It's interesting to see large companies shift focus. For years, Microsoft made their money by flogging Office and Windows to home consumers. But they couldn't expand that any more. After all, once a home user has paid £400 to MS for applications software, they tend to hold onto it longer than a corporate. And they had sold their software to all the corporates who, in the main, saw the software as a basic expense to get the basics (mail, internet, file and print). And it does this pretty well. But the shareholders demand growth along a similar vein to Google, so the business plan needed changing.

Now, they've bought Aquantive. This is a slight copycat purchase after Google had bought Double Click, but this deal dwarfs that one. This a $6billion purchase, compared to the $3.1billion Google paid. And for what? Well, they are buying on of the leading lights in online advertising, respected and with a large client base. Who in turn now have access to the in depth knowledge of the operating system the masses use.

What's the bets on the next MS service pack with a back door for their own advertising? Or firewall rules to block Google's ad's? It's the next big turf war as companies try to expand a portfolio to give them a new stream of revenue away from the core products.

An interesting side show to this story is that Google's purchase needs regulator approval - guess who was shouting "anti-trust!" the loudest???

Another interesting story was the broadband companies against the BBC over it's iPlayer service. The boradband companies (two in particular - Tiscali and Carphone Warehouse). Here's a quote:

"We don't see any reason why some of the cost of transmission over our network shouldn't be paid by the provider of the content. We don't believe that the potential for it to cause congestion is being properly recognised and acknowledged."

Now maybe I'm missing something here but surely the way it works is this - I pay for a broadband service (well, I would if I did, but fortunately my work pays), and there is nothing in the service definition that restricts what you can do with it. Now, some have tier limits and download limits etc - some don't and I'd suggest if your going to be an avid iPlayer viewer you'll need the latter.

It sounds like bleating from the broadband companies - they'll be hit by traffic they've not had before and will have to invest to support it, or people will leave. It's interesting that the two companies in question have questionable support and are aimed as low cost service providers - however it's likely they have a large number of subscribers who want to use this free service. There is a different argument which supports them of course, which says that to deliver the service the BBC need to have a mechanism to get it to people. I don't buy this - nobody even blinked when Channel 4 started a very similar service (although not free, more of their programmes are now free than when they started).

My advice to the providers? Stop your bleating, invest and just support your customers needs. Things will change over the next few years as people start moving towards content on demand, if you didn't see it coming then you need to look at why you didn't...