<![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo]]> I disagree with the premise of this post. That the lack of a visionary to run a combined AOL-Yahoo entity will prevent a merger from happening or that neither Semel, Decker or Falco think "they're qualified, and entitled, to run the show." I'm sure they *think* they are qualified (even though I agree they probably aren't). I don't think executive insecurities will be a showstopper. Lets take Falco for example. Even with his lack of email experience he wasn't too shy to take the reins of AOL. Why not AOL-Yahoo?

I think precisely because their is a lack of vision that makes a merger all the more likely. If there is no vision then you concentrate on deal-making, executive shufflings, reorgs and copying other people's business models to give the appearance of activity and growth. However, if there is a vision then you concentrate on building that vision into a reality.

At the top of AOL and Yahoo you've got too Old Media dealmakers (Falco and Semel) and a former financial analyst (Decker). These are people who are not technologists. Their technical "vision" is to be fast followers of industry trends and to use their scale and financial wherewithal to poach innovation. You will never see a "Google Earth" originate from their brains. I think they are predisposed to favor some sort of "big deal" transaction because that is their comfort zone--making deals and bean-counting. You will never see them have the guts to make a really huge acquisition like the YouTube one. They wouldn't know what to do with it because they have no vision. A merger is an easier "blockbuster" deal for them to do because both companies do pretty much the same things and basically they would need to integrate the two. Not an easy task, but no vision required.

Dave Malhotra

]]> <![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo]]> I think Google and Yahoo are the more likely suitors. Culturally they are a better fit. Also integration-wise Google, Yahoo and AOL are Unix based. Google runs their hacked version of Linux, Yahoo runs FreeBSD and AOL runs mostly Linux. Microsoft runs Microsoft.

Also if you look at Microsoft's history, they don't like to acquire their competitors. There modus operandi is to leverage their monopoly OS to DESTROY them.

Dave Malhotra

]]> <![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo]]> The real suitor is always Microsoft. They screwed up their chance last year and Google thwarted them with a puny $1 billion. They have the cash and given MSN's fortunes, they have the motivation. Will they be smart enough to pay what they need to this time? Good question.

Iknowyouknow

]]> <![CDATA[Why AOL probably won't merge with Yahoo]]> We've seen Time Warner play this game before. Last year they played Microsoft off of Google to bid up the contract for their search engine business. Google even plunked down a billion dollars for an "engagement ring" (5% ownership stake). Now it looks like they are going to do the same thing again. This time using Yahoo as the rival suitor to get Google to the altar.

Dave Malhotra

]]>