Pundits = Conspiracy Theorists

I find it absolutely hilarious that pundits will come up with amazingly complex theories behind an action when a simple explanation is far more likely to be correct.

I’m sure everyone has heard about Microsoft’s semi-hostile takeover bid of Yahoo!. Most of you have also likely heard that some Google lawyer posted a blog about how the merger would be a bad thing and Microsoft was a big nasty monopolistic bully. Old hat. And of course all the bloggers responding with how Google is their own big monopolistic bully (in the online search and advertising realm).

But along comes Scoble to explain to us why we’re all wrong and he knows better. According to Scoble Google doesn’t mind the merger and just want to tie up Microsoft and Yahoo for months of legal wrangling while Google develops the next-big-thing which is mobile.

Now maybe (probably) Scoble is right that MicroHoo! wouldn’t be a bad thing for Google. Maybe Scoble is right that Google want to dominate in mobile. But what I can’t believe is that anyone (even at Google) is smart enough to come up with this complex scenario that Scoble seems to think he’s uncovered.

My guess is that Google does at some level fear a combined MicroHoo! Google’s been eating Yahoo!’s lunch for years and with an injection of cash, talent and ruthless ambition Yahoo! can only become a more effective competitor for Google. And despite Google’s ambitions in mobile and other markets I’m absolutely certain that Google doesn’t want to lose the dominance that they have in the online search and ad game.