[Wild Rumours] Google to buy Opera?

[linbetwin]

http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/001128.html

Why not? It won't be long before we'll hear about Google buying Microsoft (and maybe Washington state too!)

[majikstreet]

*groan* I hate monoplies..

[Brunellus]

*groan* I hate monoplies..
so what, exactly, is monopolistic about google buying opera?

Consolidation!=monopoly.

[endersshadow]

Yeah, this isn't monopolistic at all. Now, if Google had bought, say, Yahoo!, that would be monopolistic. Otherwise, they're trying to become a conglomerate, like P&G. Lots of cool products, different brands, and different markets, all under one umbrella company.

[earobinson]

I dont think its going to happen with all the support they have for firefox

[Malphas]

Semantics aside, I agree with majikstreet.

[endersshadow]

Semantics aside, I agree with majikstreet.

It's not semantics, the two are inherently different in nature and economics. Microsoft is a monopoly, P&G is a conglomerate. The two act, react, produce, and perform entirely differently.

If all you're trying to say is that you hate large corporations, then fine, say that. But Google has been huge for the past couple of years now. From a business sense, it's smart that they're building a conglomerate.

Monopolies=illegal
Conglomerates=legal

[Malphas]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a vertical monopoly. Also, your argument that Google is becoming a conglomerate rather than a monopoly is flawed as to qualify as a conglomerate Google's interests would have be diverse and seemingly unrelated; this isn't the case in reality however and it's obvious that they have a common element. In truth, Google's business practices probably lie somewhere between the two, although I don't feel they qualify as either (yet). Your knowledge and understanding of the topic you're trying to lecture us on is crude and simplistic at best.

Also, from a business sense, it's smart that Microsoft spread FUD about Linux, snub standards such as OpenDocument, pressure PC distributers into choosing against pre-bundling Linux, etc. This doesn't mean I support any of these practices, so I don't see what relevance the fact that buying Google buying Opera is smart where their interests are concerned has to the discussion.

[prizrak]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a vertical monopoly. Also, your argument that Google is becoming a conglomerate rather than a monopoly is flawed as to qualify as a conglomerate Google's interests would have be diverse and seemingly unrelated; this isn't the case in reality however it's obvious that they have a common element. Your knowledge and understanding of the topic you're trying to lecture us on is simplistic at best.
Monopoly is defined as either the only provider of a good/service or as in the case of MS so large that it dictates the rules of the game. Google is neither, their market share on the search market is a bit over 50% (might have gone up, i did that research a couple of months ago). Additionall conglomerates aren't neccesseraly unrelated, P&G as the example they produce alot of different household products, they are all related (at the very least in the same niche). GE is another congolomerate business that has things in common across it's business portfolio.
I personally don't see anything wrong with Opera being bought by Google, they are hardly in the position to make you use it. Unlike MS they can't preinstall it on Google OS like they did with IE. The only possible problem with it would be Google making things incompatible with Opera to make people use it, however they don't seem to follow such practices so far (Gmail is compatible with POP3) so there is nothing to really worry about.
Having said that, I highly doubt they'll buy Opera, it simply doesn't seem like there would be much benefit to Google owning a browser since they need to cater to IE users either way since it comes preinstalled everywhere.

[Malphas]

Same again, your understanding is on a basic level and you don't seem to have a grasp of the full complexities of what these terms mean. This is why I said "semantics aside", I didn't want to get into a off-topic debate about it.

[majikstreet]

eep! I cause a little stir there.. I just meant, I don't like when a company owns a lot of stuff, it becomes crazy to me..

[endersshadow]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a vertical monopoly. Also, your argument that Google is becoming a conglomerate rather than a monopoly is flawed as to qualify as a conglomerate Google's interests would have be diverse and seemingly unrelated; this isn't the case in reality however and it's obvious that they have a common element. In truth, Google's business practices probably lie somewhere between the two, although I don't feel they qualify as either (yet). Your knowledge and understanding of the topic you're trying to lecture us on is crude and simplistic at best.

Also, from a business sense, it's smart that Microsoft spread FUD about Linux, snub standards such as OpenDocument, pressure PC distributers into choosing against pre-bundling Linux, etc. This doesn't mean I support any of these practices, so I don't see what relevance the fact that buying Google buying Opera is smart where their interests are concerned has to the discussion.

Oh, bloody hell, I wasn't lecturing you. Yes, I know what a vertical monopoly is, and this isn't it. I'm not going into it here, though, as you said, it's the wrong place.

The point was to address majikstreet's concern that this was a monopoly, or even monopolistic. It's not, even you admit that. That's all I was saying. If you'd like to discuss full fledged economics, I'd be happy to, but this isn't the place.

Besides, I doubt Google will buy Opera, anyway. They'll probably create their own browser when they come out with GoogleOS.

