EU sees #Google as the new #Microsoft

Here's the latest details on the European Union's battle against what it sees as monopolistic practices, and a monopolistic default position, on Internet search engines by the giant Google.

As with Microsoft, I applaud the EU's concern. But, how to address this issue differs a fair degree from Microsoft.

Microsoft was bundling Internet Explorer with its OS on Windows-based computers, if you remember. There's no bundling of that sort with Google.

That said, there is bundling, if you will, of Google advertising with its search engine.

Here's the issue as discussed so far:

The dispute has been running since 2010 when rivals, including British price-comparison site Foundem, complained about the way it displayed results. 

The deal suggested by Google in February was rejected after 20 formal complaints made the EU rethink its original decision to accept the proposals. 

Under the terms of the deal, Google agreed to reserve space near the top of its European search pages for competitors, which would be open to rivals to bid for via an auction. 

Rivals argued that Google's solution was unfair for a range of reasons, including the fact that Google would make money out of the changes.

I agree with the concerns in the last paragraph. I'm not sure that the money should go to the EU; maybe it could be donated to a program to buy computers for distribution in the developing world. 

I'm not totally sold on the crux of the solution in the third paragraph, even.

Fines are the next step, up to 10 percent of Google's $55 billion annual income. While Microsoft was not fined that steeply, it was fined more steeply than US regulators were even considering, with the hint of even steeper fines after that.

The EU is at least as bureaucratic as the US, and somewhat neoliberal, though, fortunately, not as much so as the US.

#Adobe, cloudy reasoning, your local paper and #effyou

If you've heard the recent news about how Adobe is going to move all future releases of its Creative Suite software program bundle to the cloud, and you're also a newspaper fan, especially of smaller community newspapers, you should be concerned.

This will be an additional price burden for said community newspapers, and it's not yet clear how much.

Meanwhile, Adobe's InDesign desktop publishing program took off as quickly as it did, even though its predecessor, Pagemaker, was A: Pretty crappy; B: Designed to work best on PCs, not Macs, because the competition, Quark XPress, rightfully got a bad reputation, mainly in the customer service field. It didn't respond well, or quickly, to queries or complaints, first. Second, its updates didn't generally offer all new services customers wanted, even after InDesign started gaining ground. And today, Quark appears content to rest on its legacy background along with "trapped overhead costs" of many newspapers, hoping they don't want to spend the money to switch, if they haven't.

First, if you're a smaller newspaper, and you haven't switched, you shouldn't.

Second, if you're still running pre-Intel Macs, and you're realizing you're eventually going to have to face the upgrade wall, you have options.

That includes buying Windows 7 PCs while they're still around, but dirt-cheap. Quark 7 or 8 on Windoze works well. Depending on the size of your paper, you may be able to buy a couple of copies of older versions of Photoshop as a stand-alone and work with them.

Or, look at Photoshop Elements. Or a non-Adobe photo-editing program. Anything up to the size of a 7-day daily of less than 25K circ doesn't have to go hog-wild on the latest and greatest version of Photoshop. (Or the same for either Quark or InDesign.)

The latest edition of Publishers' Auxiliary, the monthly newspaper for the community newspaper industry from the National Newspaper Association, goes into this issue with a lot of detail. Here's their lede piece.

Anyway, if you have a small newspaper or small mag, explore your options.

And, this could lead more to consider other options.

Like finally making the transition to digital only. Of course, that will be digital in an HTML sense. Not an e-edition, as without either InDesign or Quark, you're not creating PDFs, unless you want to try to creatively downgrade to Microsoft Publisher. .

Seriously, this is another option for newspapers and magazines. Depending on what version of Creative Suite you have, how likely it is to get continued Abode debug support and for how long, and how long it's going to be able to handle files (like until Abode gets dickish and creates extensions like "tifx" or "inddx" to force your hand) you have a few years to plan details of a move to digital only.

And, if you have to have creative tools, there's alternatives. If not Photoshop Elements, there's GIMP,  the German photo editing program Photoscape and more. Anything halfway like Photoshop that has good work with layers and a decent filter set is an option. Illustrator? Corel Draw's the easy alternative. And, on InDesign? You can go back to Quark, or suck it up enough to figure out a way to do something with Publisher if you have to.

