Microsoft buy the meaning of Yahoo

The Washington Post recently revealed that Microsoft's second request to buy Yahoo, the amount of speculation may be as high as 50 billion U.S. dollars.　　Yahoo shares rose more than 16% per cent on the May 4, while Microsoft's share price fell, spurred by rumours of acquisitions. This deal seems to me unlikely to be achieved, mainly because Yahoo's slap doesn't ring. Sure enough, according to the latest Wall Street Journal News, the two sides stalled negotiations. I think Yahoo is currently in the mobile search ahead of Google, and race, is not to ignore Microsoft's "olive branch."　　The rest of the watch becomes: Microsoft knows not to do so, and what is the information disclosed? In order to illustrate my judgment, I might as well take a long distance. As you know, the industrial revolution was driven by the invention of the steam engine. During the 25 years from 1775 to 1800, Watts and Bolton installed 289 steam engines in the UK, and in 1835 Britain and Ireland had 1953 steam engines. Looks like the most lucrative thing to do with a steam engine? But that is not the case. The steam engine became indispensable, but the company that engaged in the steam engine did not achieve lasting excess profits.　　The wealth created in the industrial economy is not attributed to the steam engine manufacturers, but to the value-added processing industries. The problem that Microsoft is now facing strategically is the problem that the steam engine manufacturers are facing: once the new technology is industrialized, technology providers will be "reduced" to profit-flat basic business, and service providers can create and share added value. Microsoft's current profit structure is becoming a "rental" profit from the excess monopoly from previous technological innovations.　　In other words, Microsoft is becoming a "rent". Rent profit, the trend is to the social average profit, and with excess profits gradually drift away. Microsoft is unwilling to become an average profit-maker, as it has in its history as a steam plant or power plant, so it has to develop into the upstream value-added business. Double-click, Yahoo and other companies are in the upstream service industry, belong to the direction of the right. Because of its lack of core competitiveness in value-added services, Microsoft is eager to make up for itself through acquisitions.　　Microsoft cannot buy Yahoo and will continue to buy companies that are in the direction of services. The core of Microsoft's strategy is software service, as the IT people used to say. It directs Microsoft from the software industry to the service industry.　　Microsoft's wishful thinking is that the software is developed into software + Internet + Services to upgrade the revenue of software to services such as advertising.　　Does Microsoft have a chance in the industry's escalating war? Looking back at history, there was a successful precedent for IBM, which is now ready to adjust. In the same year, IBM also found it manufacturing situation is not good, cut off the M in "IBM" by first selling the hard drive to Toshiba, then selling the PC business to Lenovo-turning itself into an IB, and then strengthening the B by acquiring PwC consulting, which eventually transformed into a revenue-driven company. But unlike IBM, IBM is not only "big" and "strong", but "alive", but Microsoft is a "big" and"Strong" companies, lack of Reiki in the Internet. In my ten years of observation, Microsoft's situation, at least from the current view, is a mixed blessing and bad, biased. The main factor of the benefit is one, that is, Microsoft "Money" more, it can through the unceasing acquisition, the money exchange opportunity, it plays. Unlike Compaq, the acquisition of the wrong one Dec will be a big injury. This is Microsoft's "strong" and "big" place. Bad factors are mainly one, that is, Microsoft "people" less.　　Not fewer people, but more than the core competitiveness of the person to surpass themselves, that is, like IBM has a strategic "live" sex, too little. Today, Microsoft buy Yahoo, and the same year IBM to buy PwC consulting company, is the same principle. But the digestion ability of the two is different. When Microsoft bought Hotmail, it didn't use it well. It shows that Microsoft has a more "internal decision", and that the core competencies of such companies are difficult to obtain through purchase. As for the possibility of "internal cause" change, with all due respect, I think that Microsoft, from top to bottom, is the "industrial" (industry) people, they always use industrial ideas to treat the information industry, first to make the knowledge into a materialized manufacturing, and then turn the game into box ... That's why they can't get into the Internet. Microsoft needs to think like IBM and Google, thinking in a service-centric way.　　That way, even if you don't buy Yahoo, you can keep up with the times. As for Yahoo, can the search engine's throne hand over to Google, can only be regarded as a "disease Worm" (Song Dynasty tiger called Worm), Microsoft to find it is mistaken. Yahoo was once a lofty passion to shout out "You Yahoo," I was a friend at that time that it is a paper tiger, the slogan changed to "You ya Bluff (Yahoo homophonic) who?" ”