backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by HoosierEnginee.. on May 10 at 10:53 AM

But Microsoft recently extended the contract's revenue guarantee

Yahoo wants to get out of a search contract it has with Microsoft in favor of a more profitable venture with Google, but it may have to hold on a while longer. 

Yahoo is currently locked in a 10-year search contract with Microsoft, which started in 2010. Under the contract's terms, Yahoo uses Microsoft's Bing search engine for search results on Yahoo sites. They have also coupled each of their search-advertising setups. As part of the deal, Microsoft receives 12 percent of the revenue Yahoo generates from search ads -- and Microsoft guarantees a certain amount of revenue for every search query on Yahoo's sites. 

This revenue guarantee expired on March 31, 2013, but Microsoft extended for another 12 months on April 30. Unlike the previous revenue guarantees from Microsoft, this extension affects only the United States. 

Microsoft's revenue guarantee is worth about $12 million to $15 million per quarter.


However, Yahoo said wants out of this contract in a regulatory filing Tuesday, and the new extension has made this a bit more difficult. Yahoo will likely have to wait until mid-2015 to kill the contract, which is the halfway point. 

While Yahoo's search revenue managed to increase 6 percent to $409 million in the first quarter of 2013 (compared to the first quarter of 2012), Yahoo wants out of the Microsoft deal in order to possibly enter into another contract with Google. 

Google could provide Yahoo with its Web search and search-advertising services, which are much more lucrative than Bing. Google and Yahoo tried to make this work in 2008, but the U.S. Department of Justice shot it down for antitrust purposes. However, Google and Yahoo could revamp the former pitch in an effort to pass regulatory issues. 

The only way Yahoo wouldn't have to wait until at least 2015 to exit the Microsoft contract is if Microsoft sells Bing or revenue-per-search falls below a certain level. 

Either way, it doesn't look like Yahoo will go back to developing its own search technology.

In February of this year, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said that the company's search partnership with Microsoft is not delivering.
 
"One of the points of the alliance is that we collectively want to grow share rather than just trading share with each other," Mayer said at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in San Francisco.  

Source: The Wall Street Journal



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By DanNeely on 5/8/2013 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
... where I have I heard a story like this before? Well, come whatever may; it can't turn out to be a fiasco on the scale of Nokia-Elop-Microsoft.




By Totally on 5/8/2013 2:46:21 PM , Rating: 3
You living under a rock? How in the world can Nokia-Microsoft be called a fiasco? Before the the partnership Nokia was at death's door, and now they're are doing well.


By Drexial on 5/8/2013 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Really, knocking on deaths door, the only thing that hurt them was when Elop took over he halted work on MeeGo and laid off the entire development team and announced they would go exclusively MS.

This happened in Q1 of 2011

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/09/nokia-apple-samsu...

look a that chart and tell me exactly what happened in Q1 of 2011. Yeah no fiasco here.

MeeGo would have been a perfect OS to squeeze between iOS and Android. Nokia's hardware division is at least still doing things different, hopefully they can get away from an OS that is strangling them.

If Nokia didn't run Windows Phone I wouldn't have an iPhone.


By Drexial on 5/8/2013 4:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
crap wouldn't let me link the picture

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/09/nokia-apple-samsu...


By Totally on 5/9/2013 12:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
I was speaking in terms of relevance, become irrelevant and the inevitable follows suit, just look at what happened and still happening to Blackberry.


By Totally on 5/9/2013 1:11:18 AM , Rating: 2
What? I don't even... well since you clearly weren't following the company then.
That graph is the resulting bloodbath from the beating Nokia took from the Iphone, Android, and Nokia not having a competing product of it's own in 2009, since it opted out of the android alliance, and Meego was delayed several times.
At this point Nokia started hemorrhaging money, market. In 2010, the then CEO, Kallasvuo, was FIRED as a result, and Elop is elected CEO and has to fix things. Meego after several delays now dated even before release is stillborn, and Android having solidifed it's postion is gaining momentum. Elop does the obvious and gives it a mercy killing. Now faced with three options:

a) start from scratch
b) adopt Windows
c) adopt Android

Let's see, Hemmoraging money/market share can't can't go with plan (a)
HTC-Motorola-Samsung power struggle on the Android side, in addition to being late, not (b) either
Windows Phone, also Microsoft is throwing in a huge wad of money. hmmm...

