Buying a 1.4% stake was a sign of Microsoft dipping its toe into these waters, and it only makes sense that Microsoft would want to go the whole nine yards if the Yahoo deals didn't pan out.
Some reports say that AOL is also in its sights. What is sure is that Microsoft cannot maintain the status quo with Google. It has to expand and the surefire quick way is only through big ticket expansions. And after Yahoo, I think the probable contenders are AOL and Facebook.
P.S: I bet Bill Gates is kicking himself for underestimating the internet. What goes around comes around, IBM underestimated the desktop and Bill Gates did the same for the net. -
@ Maverick
Does Microsoft have any of those? Apple has them for sure... Maybe that's why. I am very much in favour of a back-to-the-source approach. It just doesn't make sense to build a faulty operating system with a faulty language on top of a faulty language on top of faulty language by people who don't know what binary means. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Maybe that's why. I am very much in favour of a back-to-the-source approach. It just doesn't make sense to build a faulty operating system with a faulty language on top of a faulty language on top of faulty language by people who don't know what binary means. With the excess money Microsoft has, at least it can try to develop a clean and simple system or it should provide a huge discount for the customers. It doesn't do neither but keeps charging ridiculous. They have thousands of programmers worldwide for Windows OS, yet they can't make a good one. -
@ cgull
With the excess money Microsoft has, at least it can try to develop a clean and simple system or it should provide a huge discount for the customers. It doesn't do neither but keeps charging ridiculous. They have thousands of programmers worldwide for Windows OS, yet they can't make a good one. I think that is their problem. They don't have programmers at all. They have tons of "Software Solution Network System Developer Architect Builder Expert Engineers", who are all not much more than sales people with some minor programming knowledge, but they don't have any real programmers. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
I think that is their problem. They don't have programmers at all. They have tons of "Software Solution Network System Developer Architect Builder Expert Engineers", who are all not much more than sales people with some minor programming knowledge, but they don't have any real programmers.
If one goes back to the history of Microsoft even its landmark DOS was purchased from Seattle Computer Products and 'marketed' by Microsoft. The Windows OS was 'inspired' from Apple, and now currently Vista too. Agreed Windows has lots of bells and whistles but still it leaves a lot to be desired. Microsoft succeeded only because of aggressive marketing which caught the competition napping. If independent programmers can launch Linux and make a moderate success out of it, I wonder why Microsoft cannot bring out a universally liked OS? -
@ Maverick
If one goes back to the history of Microsoft even its landmark DOS was purchased from Seattle Computer Products and 'marketed' by Microsoft. The Windows OS was 'inspired' from Apple, and now currently Vista too. Agreed Windows has lots of bells and whistles but still it leaves a lot to be desired. Microsoft succeeded only because of aggressive marketing which caught the competition napping. If independent programmers can launch Linux and make a moderate success out of it, I wonder why Microsoft cannot bring out a universally liked OS? Actually, the Amiga played a tremendously important role in the launch of Windows, because it was feared at the time that the Amiga would take over the PC universe. Needless to say, that's not how it worked out. The machine was so far ahead that only very few people could see how revolutionary this thing really was.
That said, Linux is made by amateurs, who have no other agenda than have fun, and prove themselves, two things that are not particularly compatible with the corporate world. So, it is not entirely surprising that they get results that are more efficient, better and more reliable than MS. On the other hand, it is also not a surprise that updating Linux, finding new drivers etc. would be completely beyond the capacity of most computer users, precisely because of the amateurish way in which it is created (which doesn't mean that Windows doesn't make one jump through the Window, but at least, it "looks" streamlined, ehh... usually. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Actually, the Amiga played a tremendously important role in the launch of Windows, because it was feared at the time that the Amiga would take over the PC universe. Needless to say, that's not how it worked out. The machine was so far ahead that only very few people could see how revolutionary this thing really was.
That said, Linux is made by amateurs, who have no other agenda than have fun, and prove themselves, two things that are not particularly compatible with the corporate world. So, it is not entirely surprising that they get results that are more efficient, better and more reliable than MS. On the other hand, it is also not a surprise that updating Linux, finding new drivers etc. would be completely beyond the capacity of most computer users, precisely because of the amateurish way in which it is created (which doesn't mean that Windows doesn't make one jump through the Window, but at least, it "looks" streamlined, ehh... usually.
Microsoft succeeded where Amiga failed, either in marketing or just plain bad luck. (I think, the company had gone bankrupt.)
Most of our complaints probably stem from our recent experiences with Vista. For me, I use both Windows2000 server and Windows XP. They are good though not perfect, but they are far better than the hungry Vista. Lets see what Windows 7 brings. -
@ Maverick
Microsoft succeeded where Amiga failed, either in marketing or just plain bad luck. (I think, the company had gone bankrupt.)
Most of our complaints probably stem from our recent experiences with Vista. For me, I use both Windows2000 server and Windows XP. They are good though not perfect, but they are far better than the hungry Vista. Lets see what Windows 7 brings. You are right. The company when bankrupt, due to the ridiculous megalomenia of its management. Some of its elements were used in IBM's OS/2, but that wasn't a success either.
A pity, for I have spent years of my life programming for the Amiga, with a great deal of firsts, that just went down the drain.
I use Windows XP myself. I find it ridiculously inefficient, but at least it works, most of the time. That cannot be said from any of MS's other OS's.
Indeed. Let's see what the next incarnation brings. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
You are right. The company when bankrupt, due to the ridiculous megalomenia of its management. Some of its elements were used in IBM's OS/2, but that wasn't a success either.
A pity, for I have spent years of my life programming for the Amiga, with a great deal of firsts, that just went down the drain.
I use Windows XP myself. I find it ridiculously inefficient, but at least it works, most of the time. That cannot be said from any of MS's other OS's.
Indeed. Let's see what the next incarnation brings. They should make the new version backwards compatible with XP, if then many will switch otherwise I am afraid they will lose more customers to Apple or Linux. -
@ cgull
They should make the new version backwards compatible with XP, if then many will switch otherwise I am afraid they will lose more customers to Apple or Linux. I agree. They should also make it more efficient, not less. Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
