The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Yahoo!'s board will rightfully tell Microsoft to go pound sand on their offer, unless the total value of that offer is increased, more than 30 percent ahead of their initial approach, making the value of the deal not $44.6 billion, as originally planned, but now, nearly $60 billion.

As I mentioned last week, Microsoft came after Yahoo! at a time when the company's stock was depressed, and tried to "get the company on the cheap", offering, instead of a massive cash outlay, exchange for fractions of Microsoft shares, which at the time amounted to $31 apiece. But in the ensuing market downturn, the offer became less and less substantial, as Microsoft stock eroded, as repeatedly noted by Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider.

Typical in things of this nature, the conflict isn't over technology leadership or how the products and people would overlap, but instead, simply dollars. As Jason Calacanis tweeted this morning, "(translation: $5 bucks more please!)"

I believe that in the face of innovation by Google, Apple, Facebook and many others, Microsoft and Yahoo! don't represent technology leadership and forward-thinking the way they once did. Regardless of the price, Yahoo! should say no to Redmond, and take a new approach to their business to make themselves relevant once again.

From an author behind a new service yet to debut:

"You're doing a fantastic job covering the next generation of content consumption and aggregation services. I think that by now you pretty much cornered this market :) To me, at least, your blog has become a must-read ever since you broke the ReadBurner story."

Stay tuned to see what they've got in mind. You'll hear more in a few weeks... and yes, I'm not used to such nice notes, so I thought I'd share.

Recently, Google's gained a lot of good feeling in the blogosphere for how rapidly they are indexing blog posts as part of their universal search. But while their search side is getting quicker and quicker, it can sometimes be several hours before some posts make their way from being published to hitting Google Reader, with no apparent cause.

It's enough to make me think we need heavy traffic advisories, or warnings that show when a specific hub is congested, the way we now can with airports or freeways.

Not too long ago, Google Reader added a seemingly-small feature that showed when an item was published, and also when it hit Google Reader. Maybe they thought they were showing off how quickly they were indexed. But without a doubt, it'll likely only serve to highlight the times when they aren't getting there fast at all.


Wow - That Timestamp Gave You Away, Google
Today, my post on AssetBar coming to Twitter's aid took more than five and a half hours to reach Google Reader. In the meantime, I saw the post indexed by FriendFeed and AssetBar, added to Spokeo, and listed under my blog on Technorati. In parallel, a response post at The Last Podcast hit Google Reader several hours earlier, but my original post was nowhere to be found.

Finally, despite being posted at 11:21 a.m., Google Reader didn't post the piece until 4:53 p.m., a virtual eternity in the rapid fire blog world. In those five-plus hours, 37 different posts were added to TechMeme's river. In those five hours, I received 149 tweets on Twitter. In those five hours, my story went from what could consider to be "breaking" to "tired".

At times, it's been obvious to me that while Google Reader leads in offering a simplified user interface and ease of use, it lags other services badly in how quickly they fetch items. I often see stories hit the feed, and click through only to find out they already have dozens of comments - making me late to the conversation. Today, that gap was huge. Google didn't just show up late, they showed up last.

While I've previously talked about AssetBar's capabilities as a next-generation social RSS feed reader, expected to open to the public soon, the secret sauce behind AssetBar's efforts is a distributed database system that eliminates a lot of the issues with traditional SQL or relational database environments. Their differentiated approach to the database means AssetBar is highly extensible, with futures not only in RSS feeds, but corporate intranets, Web office, and maybe... as a solution to popular services, like Twitter, who can't seem to stop going down.

As services on SQL databases, like Twitter, strain under dramatic growth in terms of users or activities, users can see downtime. And as AssetBar states in a post this morning, where its proposed they could act as a Twitter proxy, you could enter your Twitter credentials on their site, on their database, and it would interact with Twitter just as if you were on Twitter, but without being impacted by outages. If Twitter was down, your "tweets" would remain in queue, not blocked, as is the case today.

So what's the issue causing downtime in the first place?

AssetBar claims that as popular users like Jason Calacanis and Robert Scoble have gained more than 6,500 followers, and follow 6,500 folks, that means every single tweet is written and rewritten thousands and thousands of times. And just imagine if they're talking to each other. Double the problem. And writes are harder than reads. While it's just a 140 character message going out on the wire, multiply that by 6,500, and you're talking almost a million characters going somewhere. Assuming 300 words in a double-spaced Microsoft Word document, a well-populated tweet would have about 3,000 pages of impact, or reading the fabled monolith novel War and Peace more than two times.

But AssetBar says they have a smarter approach, using their database. They write, "It so happens that our new distributed database technology is rather well suited for twitter-style high-volume reliable messaging. "

Would they try to compete with Twitter? No way. They say "Twitter is the new mail", and it is now mission critical for many people. They want to solve the downtime issues, for the community.

Maybe they're on to something. Check out their full post, "Twitter-proxy: Any Interest?", and provide them feedback as to whether you think they should get in the ballgame and help Twitter-holics out. They would first look to the community's blessing, and get a nod from Team Twitter, before moving forward. But if their database is as unique and strong as they say it is, it could get real interesting real soon.