So Nokia/Microsoft bunkered down for the next two years cooking up WP7, while IOS and Adroid pulled no punches. Damage Control that is what that line is. The fiasco happened before Elop.

Have even tried Windows Phone? read reviews, which usually read 'Windows phone is great but the ecosystem isn't there or missing app X so I'm sticking with Y'?


By Drexial on 5/9/2013 11:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
Can you please tell me how flat sales from both Apple and Samsung during the same period that Nokia sales dropped nearly 20% means that Apple created a "bloodbath". In fact it wasn't until after Nokia went full windows that Apple and Samsung started taking sales. If anything it was all the other companies jumping into Android that killed Nokia.
With the entire market growing, 4m sales of Apple phones does not directly equal the 4m sales lost by Nokia. If Nokia went Android they would have grown with the rest of the market, especially with the attractive hardware they have.

I clearly see that you yourself are a fan of Windows Phone which is fine, but please don't let that distort your reality. Android was the fastest growing platform at the time that clearly was the right choice for Samsung, an up and comer in a market that Nokia was king in. Microsoft is still declining in market share.

Nokia had world support and name recognition that was still outselling the iPhone in every market except for the US. They might not have maintained the massive market lead, outselling every other phone manufacture combined, but they certainly wouldn't be loosing sales like they are now.

Just because a multi billion dollar company is throwing money at you doesn't mean that long term it was the right choice. Choice C was joining up with a company that has been consistently the worst selling phone OS on the market. RIM, as much as everyone has declared them dead, is still outselling Microsoft as a whole, not just Nokia. The only reason that MS has been able to maintain the Phone segment is because they use the resources from their other very successful divisions to support it.

OS interface is more a thing of preference then anything else. I really do not like the interface of the Windows Phone OS. That's great that it works for some people and works well for them.

Ecosystem is what a smartphone is all about, if you can't expand the functionality to suit your needs, that's a problem. What good is the OS if you don't have access to the tools, toys you want.

This is nothing against the Phone OS, but pidgin-holing your entire company into a very small niche, is going to get you a very small niche of the market. I think it was a bad decision now, and I knew it was then.


By Totally on 5/9/2013 1:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you please tell me how flat sales from both Apple and Samsung during the same period that Nokia sales dropped nearly 20% means that Apple created a "bloodbath". In fact it wasn't until after Nokia went full windows that Apple and Samsung started taking sales. If anything it was all the other companies jumping into Android that killed Nokia.
With the entire market growing, 4m sales of Apple phones does not directly equal the 4m sales lost by Nokia. If Nokia went Android they would have grown with the rest of the market, especially with the attractive hardware they have.
Nokia had world support and name recognition that was still outselling the iPhone in every market except for the US. They might not have maintained the massive market lead, outselling every other phone manufacture combined, but they certainly wouldn't be loosing sales like they are now.

Nokia was leading in feature phone sales. 2010 is when smartphone sales took off, Nokia didn't have a smartphone offering. Nokia is solely responsible for it's undoing, it had a chance to go Android but decided to go it's own route with Meego, that didn't pan out this is where they cocked up. So Nokia automatically loses those sales to simply by not showing up.
2009 and 2010 sales
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/...
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/...
The Nokia-Microsoft pact wasn't announced until FEB 2011, then made official two months later.
and here's an article from 2009 the just iterates what I've been saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/technology/compa...

quote:
Just because a multi billion dollar company is throwing money at you doesn't mean that long term it was the right choice. Choice C was joining up with a company that has been consistently the worst selling phone OS on the market. RIM, as much as everyone has declared them dead, is still outselling Microsoft as a whole, not just Nokia. The only reason that MS has been able to maintain the Phone segment is because they use the resources from their other very successful divisions to support it.