[unkemptwolf]

<speculation> Google is going to buy Opera, and then introduce a new API, similar to, but much more cohesive and powerful than, AJAX. This will allow websites to only work "correctly" in Google's browser. Then they will release the source for the API via GPL (dual license, like MySQL), allowing Firefox and everyone else to keep up, but leaving IE out in the cold.</speculation>

A ploy worthy of Microsoft, if you ask me.:evil:

[prizrak]

Same again, your understanding is on a basic level and you don't seem to have a grasp of the full complexities of what these terms mean. This is why I said "semantics aside", I didn't want to get into a off-topic debate about it.
I am sorry I have a Bachelor degree in business administration I very much think I know what I'm talking about on a much more than a basic level.

[prizrak]

eep! I cause a little stir there.. I just meant, I don't like when a company owns a lot of stuff, it becomes crazy to me..
In that case the word you were looking for is a "large corporation" :) And I agree it could be a problem when a company become large.

[prizrak]

<speculation> Google is going to buy Opera, and then introduce a new API, similar to, but much more cohesive and powerful than, AJAX. This will allow websites to only work "correctly" in Google's browser. Then they will release the source for the API via GPL (dual license, like MySQL), allowing Firefox and everyone else to keep up, but leaving IE out in the cold.</speculation>

A ploy worthy of Microsoft, if you ask me.:evil:
That would actually be kind of cool, I highly doubt Google would shoot itself in the foot like that. After all it's the biggest user base, why exclude it? Although sure if they have everyone switch to Google Opera by then, but than it would be simply redundant and pointless.

[KingBahamut]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a vertical monopoly. Also, your argument that Google is becoming a conglomerate rather than a monopoly is flawed as to qualify as a conglomerate Google's interests would have be diverse and seemingly unrelated; this isn't the case in reality however and it's obvious that they have a common element. In truth, Google's business practices probably lie somewhere between the two, although I don't feel they qualify as either (yet). Your knowledge and understanding of the topic you're trying to lecture us on is crude and simplistic at best.

Also, from a business sense, it's smart that Microsoft spread FUD about Linux, snub standards such as OpenDocument, pressure PC distributers into choosing against pre-bundling Linux, etc. This doesn't mean I support any of these practices, so I don't see what relevance the fact that buying Google buying Opera is smart where their interests are concerned has to the discussion.


Monopolistic activity would have to give a given entity the ability to corner or control a specific aspect of the market it exists in. In not giving users the choice or right to choose what they want or desire.

Google purchasing Opera would not be a signification of this, Google doesnt even have a product in the market that Opera lives in , much less have control over. If you find yourself grevious over this, its probably more the statement of Google asserting control and take over of a company, more than it is some aspect of a monopolistic activity. Still, the forseeing of what might become a monopoly, does not itself make the behavior monopolistic in intent.
Can't use foresight to deduce the behavior of an entity, or you can with only limited result. It is therefore by far and wide not very logical to call this type of action anything but a company wanting to buy another company out. Corporate takeover if you want to use extremes, but Monopolistic , no.

A concept of vertical integration would assume that Google as a company has aligned "numerous" companies that it intends to buy out and control under its own heirarchy. If anyone has done this, Microsoft has. Google itself as a corporate entity hasnt clearly ever done this to the level that MS has. Good , bad or indifferent as it might be.

Again, any concept of a monopoly here is just foresight , and not actual fact.

[unkemptwolf]

After all it's the biggest user base, why exclude it?
To spite Microsoft, of course:) . Unlikely, I know but Google works in mysterious ways...

[JimmyJazz]

http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/001128.html

Why not? It won't be long before we'll hear about Google buying Microsoft (and maybe Washington state too!)

Opera is hardly Microsoft.

[prizrak]

Opera is hardly Microsoft.
I think the point here is that Google is so successful that they will be able to buy MS before long :)

[endersshadow]

If Google's setting up to beat Microsoft, and Sun hates Microsoft, would anybody please explain this (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1426223&tid=95&tid=146&tid=109&tid=217&tid=102)?

[poptones]

Ummm.. GM and ford are both conglomerates in spite fo the fact virtually all their ancillary companies directly support the activity of manufacturing cars. GM has packard electric which make swiring harnesses and electrical connectors and they have hydra-matic which makes transmissions and they have delco which "makes" everything from spark plugs to microprocessors, all of which end up in GM automobiles. Same with Ford. How is this any different than a search engine company "making" a browser?

Google is seriously overvalued. In spite of this they have nothing close to the net worth of Microsoft. They are nto, in any way shape or form, anything close to a "monopoly."

[prizrak]

Google isn't setting up to beat MS, they are not in the same business. The only thing MS related Google is beating is the MSN search (not even whole of the MSN). Sun and MS reconciled their differences since by and large Sun isn't really in the same business as MS although they do compete in certain areas. There is no reason for the three of them not to enter into joint ventures if they can all benefit from the results. Remember there is no feelings in the business world, it's all about the moneys :)

[prizrak]

Actually GM and Ford have been moving away from that, last I heard they were outsourcing alot of production to 3rd parties it turns out to be cheaper than maintaining the crazy amount of employees. You also forgot GM's satellite division which is evident in their cars by the On Star system (that gotta be the most useless thing in the world)

[unkemptwolf]

If Google's setting up to beat Microsoft, and Sun hates Microsoft, would anybody please explain this (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1426223&tid=95&tid=146&tid=109&tid=217&tid=102)?

