Monday, 23 November 2009

Murdoch and Microsoft



The Microsoft Corporation has had talks with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation about a tie up which would involved News Corp getting paid to take its news websites off Google Inc.

News Corp, which owns such papers as the Wall Street Journal and the Sun, started the discussion, which were at an early stage.

Rupert Murdoch has said he wants to make people pay for access to his news websites. Other publishers including the New York Times are also searching for ways to charge for news online, convinced that they must not give news through search engines such as Google and Yahoo Inc.

Microsoft has also talked with other online publishers about removing their sites from Google, according to the Financial Times, which first reported the development.

"This is all about Microsoft hurting Google's margins," the FT quoted a website publisher who had been approached by Microsoft.

Microsoft, which relaunched its search engine as Bing this year, has been looking for ways to challenge market leader Google.

Earlier this year it signed a 10-year global web search partnership with Yahoo, a deal that UK and European anti-trust regulators are evaluating. Source: Reuters

Although recently it was reported Rupert Murdoch had given up on the idea that we pay to view his websites it appears he's quietly determined. If he manages to achieve his aims will people pay or go elsewhere?


12 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

Go elsewhere I'm not going to pay for Murdoch's empire now or ever.

subrosa said...

I already do QM as Sky is the only satellite available so far north here but I would never consider paying for his online news.

Apogee said...

Hi SR
Having subscribed to Sky since they started, I have to say the more channels available the more drivel that is broadcast.In saying that, I dont have much option due to terrain.
The thought of Murdoch and Micro$oft in bed together is frightening. Bing is rubbish as a search engine.
Appears about 80% of Yanks wont pay so it may never happen.Can but hope!

D.

subrosa said...

Considering this is current info from Reuters Apogee, I'm thinking Murdoch may put the plan for America on hold but go ahead with one for the UK somehow.

I suppose that could be done?

scunnert said...

Nah - it'll never work. It'll just be like satellite radio - one big flop. There are too many news sources on the web for people to choose from - so why pay? No - this will be a battle for the minds of the great unwashed and if you start charging for propaganda you've already lost.

subrosa said...

Scunnert, I never knew there was such a thing as satellite radio. Learn something every day.

Bill said...

I stopped 'taking the (London) Times' when News Int purchased it and I don't (and will not) subscribe to Sky for similar reasons, No way am I going to pay to looks at News Int content online. I have paid for online access to certain other sources of information and will probably continue to do so - but nothing that emanates from New Int. This move is like trying to stop the tide - it won't work.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

You have to admire the impudence of these moguls; they want to charge us for misinformation and self serving propaganda.

However there's nothing new in this approach, the State Broadcasting Corporation has been doing that for decades.

They of course can criminalise any who refuse to subscribe.

subrosa said...

Unfortunately Bill there are areas of Scotland which cannot receive any other satellite providers other than Sky and therefore some have no alternative.

I read just a couple of weeks ago he was giving up on the idea of charging for online content, but it does seem he's quite determined.

subrosa said...

How on earth do you think they'll get everyone's DNA on their database Crinkly.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Those they don't get at birth, they'll comatose by boredom or making everyone watch a solid week of strictly, then sneak in and get the samples.

Strange thing is Libyan's seem to be immune from this DNA profiling thing.

In all the documents and forensic reports related to the Megrahi trial there's not one mention of DNA even being tested for?

But I digress and have a word count to meet.

And thank you for passing that other item on.

subrosa said...

Crinkly, that's the kind of snippet that makes blogging worthwhile. I wonder why no Libyan DNA was tested now too.

About the other matter, I didn't mind in the least.

Related Posts with Thumbnails