“…in this light, Yahoo’s rather scattered network of properties starts to look a little more attractive.”

Does it really? Bartz’s argument is ridiculous — it assumes no organic growth in Google’s core business. Yes, if the search business was a 0% growth business, then Google would need to develop very large other businesses in order to maintain a high growth rate. However, the reality is that even if Google does not gain another point of search share, the search business is going to continue to grow at a nice clip. Incremental dollars are still flowing into online from other less efficient media, and this rate will only increase as cyclical ad dollars return to the market, in many cases finding their way to online media such as search rather than the traditional media from whence they came before the downturn. And of course, as it chugs along, it will continue to spit out nearly enough cash to buy Yahoo (or a company of Yahoo’s size) each and every year.

It is worth adding that it is also ridiculous for Yahoo to say Google is only known for search. That’s like Fresno chiding Los Angeles as only being known for its entertainment industry. Google has “small” divisions that in some cases are as big as some of Yahoo’s largest businesses. As just one obvious example, Google has been steadily kicking Yahoo’s a** in email for about 5 years now… http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/The-Email-Battles-Gmail-VS-Yahoo-Mail-2.jpg/

I don’t mean to fawn over Google, but I think Bartz’s remarks were ridiculous spin, and certainly do not deserve to be lent credence by this fine publication.

Thanks Bob. I noticed after the fact that I accidentally chose a chart that was based on a prediction rather than actual data. It appears that GMail is actually only 35-40% as big as Yahoo Mail, not 75-80% as indicated by the chart. Of course, this is still a substantial portion of Yahoo Mail’s size, which is all I was trying to illustrate by comparing what is perhaps Yahoo’s most important business to one of Google’s “small” businesses.

Net, I don’t disagree that Google is (and should be) looking for new sources of growth. What I disagree with is the notion that their dominance in the search realm is any way a “problem” for Google, or an advantage for Yahoo, as Bartz seems to claim.

So Google’s problem is that it’s enormously successful at what it does (search), has discovered an awesome way to make money with it, and is doing so at a rapid pace?

When was the last time anybody needed to visit Yahoo for anything? 1999? Tell this bitch to stop crying the blues about her shitty strategy (for the record: branching a simple concept like search into all the bullshit that yahoo puts out is a horribly inefficient business plan) and think of something cool so her COMPANY DOESN’T FAIL.

Google is only known for search? Really? Am I wrong in thinking that GMail has overtaken Yahoo and Hotmail as the dominant free email that most people use? Maybe because it’s “GMail” and not “Google Mail”, that’s the problem she sees?

Ms. Bartz doesn’t fully understand what Google does, and therefore doesn’t thrive the way they do. Google isn’t as obsessed with branding everything with their name, which is why they have taken off. Gmail is an example. You can have a gmail account, use it for all your “real” email addresses, and Google doesn’t care. Try that with Yahoo, and you’ll get a nice surprise – a bill. Whole industries of tools are out there based on Google’s model. Zoho, for instance, comes to mind. Google docs is there for people that just don’t want to pay Microsoft several hundred dollars every few years for Office and for people that want to be totally cloud driven.

The reason Ms. Bartz is being blown out of the water by 7-8 times the profit per year is that Google is much more in line with what people want on the net, and not just want the investors want. Say what you will about Google, but they have exploded because they deal with their customers first, which feeds money to the investors…you know, the old model for business that has always worked.

She keeps selling off Yahoo!’s assets, so why is she bragging about Yahoo!’s network?

I am agreed with Bartz that Google is only known for search engine. Although I am very new in the field of online business yet I come to realise that online business do not rely only on search engine alone. In fact, there are many factors that needs to be considered when putting an advertisement online.

For example, most advertiser looking for a site to advertise thier product especially those of site that has high rank page by Google but at the same times the rank is not necessary to have many visitors. Therefore, if I would like to place my advertisement in any site, the first thing that I need to know is the traffic that goes to a spesific site.

Hence, in this regards the best reference is the alexa ranking that based on the traffic. More traffic means the advertisement would be exposed to more potential customer. In fact, I have found there is a site that has a good page rank yet have no visitor.

Therefore, if Bartz says Google is going to have a problem then the possibility for the google to face a problem is cannot be deny as for me I am going to advertise my product is not a site that has a good page rank but rather has a good ranking in alexa.

think she is absolutely right. Actually I visit Yahoo more often on a daily basis that Google. I only go to Google to search and check on my advertising with Google adwords. I find Google news to be less inviting that Yahoo. Yahoo’s news is a step above any competitors.

I think Yahoo mail is steps beyond Google G-mail. To me Google is comparable to Wal-Mart; people use them because they feel like they have to. Yahoo is more like a mom and pop store, the customer is the focus.

If Yahoo would put a little more focus on making search returns better, Google would be a thing of the past for me.

“apple is only known for search” is a ridiculously naive statement that doesn’t even need to be argued. I don’t know how someone so out of touch gets to be head of a tech Corp but I’d sure like a chance to do better! Somehow that’s unlikely but I would enocourager her to take take note of the breadth and level of googles services and it’s acheivements largely without the usual backlash that monoplies usually generate. Frankly I am in awe, while this “CEO” is asleep.

Blah, blah, blah, blah – RUBBISH!

I think she is probably right. Although Yahoo is doing well financially I think they can do things better. Maybe Google could follow Yahoos foortsteps but make their site much more user friendly
and easier to move around in and make inputs on the site easier to access.