And, then, at some point, go web-only.

Plus, there's Abode's lie, I believe, of saying they're doing this for a more steady revenue stream. No, it's an anti-piracy measure, which will probably just up the piracy wars. Given what we already know about cloud-computing and security issues, I don't see why this would be much harder of a hack than before.

Meanwhile, if it's smart, Corel bundles PaintShop, Draw, and Word Perfect, and looks at creating its own desktop publishing program to bundle with that. It could aim at the lower end of the market, say something about as bells-and-whistles as Quark version 3. A lot of non-daily papers would find that whole suite fine if they've not upgraded to Office 2007 or later on the Windoze side. Add in that Corel has basic-level video editing software and more, per its Wiki page and its home page,  and there's potential indeed. Or it could buy Quark; after all, Corel itself is a "built-up" company; all of its main products were acquired by acquiring companies.

In short, Corel could become a new "player" in multiple software games, and also give a lot of people a new way to say "Eff you" to Adobe (and a bit of sideswipe "eff you" to Microsoft in the process, and to Apple in a way, as well).

Update, July 16: I now have found further reason to very dislike Adobe. The advertising salesperson's newspaper at our office has an older version of InDesign than I do. I was going to "downsave" a page of spec ad templates for him to open on his computer.

No soap. Adobe apparently doesn't allow downsaves to older versions. Quark does. Even Microslob does. This increases the possibility that, at least in proprietary Adobe formats, it may increase this with the equivalent of a "docx" setup at some future date.

You can do a quasi-template downsave, but even that only works with going down one edition. I don't think this is a "limitation" problem, since Quark allows more flexibility and Word (though a lesser program, modern XML Word is more than fried Spam) offers much more. Rather, I think this is an Adobe snootiness issue. Thank doorknob common photography formats are pre-Photoshop.

#Google worse than #Microsoft? – The dark side of the Net

Maybe Google is a giant Pacman trying to devour all the data it can.

Five years ago, the idea that Google was worse than Microsoft, whether for problems of sheer size, using its size in quasi-monopolistic ways, having poor ethics on some issues, or specifically, badly handling personal data, would have seemed laughable. Two years ago, even, it wouldn’t have gotten serious consideration.

Today? The answer is arguably yes.

The master domino, tumbling all others, seems to be Google Street View. A secondary domino is Google’s new no-opt-out terms of service, combined with its plan (and, so far febrile attempts) to make Google Plus a “platform” for the full range of Google products and services.

The latest on Street View?

The secret Street View data collection led to inquiries in at least a dozen countries, including four in the United States alone. But Google has yet to give a complete explanation of why the data was collected and who at the company knew about it.

To continue the comparison, that’s arrogance of a Bill Gates level, to not be talking more.

That’s compounded by U.S. regulators being slower, lazier, or more neoliberal than their European counterparts:

No regulator in the United States has ever seen the information that Google’s cars gathered from American citizens.

It seems to be a mix of factors here in the U.S.:

Michael Copps, who last year ended a 10-year term as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, said regulators were overwhelmed. “The industry has gotten more powerful, the technology has gotten more pervasive and it’s getting to the point where we can’t do too much about it,” he said.

But, Dear Leader, Barack Obama, has yet to propose more enforcement powers, money or anything else. Since he’s expanded his spying on American citizens, that may be of a piece, but that’s a whole nother subject.

And yet, per a friend of a friend on Facebook, many people blithely take the Jeff Jarvis attitude and don’t worry about such things.

Back to the subject matter at hand.

Next, we have Google engaging in old Microsoft levels of lying, if not worse:

When German regulators forced the company to admit that the cars were sweeping up unencrypted Internet data from wireless networks, the company blamed a programming mistake where an engineer’s experimental software was accidentally included in Street View. It stressed that the data was never intended for any Google products.

Not true:

The F.C.C. did not see it Google’s way, saying last month the engineer “intended to collect, store and review” the data “for possible use in other Google products.” It also said the engineer shared his software code and a “design document” with other members of the Street View team.

On privacy issues, with Microsoft, it was just the suckiness of various versions of the Windows OS. With Google, it’s deliberate snooping.

Of course, back to Michael Copps’ lament and my observation about Dear Leader, with Google only being fined $25,000 for this particular nefariousness, it’s no wonder it does it.