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Thats what I'd do, at least. And no, I don't think google is setting up to take over the desktop, I think theyre setting up to take over the internet (the next big wave of computing) from Microsoft. Just my opinion, mind you.

[kairu0]

What ever came of that rumor that Google was making its own web browser?

[unkemptwolf]

What ever came of that rumor that Google was making its own web browser?

AFAIK, the only thing that came from it was a rumor that Google is going to buy Opera.

[poptones]

Actually GM and Ford have been moving away from that, last I heard they were outsourcing alot of production to 3rd parties it turns out to be cheaper than maintaining the crazy amount of employees.

Ummm.. no, they still own all those comapnies and (as in the Hughes Aerospace example) are still gobbling up more.

You are confusing outsourcing manufacturing with outsourcing production. They are not the same thing - for example, do you think Microsoft makes those mice and keyboards and x-boxes? They are outsourced to chinese production plants - they are OEM manufactured goods with MS brands stuck on them. many of those Delco integrated circuits are custom made intel and motorola chips with Delco part numbers... likewise ford. Ford has, for years, been a vastly larger "consumer" of PowerPC chips than Apple... every new Ford has at least a couple of these in its onboard powertrain controllers.

[prizrak]

Actually GM and Ford have been moving away from that, last I heard they were outsourcing alot of production to 3rd parties it turns out to be cheaper than maintaining the crazy amount of employees.

Ummm.. no, they still own all those comapnies and (as in the Hughes Aerospace example) are still gobbling up more.

You are confusing outsourcing manufacturing with outsourcing production. They are not the same thing - for example, do you think Microsoft makes those mice and keyboards and x-boxes? They are outsourced to chinese production plants - they are OEM manufactured goods with MS brands stuck on them. many of those Delco integrated circuits are custom made intel and motorola chips with Delco part numbers... likewise ford. Ford has, for years, been a vastly larger "consumer" of PowerPC chips than Apple... every new Ford has at least a couple of these in its onboard powertrain controllers.
Thas is quite possible, what I heard was heard very briefly and in not much detail it was basically someone mentioning something before the class. And no I didn't think MS actually MADE their hardware.
Back on topic though, what would be a logical reason for Google to create or buy a web browser? They already have the Google search bar in IE, there is an integrated one in FF (also possibly Opera haven't used it in a while). Their primary interface is HTML in any case which works in any browser. I personally don't think that Google is going to buy/make their own browser it just doesn't seem feasible for them.

[poptones]

Maybe, but Opera isn't just "a browser" - that's like saying Toyota buying GM would be like Toyota buying the Corvette. GM isn't just a car, it's a brand an an infrastructure - so is Opera: it's a company with talent and support infrastructure and it's a desktop suite. Doesn't Opera also have an email client, rss reader, newsgroup reader and download manager? And it's roughly platform agnostic - you can get a version for just about any contemporary OS.

There's a lot of fanboi love directed at google because they make a big deal about allowing geeks to hack on their tools - but those tools are 100% proprietary: google isn't offering the source code to its crawler, its database management methods, or any other part that actually lives inside that black box. An OS agnostic desktop platform would give google a means of moving specialized functionality into consumer desktops without giving competitors (or those fanboi geeks) a peek behind the curtain.

[linbetwin]

Now Opera is denying rumours it had been approached by Google for acquisition:

http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=15770

[Kimm]

A ploy worthy of Microsoft, if you ask me. :evil:


whats with the devil face? Wouldnt the world be such a better place if the F/OSS Browsers ruled the internet?

[poptones]

Ummm.... Opera is neither Free nor open source.

[prizrak]

Ummm.... Opera is neither Free nor open source.
Well it's free as in beer, but not in other ways.

[curuxz]

In the UK above 25% in any market is classed as a monoploy violation. Google would qualify though I think this story is bogus they have put way to much money in firefox to do such a stupid business move since it would kill their relation with SUN. I think its SUN that will take over eventualy they very much seem to be playing pupetmaster to the open tech market

[prizrak]

In the UK above 25% in any market is classed as a monoploy violation. Google would qualify though I think this story is bogus they have put way to much money in firefox to do such a stupid business move since it would kill their relation with SUN. I think its SUN that will take over eventualy they very much seem to be playing pupetmaster to the open tech market
UK has weird laws.........

[curuxz]

Look at the trouble america has with making laws, then remember we have had 'democratic' govenment for like 3 times longer, then you relise we have had loads of time to screw things up far more ;)

[totalshredder]

I think it would be far more effective for google to make their own webbrowser than to buy a webbrowser. I could see them buying out a well known web browser, but the cost of them creating their own webbrowser(or changing an OSS one) would be a tiny fraction compared to a buyout of Opera.

[prizrak]

Look at the trouble america has with making laws, then remember we have had 'democratic' govenment for like 3 times longer, then you relise we have had loads of time to screw things up far more ;)
HAHA ROFL dude you rock :)