
Microsoft Poaches Yahoo's Top Search Engineer; "the end of Yahoo search."  - dell9000
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/microsoft-poaches-yahoo-s-top-search-engineer-
======
okeumeni
Search is much of a complex business for one guy to be a lone shark; Yahoo
problem is mostly a karma problem. People have stopped the love relationship
with Yahoo, it’s like trying to persuade a girlfriend who have decided to
leave you for the new guy to stay. You may try hard to reinvent yourself,
shower her with gifts, make new promises … she will leave you anyway. What do
you do? Stays put and go into grievance, keep your mind and body together and
prepare for the new chance at romance.

What should Yahoo do? Stop shifting back and forth from strategies to
strategies; they should cut back the cost of running the business, cut off
projects that do not work and stay focused on the main thing: search. Yahoo
should make provision to survive their grievance period and hope it does not
last, remain preemptive in new innovations to remain in the race. There are
still number two; it is not like they were Hakia, Chacha or some Powerset like
company.

~~~
dmoney
I don't think focusing on search will save Yahoo. If it wants to stay
independent and survive, Yahoo needs to redefine itself. Basically it needs a
Steve Jobs.

~~~
azharcs
or Gil Amelio.

~~~
jm4
Yes! That way it will be like pulling off a bandaid. It beats having to see
all these dramatic headlines for the next year or so while they continue their
downward spiral.

------
natch
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seemed like the writer of that letter was a bit too
obsessively fixated with "battling" Google. I mean, I can understand doing it
once you work for Yahoo!, but he said his reason for joining Yahoo! was to
battle Google -- that is, he apparently had this goal even before he was hired
by Yahoo!. Kooky.

~~~
joshu
The author was previously the CTO of Ask. As another search engine, the
fixation is more understandable.

------
gaius
MS doesn't want Yahoo's people so much as it wants control over the domain
name yahoo.com. It's all about getting in front of the traffic.

~~~
jm4
I agree. Microsoft seems fairly confident they can build a competitive search
engine. Besides, I would imagine most of the worthwhile talent at Yahoo has
jumped ship already. The problem is no one will go out of their way to try
Live Search. Instead of trying to pull people in it looks like they want to
move in front of the users.

~~~
gaius
Live Search isn't actually bad, and they have some cool toys on top of it like
Miss Dewey. In my copy of Firefox, Google is the first search choice, then
Yahoo, then Amazon, Live is 8th. Who would go for something that's 8th?!
Amazon isn't even a search engine!

------
mindaugas
I think it is really good time for Yahoo to reinvent themselves... but of
course they might need someone like S. Jobs

------
ivanstojic
So much about Microsoft ever buying Yahoo. They bought all they needed.

------
crabapple
the reality is there is no real competition in north america search. google
has the market sewn up. team members can move from yahoo to microsoft to
powerset to whatever...google will still dominate.

brand matters. in a test i recall, they took yahoo results and google results
and swapped the company banners. people liked the results that had the google
logo on them. google has the brand in search, its probably impossible to
unseat them unless they do something drastically stupid

~~~
mynameishere
_people liked the results that had the google logo on them_

To me, that signals serious weakness.

~~~
wensing
Why? Explain?

~~~
jcl
It means the only noticeable difference between Yahoo and Google search
results is the brand name, which means Google's lead in search technology is
no longer obvious -- that they are no longer innovating faster than the
market.

Either some third party could discover fantastic new search technology and
steal the market, or internet search is solved and brand name is all that
matters, so the company with the best PR will win. Either way, it shows that
Google has lost its previously unassailable technological advantage.

~~~
netcan
They probably have. Which may mean that all the free stuff with little or no
advertising value is a smart move as a PR campaign.

I agree that a brand name advantage seems easier to tackle then a
technological one. Especially when switching costs are so low. But then this
is a pattern followed by many technological products. A technological
advantage, followed by a few years lead followed by equivalence where their
product demands a premium, outsell competition, etc.

Take Sony (portable radios, portable cassette players) or Canon (bubble jet).
Innovation that was quickly equalised followed by a long period of leadership.
You could even argue that a long period of technological superiority (say
because of patents, trade secrets or even faster innovation) might result in
an unbalanced company that cannot survive once superiority is lost.