Declining to answer questions for an article like this doesn’t make you look good, either.

More on the problem below the fold.

An HP takeover? Would Dell buy? Is Yahoo? Would AOL?

The Yahoo rumors were fueled by a leaked email from former CEO Jerry Yang. But, to me, a sale of Hewlett-Packard, with possible spinoff of part of it, makes just as much sense.

It's clear that HP is caught between two stools, and along with all the other disfunctionality of its board, it is in the middle of that being trapped between different visions.

It hired Apotheker, I guess, on the idea that he would make it into more of a business services company, but didn't like how he was doing that. I think it's viable either continuing to go down that road, or going back down the road of personal products, including bringing back the tablets, but not both.

Rather than a self-orchestrated split, a takeover by another company, with one of the two halves being "spun off," makes sense.

Dell has been behind the curve recently, with somewhat bland performance. Adding HP, and primarily to enter the tablet market, then selling other parts of the country, would make sense.

On the business side, I think an Oracle- or Sun-type company would value it less.

Now, back to Yahoo.

Microsoft is only buying it on terms more draconian than before. AOL/Huffington Post would be an intriguing suitor; integrating Yahoo's search with its stable of serf writers could be a smart business move. It would be a way of attempting to do an end run, or run at, Google's pre-eminence in news (or quasi-news) content.

Then there were three: #Google, #Apple, #Amazon infowars

Yes, infowars. The latest news on Amazon's planned new tablet, including proprietary apps and a "forked" version of Google's Android OS show that information control wars between the Big Three are only going to heat up.

Jaron Lanier recently talked extensively about Apple and Google's stake in this.  The "this"?

It's the "hollowing out" of the cost of information delivery devices, often along with initial loss-leader prices on at least a sampling of information with proprietary control.

Then, J.A. Konrath and Blake Crouch argue that Amazon (and, to a lesser degree, other e-publishers) may be going down the same path of hollowing out and information control.

This is another installment of my "dark side of the Internet" series, for that reason.

Let's not forget that Stewart Brand's famous, or infamous, "Information wants to be free" quote was only one half of the issue:

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

What Lanier is saying is that the Apples and Googles of the world have the critical mass to make information free, or nearly so for now. And, I read Konrath and Crouch saying the same about Amazon. Then, later, like WallyWorld, in a more and more semi-monopolized Internet, where they have more control of the "right place," it will get expensive.

(Update: At the same time, Lanier is himself some sort of tech-neolib, who is dumb enough, naive enough, or on the take enough to assume that Big Data will give you or I micropayments for using its services.)

(Update 2: Brand himself claims he's blamed for a lot of tech-neoliberalism stuff that is not his fault. The rest of that interview indicates he's lying to himself if he really believes that and lying to the rest of us anyway.)

So, let's take a look at each of the Big Three, their current "stake" and what may be ahead.

Apple? The"proprietary control" issue has it at No. 1. Apple's apps can't be tweaked without jailbreaking, it makes all its own products/hardware, and it's very vertically integrated. Plus, it has a whole suite of its own software, such as iPhoto, iLife, etc., beyond its mobile apps.

Plus No. 2? A fanatically loyal customer base, along with an almost mythical image as being an "anti-corporation," i.e., not IBM. (Even more than "not Microsoft" in some ways) Can Tim Cook maintain it, especially in four or five years, after Jobs, assuming further health decline, steps down as chairman of the board?

Weaknesses? It has little information to manage/control in the traditional sense. It's well set for the management of information with all of its self-centeredness, but it has no pile of information yet.


Google? The personalization of its logo on its home page for many holidays, tied with the personalization of Internet searches that Google offers us, brands Google as being an anti-corporation, i.e., not Microsoft, but in a different way than Apple. Through "personalized" web searches, it also fosters that image.

At the same time, such search personalization, a "real names" policy on Google Plus and cloud computing, show Google's profit motive is at least as transparent as that of Bill Gates for anybody who looks at all.

Specific to this issue, Google has the strength of Internet search leadership and the willingness to spend on anything that will increase such leadership. Buying YouTube, developing Google-Plus after previous social media flops, and continued investing on cloud computing all illustrate that.

