Comments on: Welcome to the Land of Irrationality http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/ paglia's thoughts: "one to negative one" and some noise in between Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: loupaglia http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-659 loupaglia Mon, 19 May 2008 22:05:59 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-659 John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).<br><br>Couple of points:<br>1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.<br>2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.<br>3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.<br>4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either. John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).

Couple of points:
1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.
2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.
3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.
4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either.

]]> By: John Furrier http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-658 John Furrier Mon, 19 May 2008 21:26:26 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-658 I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range. <br><br>Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market... Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range.

Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market… Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn

]]> By: loupaglia http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-636 loupaglia Mon, 19 May 2008 18:05:59 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-636 John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).<br><br>Couple of points:<br>1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.<br>2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.<br>3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.<br>4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either. John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).

Couple of points:
1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.
2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.
3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.
4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either.

]]> By: John Furrier http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-635 John Furrier Mon, 19 May 2008 17:26:26 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-635 I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range. <br><br>Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market... Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range.

Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market… Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn

]]> By: loupaglia http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-410 loupaglia Mon, 19 May 2008 15:05:59 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-410 John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).<br><br>Couple of points:<br>1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.<br>2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.<br>3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.<br>4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either. John: I'm with you. Once the rationalization occurs that you are spending $41B on an online asset, making the strategic decision to split that asset up on Yahoo! Search and Facebook isn't much of a leap. But that is already saying you justified $246M for 1% and then another justification that $20B is justified for Facebook (expensive pawn or not).

Couple of points:
1. It is a very dangerous strategic game to justify getting so heavy into online search simply because Google is making money doing so. Even if it is more money than the windows franchise.
2. Online search and windows are two different businesses so I'm not clear on why any comparison of the two revenue streams should be made.
3. Is there a guarantee that you are a immense player in search long-term by placing a $41B bet on yahoo! search and Facebook? Right now, I'd say it isn't a sure thing and it better be at that price tag.
4. Will Facebook acquisition help with the Office franchise? Because MSFT needs to have a strategy there against Google Apps as well. I'm not sure Facebook is the answer here either.

]]> By: John Furrier http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2008/05/19/welcome-to-the-land-of-irrationality/comment-page-1/#comment-409 John Furrier Mon, 19 May 2008 14:26:26 +0000 http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/?p=132#comment-409 I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range. <br><br>Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market... Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn I'm with you on the valuation but if Msft was willing to poney up 41 billion to get yahoo they might be willing to grab the yahoo search and facebook for a price in that range.

Microsoft is crunching the spreadsheets and SIA had a post that Google's search revenue will soon surpass the revenues in the bellweather monopoly windows franchise..Microsoft has to kill Google or reduce their position in the market… Facebook is a pawn..an expensive pawn

]]>