Still better than the other options that varied between a shot in the dark and corporate suicide.

quote:

OS interface is more a thing of preference then anything else. I really do not like the interface of the Windows Phone OS. That's great that it works for some people and works well for them.

Ecosystem is what a smartphone is all about, if you can't expand the functionality to suit your needs, that's a problem. What good is the OS if you don't have access to the tools, toys you want.

This is nothing against the Phone OS, but pidgin-holing your entire company into a very small niche, is going to get you a very small niche of the market. I think it was a bad decision now, and I knew it was then.

Of course it doesn't make sense now after they've been patched up.


By Drexial on 5/9/2013 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
In those reports you gave me Phone 7 was 1%, WiMo was 4%... Android grew from 4 % to 23% in one year, and that was a shot in the dark? with Nokia a company that built its company around Open Source OSs. You said it, they fired the guy for some reason that was still in charge of the largest phone manufacture in the world, at a time they were still larger then the next 2 or 3 combined.

quote:
Hey, while we're on the topic, check out Nokia in 2009 compared to a decade ago. Their rivals have all bounced positions, former number 2 is now number 6, current number 2 was once number 5. Nokia held market share all decade as number one, at every time, every single year, they were at least 50% bigger than number 2 and every year as big as number 2 and 3 put together, often as big as numbers 2, 3 and 4 put together. Thats not bad performance in an industry that was so volatile, that it grew 5 times in size in only ten years.


MeeGo may have seen delays, but it had Intel backing it as well. With a simple interface and support of the android marketplace it would have done well and evolved into something better. But you are right it was never good to keep pushing it off. But they had the market share to risk it. RIM finally released BB 10 4 years late and they still have more market share then Microsoft and started with far less then Nokia. Am I saying that they should have held off, I don't know, MeeGo was finally released on one phone that got rave reviews, but never sold in the US. But as I said, Microsoft wasnt even out selling its previous Windows Mobile and you are telling me that was a good desision.

End of year 2010, just as the decision was made to go on board with MS:

quote:
1 Symbian (Nokia) . . . . . . . . 38%
2 Android (Google) . . . . . . . . 23%
3 Blackberry (RIM) . . . . . . . .16%
4 iOS (Apple) . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
5 Windows Mobile (Microsoft) . 4%
6 bada (Samsung) . . . . . . . . . 2%
7 LiMo (LiMo Foundation) . . . . 2%
8 Phone 7 (Microsoft) . . . . . . . 1%
9 Palm WebOS (HP) . . . . . . . .0%


Phone 7 was being out sold by its previous version which was complete crap. They went from being a market leader to not even showing up on charts.


By Totally on 5/9/2013 4:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it was a shot in the dark because at that time when they realized their mistake there was no way they would be able to get an Android handset to market in a timely manner, at which point, if they manage to get one out (they're still hemorrhaging money mind you), all the other manufacturers would have already carved out their shares of the android market. At best there would enough left over, at worst leaving Nokia with no wind in it's sail and still taking on water. Microsoft was offering something concrete money, an OS, and resources. I'm not saying it was a good decision but it was their best shot at survival given the circumstances.

Of course WP7 was being outsold, it was released Q4 of that year, no one really wanted to support it with an android goldrush going on, which resulted in 2-3 phone models released at it's launch, and the hardware wasn't that great either.


By DanNeely on 5/8/2013 6:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nokia's global market share is down even more than their developing world share; having fallen by ~75% since Elop took over although their freefall appears to be bottoming out. Complimenting their implosion of market share; their stock is down ~60% over the same time period.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/201304...

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NOK+Interactive...


Yahoo blaming MS
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/2013 1:18:20 PM , Rating: 5
Yahoo is blaming Microsoft for its lack of growth. The search engine provided doesn't make any difference to the user. Most people I talk to don't even know Yahoo's searches are provided by Bing.

I have faith in Yahoo's CEO but this is a lousy call.