Weakness? As Amazon's "forking" of Android shows, it's not made its information flow very proprietary yet. Cloud computing may change that, although with the amount of rented server space Amazon offers, that may not be an unchallenged strength for Google in the future.

Weakness No. 2? Government regulators in both the U.S. and Europe worry that Google IS the new Microsoft.

Below? Amazon, the "new kid on the block," and further thoughts.

Bing key to Microslob-Yahoo deal; suits coming?

Although Bing won’t fully run the Yahoo search engine show until next year, from descriptions of the new Microsoft takeover of Yahoo, it sounds important to the deal.

That said, with Microsoft’s price offering about half of what it was a year ago, I can’t see how Jerry Yang and some others don’t get their pants sued off.

Google Chrome OS a Microslob warning shot?

Some interesting thoughts on that very subject, and why the two companies warily circle each other rather than going for the kill.

EC tries to slap down Microsoft again

Once again, the European Commission says Microslob is engaged in anti-competitive practices by bundling Internet Explorer with its operating system.

Can the EC fine Microslob oh, about $10 billion, both as a slapdown to it and a shot across the bow to Google for the future?

Windoze Vista officially sux

And Microslob admits it, extending the cutoff for XP to be available to custom computer builders. Essentially, you’ll be able to get XP until Windoze 7 comes out.

The yen of Yang

Ain't what it used to be. In a no-brainer, even for a brainwashed Yahoo board, CEO Jerry Yang has been given the boot.

So, is Microsoft interested again? Actually, I'll take Steve Ballmer pretty much at his word and say, "perhaps."

First, the poison pill on layoffs that Yang got passed will have to go bye-bye. Yahoo won't get more than a seat or two on an enlarged Microsoft board. And, Yahoo will have to accept that Microslob will jettison parts of the company to satisfy regulators, too.

Line up the Yahoo shareholder lawsuits

First, Google backed away from an ad-sharing deal due to regulatory fears. Now, even with Yahoo’s price in the tank compared to the time it was in talks, Microsoft (via Steve Ballmer) says it’s not interested, period.

After Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang walked away from a $33/share offer, his company is now at $12/share on this news. How can you NOT sue him, if you’re a major shareholder?

Google Chrome nice but not platinum

JavaScript speed, from-scratch platform, and Google interoperability all pluses, but “cloud computing” focus raises new round of Google as Big Brother questions

Google is coming after both Firefox AND Internet Explorer with its own web browser.

Contra the Microslob spokesperson touting IE8 (in beta now), given how slow IE7 loads pages, AND given that it has fewer features in many ways than FF2, let alone 3, I ain’t downloading IE 8. Beyond that, IE8 is supposed to use twice as much memory as IE7, itself a memory hog.

Meanwhile, Chrome has seriously souped up JavaScript speed.

Faster, especially much faster page loads mean it can load more complex ads, as well as webpages, which means more ad dinero, as CNET explains.

Over at The Dallas Morning News, Victor Godinez says this could be the Firefox death knell.

A full $56 million of Mozilla’s $66 million of revenue last year came from its Google partnership, which ends in 2011.

I disagree with Godinez, though, that Chrome will ONLY hit Firefox. (He claims that IE 8 won’t be hurt because many businesses require its use, and many home users aren’t aware of other browsers.

Victor, this is Google we're talking about. With Google marketing, etc. With Google's own autodownloader program. With Google's Blogger platform likely targeting bloggers to get special blog-related apps on Google.

And, on the business side, Google may push for a package of Google software to be preinstalled on computers.

Wired also disagrees with Godoniz on Chrome vs IE:

It’s an aggressive move destined to put the company even more squarely in the crosshairs of its rival Microsoft, which long ago crushed the most fabled browser of all, Netscape Navigator.

And, it runs JavaScript 10x faster than Firefox or Safari.

Oh, and based on info from Download Safari pages will render correctly in Chrome.

So, the idea of Safari for Windows, at least, should be considered dead.

Sayonara, Steve Jobs, on that baby.

And yet more info on Chrome, specifically in its Terms of Use, indicate Google is intent on becoming more and more of Big Brother all the time.

Given this, I doubt I’ll be any more likely to use Chrome than I will IE8. Indeed, it’s that concern that keeps me from using Google as my RSS reader.

