[CENTER] [/CENTER]

Should Steve Ballmer make a hostile take-over of Google?

Three times-a-day Steve Ballmer faces the direction of the Google Dome, gets down on his knees and prays that "The Blue Bird of Paradise" will fly up their Triostium perfoliatum..

Then he gets up and throws an office chair..

Now, according to Forbes, SB is worth a cool 18 billion bucks! Serious hostile take-over cash if you ask me.

All you have to do is wait for a complete Google listing .. and they're ripe for the picking.

Now, any lawyer worth his salt can get you a shelf company; there must be a few lawyers hanging around the top floor of 1 Microsoft Way.

What you need is an already listed public company so you can back door list on the stock exchange. Maybe an old run down men's clothing company or merchant bank. You need the shares fairly tightly held and try to buy back the rest while offloading some to the Pension Funds. With a couple of Pension Funds onboard, you should have about 100 billion.

Rename the old company to say, Ballmerstorming LLC, and you are ready to go. The lawyers will do the rest, for about 100 million bucks ..

And, Steve, you're problems are solved - YOU OWN GOOGLE.

[CENTER] [/CENTER]

Now promise, no more throwing office chairs around. It looks bad in the papers and upsets civilians at their breakfast!


Maybe Google should think about swallowing a poison pill.

You shoulda added "he can die trying" to the polls.

I would have voted.

How about this ..

So, after the VISTA release, Steve Ballmer leaves Microsoft and launches a hostile takeover of Google, through his company Centro Tech LLC, or CT for short (Ballmerstorming was just a codename.).

Steve Jobs takes Ballmer's position at Microsoft and Jim Allchin doesn't retire but replaces Jobs at Apple. {Dn'ot let Svete Jbos arheywne near the pnicirg dpet but.}

Jobs reinvigorates Microsoft and the shares rise, dramatically. Allchin takes an initial HIT at Apple but recovers when people find out how good a manager he is, and - with passion. Not to mention getting MS software ported to Apple on time, and not leaving users as second class citizens. While continuing to work with designers to release initiative Apple products.

After all, Jobs has left (or was pushed) from Apple before. Only when he was brought back did the company start to turn around. But, he still had to call Bill (that's call Bill, not kill Bill) for a $200 million investment to carry on, to start with. Then came iMac and iPod. Microsoft can't allow Apple to fail for appearances, and they are no real threat to Microsoft.

Linux was (or is) more of a threat to Microsoft, but now Google looms the biggest threat.

Bill and Steve could do lunch after the takeover..

Michael Dell needs to be appointed to the Microsoft board. Dell survived and grew when almost everyone else, including the great IBM threw in the towel.

For business..

Slogan: 'A Dell on every desktop. Windows and Office in every Dell..'

Could be some upgrade offers for existing MS hardware and technology for mice, keyboards, video conferencing web cams, etc. Also, if you are moving into NEW MARKETS, at a Government level at first, a package deal may work best.

Some closeness with the mob who bought IBM's PC business could also be an advantage.

This is only the game plan, and depends on everyone's agreement, but more importantly on:-

^ Steve Ballmer gets control of Google.

^ Bill Gates has no plans to retire.

^ Jim Allchin can be persuaded not to retire. (He'll be reinvigorated by Apple.)

Note: This is only a business hypothetical.

However feel free to tear it apart and digitally tar and feather me!


__________________________________________________________________
#This in no way impinges upon my right as a lone consumer to b*tch and moan about the present high price of software!

Note to Microsoft: If your effective tax rate of 32% looks like rising, why not cut software prices in advance, especially on a Vista surge.*

Better to reward consumers than hand it over to Internal Revenue. After all, IRS are going to get consumers as well!

______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
*Although after the first Vista surge by the tech savvy, things may slow dramatically as consumers become confused by the large number of different Vista versions. Also, PC assemblers and particularly graphics card makers turn a greedy eye to increasing profits.

I voted for "What sick twisted mind thought up this poll?"

But truthfully Steve should take your advice. I know allot of the noobs around here just can't wait for Vista, but I have serious doubts as to how many current computer users will want to "pony up" for the transition! I know that I'll only move to Vista if I'm working for a Company that adopts it. Then it will be a corporate version installed on one of my home computers just to take some work home.

The catch is that I don't see allot of companies adopting Vista either! And with rumors about "...Vista shutting out other OSes", and the steeper hardware requirements (both of which sound like plausable Microsoft strategies..). I don't see a bright future for Microsoft. So Steve should sell his Microsoft stock while the price is good!

Dunno.

I think what's most disturbing is that I wrote the poll including the question:
"What sick twisted mind thought up this poll?"

Or it could have been Mr Hyde.

{I voted 'Maybe' by the way.}

Truth is, I believe Steve Ballmer was the one to say 5-odd years ago: "Let's go for the big one.' or words to that effect, and Jim Allchin was in overall charge.

Now, no one is fired after you get past a certain executive level. You resign, or perhaps retire.

Someone's got to take the fall for the fiasco of Longhorn (Vista).

And as Allchin reported to the big Bill:- "It's stuffed, doesn't work, there's no hope.." or words to that effect just over a year ago, he's the prime candidate. So, scrap everything, go back to Server 2003 core and build on that?



Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer and most likely the largest shareholders in Microsoft. They are probable above getting rid of.

Microsoft believes that this 'sevices over the net..' is what they should do, and that Google is in a much better position than they are to do it..

Bullsh*t, I'm not going to pay a fee every time I click on Calculator, or Notepad to use the program located far, far away, or some server in the US.

Is anyone going to use Office like that. Remember that there are many pieces to Office.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Apple is for sale.

So, what if GOOGLE launched a hostile take-over for that company?

[CENTER] [/CENTER]

Google are having their 'honeymoon' period with the public at present. But don't forget that Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, et al, had the same at one time...

Where the hell is he gonna get the money to buy google????

Bill Gates may have the cash but even then do ya really think he would get the two major shareholders to agree.

Paul

US Fund Managers..

There's a river of cash out there waiting for somewhere to go.

Because of my large amount of free time i calculated how much money it could cost to take over google via buying out stock. Remember that you only need to have 51% of the stock in a company and then your control it. But it would take around $2,521,409,180 for Steve or anyone for that matter to acquire google, and according to Forbes top 400 Steve has 14 Billion so he does have the money to buy them out.

[CENTER] [/CENTER]



[CENTER] [/CENTER]



[CENTER] [/CENTER]

[CENTER] Rack 'em up .. « So called Google 'Pizza Boxes.' [/CENTER]

[CENTER] Hot enough to bake! Imagine the heat coming from those.[/CENTER]



I don't think my local computer stores have these, but then again, I wouldn't know what to do with them anyway.



The economies of the Google approach:

The cost advantages of using inexpensive, PC-based clusters over high-end
multiprocessor servers can be quite substantial, at least for a highly parallelisable
application like ours. For example, a $278,000 rack contains 176 2-GHz Xeon CPUs,
176 Gbytes of RAM, and 7 Tbytes of disk space.


In comparison, a typical x86-based server contains eight 2-GHz Xeon CPUs, 64 Gbytes of RAM, and 8 Tbytes of disk space; it costs about $758,000.

In other words, the multi-processor server is about three times more expensive but has 22 times fewer CPUs, three times less RAM, and slightly more disk space. Much of the cost difference derives from the much higher interconnect bandwidth and reliability of a high-end server, but again, Google’s highly redundant architecture does not rely on either of these attributes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plus, hack a bit of Linux, and you've made a few billion dollars....

Ah, if it were only that easy!

--------------------------------------------------------------

[CENTER] Directions at Microsoft - or the floating dead in the water approach![/CENTER]



[CENTER] Over my dead body![/CENTER]

[CENTER][/CENTER]

*I guess I'll be using XP or maybe VISTA for the rest of my life!!!!!!

Green Apple - anyone ..



I wonder if Steve gave Bill his 200 million back? iPod anyone? Not the one with the 'squashy screen' ..

And then there's our unfortunate, former darling, Yahoo ..


*********
"Yahoo Users Get Phished":
Attackers use sophisticated new methods to tap users' IDs and passwords.
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid...7,tk,spx,00.asp

*********

And I couldn't get my SOUND and MODEM to work when I installed Linux! (Mandrake) It had nice wallpaper though.

[CENTER] So, what are we to do?[/CENTER]

Tell me someone - PLEASE!