Meanwhile they publishers still have expenses to generate and distribute that content across traditional and digital platforms. I’m not justifying the strong-arm tactic but I think that it comes down to a question of finding a revenue source or scaling back similar to what’s happening in the local newspaper journalism markets. Most companies don’t have a busines splan for downsizing intentionally (current automakers aside).

Finally, it seems a little simplistic to say that a company’s goal is to just to tear down another company. Any company that puts out a product aims to make that product number one in their market, drive revenue and reward it’s investors. No company says “I just want to be # 5 in the market, that good enough let’s not bother anymore.”

Something to consider here is that in the game of eyeballs or in this case searches, capturing market share in terms of traffic requires having something (technology, content, brand awareness) the competitor doesn’t have. We the consumers want, rather demand, something more for our participation, loyalty or interest. Getting that advantage usually takes $$. How much is too much is only relevant in terms of the potential return on that investment fiancial or otherwise.

Having a vertical search engine that pulls information from one silo that has a select few sources isn’t allowing for the researcher to get information from all sources, like a horizontal search engine that draws from all sources, despite whether they’re competing sources or not. If Murdoch and Microsoft do merge on this deal, it doesn’t seem like it would make Bing any more successful. Microsoft obviously wants to dominate the market share in all things technology, but if they can’t do a better job than competitors like Google and Yahoo, who appear to be focusing more on consumer needs, then I don’t see how Microsoft takeover the market share. It just goes to show that all the money in the world doesn’t matter when it comes to pushing a product, if the product can’t sell itself, then all the money in the world won’t make a difference. Microsoft has proven this time and time again given the myriad of examples Kathy gave in this blog post.

I also can’t help thinking about how Murdoch would probably lose many readers that are devoted to Google — I hardly know anyone who uses Bing regularly, but most people I know use Google on a daily basis. By taking themselves out of Google searches, won’t they be effectively taking themselves out of the game altogether?

Both Google and Microsoft have now too big stakes of pie, and they are gaining from monopolistic skim the cream off. So, they want to have good relations with Murdoch’s news industry. Any other media outlets, especially small, didn’t get such deal with Google.

By the way, the paid content is becoming more real option and this wave is coming from Asia and Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/internet-users-willing-to-pay-small-fee-for-online-news-content/story-e6frgakx-1225799135054).

Mobile Internet makes this model easier as well.

Media outfits won’t get as much top results and visibility in Bing as in Google News, and a Bing News is too small right now.

At the same time, Bing would even loose traffic if they prioritize Murdoch’s content over other that could fit better the user’s interest. That’s one of the reasons that make Google so powerful.

From Murdoch’s point of view it can make sense to be out of Google, if they are sure of their ability to engage, retain and get money from users. Not sure about a special deal with Bing bringing more users, but maybe money from Microsoft.

And for Microsoft this move looks just like an attempt to make some noise, hitting the air hoping that it may hurt Google.