“Personally, I think the Microsoft and Yahoo matchup is like two tired swimmers who bump into each other and then wind up drowning each other in their scramble to survive. But Yahoo will be the first to go under in this embrace.
…
Just smells like this decades AOL/Time matchup. It will go through. Microsoft will remove one competitor, but it won’t work. It won’t be enough to stop the future.”

And my response:

My only issue with this is that it is ultra-simplistic and limited in scope. Basically:

“AOL/Time didn’t work out like they hoped, and this is similar.”

That’s it? One example of a failure is enough to doom this deal? What about the fact, that, statistically speaking, Wall Street thrives on Mergers and Acquisitions?

This isn’t the first time two big companies have decided to join forces, and it won’t be the last. And the outcome is often very positive (or else no one would do it) even if the failures get most the press.

I’m just saying that most of the “this won’t work” commentary is backed by little more than the “they’re two big companies with different cultures and overlapping products” excuse.

But you could say that about any big company X merging with company Y. Bottom line: if there is limited correlation between the variable of “failures” and the variable of “big company mergers,” well, I’m going to need to see a different variable as the scapegoat of this supposed failure before I believe any “can’t stop the future” rhetoric (what does that even mean, btw?).