The “Big Brother” worry about Google? Basically, it’s all about the fact that “cloud computing,” at least as Google is now pushing it, represents a loss of control, As John C. Dvorak simply and forcefully details.

In a nutshell, Dvorak says that for some specialized apps, a cloud-based bit of software may well be the superior solution. It’s hard to find what you want as a downloadable app, plus there’s what he calls “nagware”: the update reminders, etc.

Read the whole story for more.

That said, Chrome is NOT necessary, and a cloud-based, cloud-focused or partially cloud-based web browser offers no special convenience.

Move over Firefox AND IE

Google is coming after both of you with its own web browser. Right now, it’s only available in a PC version, with Apple and Linux apps to come. Google has had an ad partnership with Firefox, to take on Microslob’s Internet browser presence indirectly, but apparently decided it was time to strike.

That said, per the story, I didn’t even know Google HAD its own IM.

At the same time, contra the Microslob spokesperson touting IE8 (in beta now), given how slow IE7 loads pages, AND given that it has fewer features in many ways than FF2, let alone 3, I ain’t downloading IE 8. Beyond that, IE8 is supposed to use twice as much memory as IE7, itself a memory hog.

Meanwhile, Chrome has seriously souped up JavaScript speed.

Faster, especially much faster page loads mean it can load more complex ads, as well as webpages, which means more ad dinero, as CNET explains.

Over at The Dallas Morning News, Victor Godinez says this could be the Firefox death knell.

A full $56 million of Mozilla’s $66 million of revenue last year came from its Google partnership, which ends in 2011.

Meanwhile, Mozilla’s CEO whistles in the dark with this comment:

As much as anything else, it’ll mean there’s another interesting browser that users can choose.

I disagree with Godinez, though, that Chrome will ONLY hit Firefox. (He claims that IE 8 won’t be hurt because many businesses require its use, and many home users aren’t aware of other browsers.

Victor, this is Google we're talking about. With Google marketing, etc. With Google's own autodownloader program. With Google's Blogger platform likely targeting bloggers to get special blog-related apps on Google.

And, on the business side, Google may push for a package of Google software to be preinstalled on computers.

Wired also disagrees with Godoniz on Chrome vs IE:

It’s an aggressive move destined to put the company even more squarely in the crosshairs of its rival Microsoft, which long ago crushed the most fabled browser of all, Netscape Navigator.

And, it runs JavaScript 10x faster than Firefox or Safari.

Beyond that, Mozilla itself has a services suite in the works that could compete with some Google apps. And, per Google’s IM, Business Week notes that a number of Google products lost steam soon after launch.

Oh, and based on info from Download Safari pages will render correctly in Chrome.

So, the idea of Safari for Windows, at least, should be considered dead.

Sayonara, Steve Jobs, on that baby.

And yet more info on Chrome, specifically in its Terms of Use, indicate Google is intent on becoming more and more of Big Brother all the time.

Given this, I doubt I’ll be any more likely to use Chrome than I will IE8. Indeed, it’s that concern that keeps me from using Google as my RSS reader.

The “Big Brother” worry about Google? Basically, it’s all about the fact that “cloud computing,” at least as Google is now pushing it, represents a loss of control, As John C. Dvorak simply and forcefully details.

In a nutshell, Dvorak says that for some specialized apps, a cloud-based bit of software may well be the superior solution. It’s hard to find what you want as a downloadable app, plus there’s what he calls “nagware”: the update reminders, etc.

Read the whole story for more.

That said, Chrome is NOT necessary, and a cloud-based, cloud-focused or partially cloud-based web browser offers no special convenience.

So, yes, Mozilla should have an eye to its financial future. But, no, it shouldn’t be sweating bullets right now.

Your computer will crash at midnight local time Friday

If you have a PC, that is.

It’s in memory of Bill Gates leaving Microsoft.

Yahoo postpones annual meeting

Jerry Yang is trying to
work out a deal with either Carl Icahn or Microslob.

Not sure which is worse.

The meeting’s been delayed until July. That also puts it past second-quarter earnings time, which will either show that Yang is starting to deliver results on improving Yahoo, or will up the pressure on him.

Inside the Microsoft-Yahoo talks – Gates says Microsoft doing it ‘our way’

Microsoft founder Bill Gates said the company isn’t pursuing other deals after the collapse of Yahoo takeover efforts.

