Much has been written on Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo and the truth is, only time will tell how it plays out.
However something which really is quite daft are the theories coming from so called expert analyst’s. Their simplistic models work on a false “synergy” theories which makes perfect sense if you accept their premise. Unfortunately they are wrong in the underlying assumption.
If you ever want to understand why Microsoft buying Yahoo is at best “a challenge” don’t listen to the the ‘2nd and 3rd place coming together” argument. In summary it says, 1 chimp can’t beat a gorilla but 2 might!
Instead consider golf as a better metaphor. If Ernie Els and Phil Mickelson decide to take alternate shots and play Tiger Woods, their chances of winning are just the same as if they were playing him individually (at best).
If Microsoft and Yahoo can’t beat Google as separate organisations then there is nothing to suggest they will automatically do any better as part of a combined operation.
I’m not saying that Microsoft can’t dominate in certain of it’s chosen markets and only a fool would write them off. However Search is Google’s turf and I see nothing in this takeover which will change that.