I know everyone has their own opinion but mine is that Bing > Google search.




RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By BifurcatedBoat on 5/8/2013 1:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree; I think it does matter. I stopped using Yahoo for search way back when they originally switched away from Google, and their search quality went down (this was long before Bing as well).

If they have Google's search again on their page, then once users learn that, if they went to Yahoo for news they might just start searching there as well.


RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By Mitch101 on 5/8/2013 1:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
What has yahoo done to convince users to use them or even remind people they still exist? Anyone recall the last time they had a commercial?

Whether they use Google, Bing, or go back to themselves without something to define themselves as different from Google or Bing it wont matter. The Fork says yahoo is done. Time to sell the farm while it still had a pulse.


RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By amelia321 on 5/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By drlumen on 5/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By Motoman on 5/8/2013 1:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit that I wasn't really cognizant of the fact that Yahoo didn't have their own search engine anymore.

Although to be honest, I've never paid any attention to Yahoo - I can count on one hand the number of times I've looked at Yahoo.com. It's always struck me as, at best, a slightly more sophisticated Geocities website than anything to be taken seriously.

Not that anyone cares, but I've been a big fan of Webcrawler for a very long time. It just makes sense to me to use a metasearch engine that queries Google, Yahoo, and other search engines every time I look for something. It responds just as fast as Google.com would send me back a page, and then I get results from lots of different places...not just one.


RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By drycrust3 on 5/8/2013 3:48:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yahoo is blaming Microsoft for its lack of growth. The search engine provided doesn't make any difference to the user.

For a lot of searches it isn't so much the search engine as the parameters used by the search engine because it is almost certain that if you looked at the top results produced by Google in Bing or Yandex then those results would be somewhere there in the million or so results they found, but maybe many pages away, and vice versa of course.
To me one reason I use Bing is because they easily provide search results for just New Zealand (where I live), which neither Google or Yahoo offer.
So the main reason anyone uses a search engine other than Google, other than for reasons like "distrust", is because they want different results from what Google offer, so for Yahoo the answer isn't to produce the same results as Google and Bing, it is to produce different results, and you don't need a different database for that, because for most search engines the 1 million search results is largely the same, what you need is to use your own search parameters, where the top results you present are more or less unique to you.
For example, why not do what Bing does and breakdown results by country (for international users) or by city (say you are looking parts for your car), or why not provide different search parameter options (no, not hidden in some secret menu, on the first screen), so you might have one called "online shopping", where the search results are more online purchase oriented, one called "city" where the results are more your city relevant, e.g. local businesses or events or movies, one called "educational", where the results are more reference and encyclopedia oriented, one called "general" which uses the normal search parameters, etc? You don't need Google's database for that, Bing's will do.


RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By arazok on 5/8/2013 4:40:42 PM , Rating: 3
I’m amazed Yahoo gets any traffic at all.

Like everyone else, I abandoned them for search when Google came out. It was just superior.

But I always kept Yahoo as my home page. I’d still use them as a content portal, mostly for news and stocks. It was the best of both worlds. I’d use the search bar for google, and my yahoo home page for random content.

Then at some point in the last couple of years, I’m not sure when it really happened, Yahoo’s home page turned into a cheap whore in fancy clothes. The news was replaced with celebrity gossip, video links required you to watch ads, what looked like interesting articles turned out to be cheaply disguised marketing ads. I’ve removed Yahoo as my home page and never looked back.

They’re the next AOL. They failed at their core business and are trying to transition into something there is no demand for, which is a lousy content portal. The move to mobile is going to be the straw that breaks them.


RE: Yahoo blaming MS
By althaz on 5/9/2013 1:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst I agree that this probably doesn't matter (it seems pretty clear that Google are just offering more money) to the end client, I can't believe somebody would actually say Bing > Google in search...

Bing is not bad at search, and it is better in plenty of areas...but not in terms of actually finding what you want on the internet.

Bing is my go-to to find local businesses (Google is worse at this for me), but for anything actually on the internet that I'm trying to find, Bing rarely presents the best results up front. It offers some nice extra features, looks a little better than Google and has what many would call "good enough" search.

