RSSGoogle CEO cites 'a natural fear of things getting larger'
By Tim Conneally | Published September 18, 2008, 7:10 PM
Despite what has become international opposition to the deal, Eric Schmidt yesterday expressed his belief that Google doesn't have to receive special governmental approval to proceed with its ad-sharing arrangement with Yahoo.
In a press conference at Google's headquarters yesterday, CEO Eric Schmidt said the deal is scheduled to be completed in October, but he can't seem to get a bead on where regulators stand.
"We don't know if they think it's a good deal or poor deal," the Associated Press quoted Schmidt as saying. He was confident that the deal does not represent any anti-competitive action.
However, the scope of the combination has been grounds for concern since it was proposed. Civil rights organizations, and agricultural interest groups are among those lobbying against the deal.
"There is a natural fear of things getting larger," he told reporters, adding that Google failed to effectively convey to regulators how beneficial the combination could actually be.
Schmidt did not leave Microsoft unchecked, either, in his response to a question about rivals and trade groups attempting to block the combination. "We are quite certain that Microsoft is busy helping everyone get upset about these things," Reuters cites Schmidt as saying.
Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blogroll links? If so, Add the follow links.Thanks!
CHEAP WOW GOLD
wow gold es
wow gold en
aoc gold
aoc gold
EQ2 Gold
Eve Online ISK
FFXI GIL
Guild Wars Gold
Hellgate Gold
Vanguard Gold
LOTRO Gold
Vanguard Gold
game pet
games money
Wine Glass
Age of Conan
Apple News
Asia Travel
Body jewelry
Eat near you
gift shop
learn chinese
MMORPG News
Mobile News
Nintendo DS
Pc Gaming
PlayStation 3 News
PSP news
Web Design
Wii News
wow gold
Xbox 360
Score: 0
|"If it lasts more than 48 hours, you should see a doctor"
Score: 0
|Then why did we have Microsoft Anti-trust case? We should let Microsoft get lager because it's our "natural fear". It's totally 2 faces.
Score: 0
|*LAUGHING*
The MS anti-trust case came about because of bundling and anti-competitive practices.
Totally different beast.
They also had quite a bit more market-share than Google does. (technically, in the US, anyway, Google doesn't even qualify in terms of market-share)
Score: 0
|Monopoly in the making, and they critise Microsoft.. Split Google UP
Score: 0
|Is there competition=yes
Should regulators do anything=no
s*** did not leave Microsoft unchecked, either, in his response to a question about rivals and trade groups attempting to block the combination
Playing the big bad wolf Microsoft is out to get us so let us do anything we want card is the only reason i would love to see regulators stop the deal.
Score: 0
|What? Competition? WHERE???
The only 3 major search engines are Yahoo, goole and Microsoft. And if there's no Yahoo, there will be only google with close to 90% of the whole search market.
So stfu with this there-is-competion, because there is virtually NO competition as it is (since google is enjoying 60%+ market share) and if Yahoo is sold, it'll be getting veeeery close to monopoly.
So I'd suggest you get your facts right.
Score: 0
|60% does not a monopoly make. Get your facts right, indeed...
Score: 0
|Get your facts strait 3 major and plenty of small ones including one from ex Google employees. Sure the smaller ones suck but they are still there.
I hate Google and consider them internet based spyware but I don't let my hate blind me.
Score: 0
|lol
Wow, you really ARE incompetent, aren't ya? Nobody even mentions small ones, since their market share so dismal (with most either close to 1% of less than 0.5%). If you think that 100 (i would say hundredS) TINY search engines are competition to google, ms or yahoo (since you said that google taking over yahoo is ok, meaning that there will be only 2 major search engines and many small ones), then you better check out any economics book, because NOBODY compares a huge multinational having market share measured in tens of percents with a bunch tiny start-ups.
What you are saying is smth like: 100 fishes can be considered competition to 3 sharks. Is this really so?
Score: 0
|Wow, you really ARE incompetent, aren't ya?
This from someone with poor comprehension skills you even said it yourself there are plenty of small ones out there.
They may not be sharks(as you put it) but neither was Google when they first started. Google was good and worked to get noticed and became king of the ocean.(and don't forget back then Microsoft played hardball against competition)
So tell me genius whats stopping the other small fish from doing the same other than i dunno nothing.
Score: 0
|"a natural fear of things getting larger" ohhh, so THAT is how they call monopoly now. ok, ok...
Score: 0
|I know you're just spouting rhetoric to support your own inexplicable emotional investment in your personal bias, but regarding monopolies in the US, at least, they are not, by definition one....yet.
The lowest marketshare of any convicted monopolist is around 75%. Not the ~60% or so Google currently holds.
Score: 0
|"s*** did not leave Microsoft unchecked, either, in his response to a question about rivals and trade groups attempting to block the combination. "We are quite certain that Microsoft is busy helping everyone get upset about these things," Reuters cites s*** as saying."
Has anyone else ever spotted that companies attack Microsoft all the time, but Microsoft never attacks them back verbally (or at least that I remember).
Saying things like s*** did is pointless and only makes you look like a sour prick.
Microsoft just crushes them in the business department instead of whinging.
/oh dear, I'm drunk again
Score: 0
|I think it may be more of a natural fear of trusting CEO's of large corporations to do the fair thing for competition. Of course, it must be 'fair' if they can find a loophole in regulations or bypass them altogether.
Score: 0
|