Is there more to Micro-Hoo than we think?

Of all the theories behind Microsoft’s assimilation of Yahoo (I think it’s about eliminating a competitor under a mountain of cash), this is the most intriguing I’ve seen yet: According to Linux-Watch, Microsoft wants Yahoo because no huge Web-based companies use Windows products to run their back-end … except Microsoft, of course, and this might give the rest of the world a reason to consider Windows for their servers … or it could crush Yahoo under the weight of a soul-sucking software sea change. (“Sea change” … that’s as idiotic as “change agent” and “best practices” … sorry for using it …).

Here’s some of the editorial:

There’s no way on God’s earth that Microsoft can switch all of Yahoo’s services to being based on Windows. The IT costs and the time needed to migrate Yahoo’s applications to Windows boggles my mind. It would probably cost more than whatever Microsoft ends up paying for Yahoo.

Of course, Microsoft could replace Yahoo’s applications with Windows-powered applications, but if they were to do that I think they’d lose all of Yahoo’s customers. Ballmer would be better off dumping Microsoft’s billions into the Pacific than making that move.

So, what I see happening is Microsoft continuing to let Yahoo run its software its way, and slowly, ever so slowly, trying to use the Yahoo brand to tempt customers into using new Windows Live applications. I don’t see it working. While Microsoft wastes time and money trying to catch up with the Google applications of 2008, Google will be continuing to set the technology bar even higher.

One thing I do believe — it’s a win-win for Microsoft and lose-lose for Yahoo.

Is Microsoft trying to buy Yahoo to keep Amazon from getting it first?

You think? That’s one of the stories out there right now. Makes sense to me: Amazon could definitely use Yahoo as both partner and source of revenue. Amazon could also conceivably tap Yahoo’s pool of developers to help bolster the Amazon cloud computing initiative.

And tamping down any mojo that Microsoft might gain in the SAAS (software as a service) and overall cloud computing sector only helps Amazon’s own foray into what many people think is the future of computing (though others think it’s much ado about little).

Clearly it’s good business for Microsoft to buy Yahoo and entrench itself as a firm No. 2 in search advertising. And … while I’m touting the alleged skills of Yahoo’s developers, Yahoo itself is way behind Google when it comes to Web-based applications. Yahoo has nothing like Google Docs and Spreadsheets, nor does it seem to have a Google-like plan to leverage Docs, Gmail and network storage as a fee-based service for the enterprise.

I still think Yahoo Mail has an edge over Gmail, excepting the fact that Gmail can run a totally secure session (which, nevertheless can be hacked into through unencrypted cookies) and Yahoo Mail cannot, but to me Yahoo Mail keeps that edge with usability and functionality … but … Gmail offers free POP mail, Yahoo charges for it, and Gmail is also rolling out IMAP, with no similar plan for Yahoo that I know about.

On the other hand, the latest rendition of Yahoo Mail, if run on fast-enough hardware, does an admirable job of mimicking a stand-alone e-mail client. It’s the kind of app that makes me think Yahoo can develop a credible alternative to Google Docs if they wanted to do so.

Anyhow, back to business. One of the perils of being a publicly traded company without huge mounds of cash on hand is that somebody like Microsoft can swoop in and buy you when your stock is tanking.

Yahoo is a valuable brand with good core technologies. Given the time, they can manage their way out of this mess. But in today’s world, time is scarce.

There are two kinds of tech companies out there: those who would love to be bought by Microsoft, and those who loathe it. OK, there’s a third kind: those likely to be threatened with legal action by Microsoft, but I’m getting off-track here.

Remember this, Yahooligans: The Web isn’t set in stone. If Yahoo is assimilated, you can always cash out and start something newer and better.

As for Microsoft, the company has never been shy about acquiring the technology and market share it needs in order to survive and grow. They’ve got the money, so this acquisition is a no-brainer for them. The clash-of-culture thing could be a problem, but for most people, if the checks keep coming (and they don’t make people move to Seattle) and they see some kind of mission in their work, many will keep going. If it doesn’t go so well, Microsoft parts with cash to crush the No. 2 player in search advertising and effectively assumes that mantle itself.

But letting anybody else — especially someone with the scale and ambition of Amazon — get Yahoo, that would only hurt Microsoft’s search-ad, networked-application and plain-craven-moneymaking mojo. What’s a big load of cash good for when you can’t use it to crush your rivals?

Unless Yahoo can somehow find someone, somewhere with a bigger load of ready money or pricey stock, it looks like Redmond will win this round.

And whether the merger succeeds or fails, if it happens at all, it’s huge-upside time for the folks in Redmond.

Turn the rumor mill: Semel dumped by Yahoo! over foot-dragging on MySpace deal

Russell Shaw of ZDNet has a theory:

This is just pure speculation, mind you, but I have a bit more than a hunch that now-former Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel’s departure from that post was hastened by his inaction in terms of getting Yahoo! as deep into social media as it could have been.

Awful interesting that just two days after Semel gets kicked upstairs to a “non-executive chairman post, comes rife rumors that Yahoo! and News Corp. are negotiating a trade of blue-chip social media property MySpace to Yahoo! in exchange for News Corp. (Rupert Murdoch, you know) acquiring about 25 percent of Yahoo!

…

My hunch is that Semel stood in the way of negotiations to make this rumored deal work. For yet another appearance of interaction, his CEO title was taken away from him.