Google has "good enough" everything else and excellent search. For me, the quality of the search is everything, which is why I only use Bing on my phone (because I have no choice, actually this is the only thing I don't like about my Lumia).


Yahoo + Gooogle might be nice.
By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/8/2013 5:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
If Yahoo allows type-ahead like Bing does, you won't need to stare at the screen waiting for Google to load before you can type something in.

Why is Google so far behind the times? Type-ahead has been around since the 1970s, if not before...




RE: Yahoo + Gooogle might be nice.
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 7:17:35 PM , Rating: 1
If what I am reading is right about this type-ahead, Google seems to do this?


RE: Yahoo + Gooogle might be nice.
By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/9/2013 3:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.

Go to BING.COM, and you can begin typing your query before the page finishes loading. No keystrokes lost.

Go to GOOGLE.COM, and you will be losing keystrokes until it finishes loading.

Might stare at it for 5-10 seconds. Admittedly not a long time, but extremely annoying.


RE: Yahoo + Gooogle might be nice.
By BRB29 on 5/10/2013 9:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
5-10 secs? wtf? any google search i do is less than .5 secs

autofill works wonderfully almost all the time
google even loads the page as i type so i don't even have to hit enter.

Google.com loads in .1 sec. The page is like 1kb in size lol.

Bing.com has graphics and actually loads slower than google. I just tested it. It loads .1-.2 secs slower but still slower.

Who cares if the search bar loads first if google loads their entire page instantly


By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/10/2013 10:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
Our network at work is pathetic. At home, Google performs much better.

I suspect much software is developed on state-of-the-art systems, and developers never see the effects on lower-end systems.


I remember in the old days
By BifurcatedBoat on 5/8/2013 1:20:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yahoo was the known name, the website you go to if you want to search, and Google was just some little startup that provided their core search technology.

Back in the days when I was using a dialup modem, and my ISP limited me to 2 hours of continuous connectivity at a time.




RE: I remember in the old days
By Solandri on 5/8/2013 2:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
The difference was that Yahoo tried to organize the Internet by hand. You had to navigate an organizational tree within Yahoo's website (e.g. business -> industry type -> geographical location -> list of companies). If you wanted people to be able to find your website within Yahoo, you had to submit it in the appropriate location in the tree, and someone at Yahoo had to approve it.

Google eschewed human input entirely (aside from making the website) and went with automated generation of the relationship between keywords and sites. Yahoo's approach worked when the Internet was small and just a handful of schools and companies. But Google's approach scaled much better. They took the lead while Yahoo scrambled to build their own automated search engine.

(Google wasn't the first automated search engine either. The earliest I remember was AltaVista. But Google's algorithms were much better, so its search results were much more relevant to what you were looking for.)


Dear Yahoo
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 1:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
You should've sold your company when MS offered you billions. Too bad you got greedy and wanted way more than what you're worth. Now you're blaming MS again because you want to grow market share instead of just trading shares. Too bad, the only one that will lose is still you. You're a thirsty ho




RE: Dear Yahoo
By Crazyeyeskillah on 5/8/2013 2:40:57 PM , Rating: 1
I have been reading your posts for about a week now and have come to the conclusion that you are in fact an imbecile with nothing to add to any discussion that warrants any quality attention. It would be best for you to take a step back before posting and decide if you are actually adding anything to the discussion or just ranting like a fool trying to make some poorly crafted humor. We are on the internet, just type a few key words from the article into a search and you could can find some funny stories or jokes to tie in with the article if you are that desperate. Honestly, if you are going to continue putting this much effort into posting here, try to better equip yourself for success.


LOL
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/8/2013 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
All I can say is Lul...




umm
By mackx on 5/8/2013 1:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Google could provide Google with its Web search"?




Interesting
By dagamer34 on 5/8/2013 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Does Google really want this though? Adding Yahoo traffic to Google basically makes them open to regulation at 80-85% of the search market.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki