« Special Guest Post - "The Sage". Will it be You? | Main | Moniker Live and Silent Auctions Up »

June 15, 2007


Sahar Sarid

I saw this few days ago. This is a story where the startup they bought, Flickr, out-done their own service.
Thinking forward on this, I predict Flickr would be responsible to 10%-30% of Yahoo within 3-5 years, both in market cap and traffic.


You would think they would move all of the users to Flickr with a 3 step quick move. Sure Yahoo gets money from Shutterfly etc but what counts more? Yahoo is not going to grow if they start cutting back.

They should have done a web 2.0 mashup with yahoo photos.

owen frager

You get what you pay for. DotMAC has it all over flickr and Yahoo is soon to flicker out itself. As these mac applications open to the iphone and windows, one library, web-accessed and securely backed up will serve all.

Javier Marti

It is not that the startup they bought outdid their own service, but the opposite, they bought Flickr because Flickr surpassed them first and they saw they couldn't compete. Then they acquired it in order not to lose more market share on that area.
Same thing with Google videos and youTube



Christopher Ambler

Of course, those pictures aren't Yahoo's to sell. I suppose they could sell the entire service, or roll it into Flikr (etc.), but if they sold the images by themselves... that would be a no-no.

***FS*** I wonder whether those who uploaded somehow gave their rights away in the fine print.


I don't know about the fine print now, whether flickr can, maybe with permission, sell photographs yet or not, but photographers who have gotten exposure on flickr have gone on to sell their photographs. It's become a platform of opportunity for some. In one case, a professional photographer, Bruce Davidson from Magnum Photos, lost a job to someone who had gained notoriety on flickr. Martin Parr from Magnum discussed this in an interview:

“All the boundaries are collapsing. One of the things that’s interesting about flickr, is that it’s probably emerged as the most intelligent photo-sharing site - it’s become the brand leader. And what will happen with flickr is that within five years it will start licensing pictures. In other words, they’ll be part of the Getty Corbis machinery…the agencies are concerned about this. It’s something we discuss at Magnum…”

So, today's sharing platform becomes tomorrows asset, and starts competing with older stock agencies and photo agencies.

interview link - http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=189

owen frager

Came across this in my stock account- sorry couldn't link. Note the $50 m revenue fig for error search which I don't get cause they are non-profit.

Also re Yahoo as Safari and Firefox take over with Google baked in no one will search on Yahoo. That's pretty clear from all the stats I monitor.

Understanding the browser game
Marketwatch - June 15, 2007 1:23 PM ET

Related Quotes
Symbol Last Chg
AAPL Trade 120.27 +1.52
GOOG Trade 504.78 +1.94
MSFT Trade 30.63 +0.11
YHOO Trade 27.35 +0.05
Quotes delayed at least 15 minutes

BERKELEY, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- One of the dullest of software-market segments, the Internet browser, is getting a lot of attention as Apple Inc. released its Safari browser for Windows this week. Until now, Safari had been available only on the Mac.

No real explanations were given for this, except for the fact that this particular browser is necessary if anyone wants to develop applications for the iPhone. Apparently, third-party iPhone applications will be nothing more than browser-based applications running on the Safari browser.

Apple (AAPL) seems intent on locking down the iPhone to real application development, where programmers can actually go into the phone's software and fiddle with whatever they want. The company is keeping all that power to itself.

So I'm thinking that the only reason the Safari browser is put on the PC is to keep Windows developers interested in the device. Yet Apple did not emphasize it as such.

Was this a marketing blunder, or is Apple serious about competing in the boring browser market with Microsoft Internet Explorer and Firefox? More importantly to outsiders is that these are free products competing with each other. Why should anyone really care?

Over the years, the browser market has become quite lucrative for unexpected reasons, the main one being search.

In the upper right-hand corner of a Firefox browser, for example, you'll find a little search box. Look at the Safari browser; it is there, too.

That little box brings the Mozilla organization, the developers and promoters of the Firefox browser, more than $50 million in income -- free money. This number has been jumping substantially over the years as people get used to typing casual searches into the little box.

The search then goes over to Google (or other engines that users can select), and if that search translates to a hit on an advertisement, Mozilla gets a cut.

The entire toolbar business, where numerous companies will let you add a powerful toolbar to the browser, usually contains some search engine that pays the toolbar provider a percentage of the action when it is used.

Yahoo Inc. (YHOO), Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Google Inc. (GOOG) and everyone in between are involved in various deals that find ways to route Web surfers through their respective systems with search boxes, toolbars and the newest gimmick, the widget.

The widget is like a toolbar, but usually sits alone on a page or can be traded around like playing cards, ending up on a MySpace page, a daily newspaper site or somewhere. I'll do a column on widgets sometime soon, as this market is growing like crazy.

To get back to the point, $50 million a year is not chump change, but neither are the other advantages of a company's own browser. The first is that the default home page can be set to something to make money. The Safari browser jumps right to a lovely promotional page for Apple.

If this page is attractive enough, people may use it as their home page (many people cannot figure out how to change it anyway), and this alone is worth millions in sales.

In the 1990s, there were literally dozens of browsers trying to compete in the market, but the opportunities to monetize the business relied solely on selling the browser. Once the browser became free, like Microsoft's Internet Explorer, then that model was dead and eventually the Redmond giant became the only game in town.

Microsoft wasn't interested in making money with the browser, but wanted to prevent others from turning the browser into a stand-alone platform that would hurt its core operating-system business.

This has changed with the browser becoming a money-making profit center through search affiliations. Now Apple is getting into the act.

What Apple may have done is reignite a once-varied landscape for browsers, with dozens of players due to emerge. Let the fun begin, again.

David Wrixon

What Apple has inadvertently achieved is to ensure that Microsoft are going to have to get their new flagship browser out to the non-Latin areas of the world very rapidly, which is excellent news for IDNers as it will be the death knell of IE6 which has been a complete disaster for IDN.

I don't really believe it is search traffic Apple are primarily after. Apple used to own the PC market before the IBM compatible came out. Microsoft et al basically pushed them off the nest. I think Apple are out to return the compliment. I think this is the beginning of the end for 8086 based processing.


John Gruber brought up the browser searchbar revenue idea in a recent post re Safari for Windows: "My somewhat-informed understanding is that Apple is currently generating about $2 million per month from Safari’s Google integration. That’s $25 million per year. If Safari for Windows is even moderately successful, it’s easy to see how that might grow to $100 million per year or more."

Don't know what it cost to port Safari to Windows, but that sure looks like an incentive to me.

Link - http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote

The comments to this entry are closed.