Meanwhile, as Yahoo Chairman Jerry Yang and the company’s board fend off the potential flood of lawsuits over rejecting Microslob’s final $33/share offer, they say Steve Ballmer wasn’t serious about the offer because it wasn’t in writing.

While they differed on some details, the people agreed Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft didn't spell out the $47.5 billion offer in writing. Instead, it was orally presented by both Ballmer and Brad Smith, the software maker's general counsel.

In contrast, Microsoft's initial bid of $44.6 billion, or $31 per share, was sent to Yahoo’s board in a Jan. 31 letter that contained specific financing terms.

Although raising a takeover bid orally isn't ideal, it's acceptable when two sides like Microsoft and Yahoo already have been engaged a lengthy dialogue, said Morton Pierce, a New York lawyer specializing in corporate acquisitions.

“You would always prefer to have (an offer) in writing to see if there are any conditions attached, but it’s not necessary when people have been negotiating in good faith,” Pierce said.

Other theories abound.

Some think that Ballmer attached conditions, or presented the offer in a way to make sure it was turned down, allowing him to escape a deal that the Street didn’t think was good for Microslob.

Meanwhile, it’s hard to argue with major Yahoo shareholder Eric Jackson that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and fellow Yahoo founder David Filo probably have too many emotional ties to the company to have conducted Yahoo’s side of negotiations by themselves.

Ballmer caves a second time – or does he?

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said last week he had a set price he would pay for Yahoo, and he meant it.

Yahoo’s board of directors didn’t move downward from its $37/share line after Ballmer upped Microslob’s initial offer to $33 from $31, so Ballmer has pulled the offer. And, he doesn’t appear to try to go with a hostile takeover bid.

Result? Many Wall Street analysts are predicting a raft of shareholder lawsuits against Yahoo.

If that’s the case, the only way out for Yahoo’s board may be to grovel back to Ballmer — who will make a nice $31/share offer.

However, there were other issues. Yahoo was worried, rightly, about regulatory issues. It also wanted a “lock-in” in Ballmer’s offer.

Steve Ballmer caved!

Supposedly Microslob, with Ballmer taking the point, raised its offer for Yahoo by several dollars a share.

Any time Microslob gets a nut check is a good day in my book.

Microsoft move on Yahoo may backfire

First, Microslob is threatening to lower its current offer if Yahoo doesn’t accept that. Well, that ought to be worth a chapter in the book, “How to Win Friends and Influence Proxy Stock Battles.”

Second, especially with Yahoo approaching Google for this test run on advertising cooperation, this whole battle is expected to help Gurgle, which is exactly what Microslob didn’t want to do.

Third, when your new operating system, Vista, is such a piece of crap your own execs complain about it, AND your dreaded Service Pack 1 is so big you ought to have started over with a new OS, AND this SP1 is itself still pretty crappy, from what I’ve heard …

Don’t you have enough on your own plate, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, without worrying about trying to take over Yahoo?

Take THAT Bill Gates – Yahoo looks at AOL

Yahoo is getting closer to a deal with AOL to combine Internet operations.

The possible Yahoo-AOL tie-up is part of a threefold plan by Yahoo to present shareholders with an alternative to Microsoft's unsolicited offer. Yahoo would also propose repurchasing billions of dollars of its own shares and is negotiating with Google Inc. about an advertising tie-up. On Wednesday, Yahoo announced a short-term test under which it will carry search advertising from Google.

Frankly, I think a full merger with AOL, if Yahoo winds up having to merge or be acquired, is much more in consumers’ interest than an acquisition of Yahoo by either Microslob or Gurgle.

And, as the story notes, the deal makes sense for AOL parent TimeWarner. And, if this deal includes a full spin-off of AOL, I think would certainly clear regulatory hurdles more easily than a deal with either Microslob or Gurgle.

And, if that’s true in the U.S., that’s true in spades if this needs E.U. approval, too.

The story also notes Gurgle owns a 5 percent stake in AOL. I think that should be divested if Yahoo merges with either AOL or Microslob.

Meanwhile, Yahoo is also doing a short-term test of ad partnering with Gurgle. Even if not permanent, it is expected to raise Yahoo’s cash flow, which will let it buy back more outstanding shares, which would then make a Microslob acquisition tougher.