Same here. I hope it works out for them because I don't see too many other options that would generate positive value for a company.
Google could probably implement it on their own (not to trivialize the work, but to point out that Gmail basically has all the information and fast search, they just need to mine the contact network).
The typical Yahoo user probably wouldn't care for it.
That said, it would be an ironic purchase for MS, because from my standpoint they already bought and burried the search tech with LookOut to push their Desktop search client. But that's for MS to justify, not Xobni.
What if Microsoft bought Xobni and let them pursue integration with other email clients and services? Via exposing some of their key APIs and/or something un-Microsoft like (pushing open standards for email data mining, with Xobni being the first example)
If not... Consider for a few moments what would happen if Google developed some hook APIs (e.g. getTimelineOfAllContactsForPerson, maybe even in Python) in GMail to allow developers to build Gadgets and then maybe later CRM'esque applications. Labels instead of folders (which I think came from the domain of records management) is a nice start - picture being able to datamine your own information).
For example, follow-up is an important part about networking. I'd love a tell-me-who-is-overdue-for-a-once-every-three-month-what's-new-contact, without requiring me to manually set an alert. (Think hyper-personalized Google News) Imagine that as a mobile app (who around me have I lost touch with and is open to re-contacts)
"Microsoft may have first approached the company months ago and floated an offer of sub $20 million, which was apparently rejected"
Wow, they are aiming for more than 20 mil, if they get it, well, we should all start creating products for MS ... to buy... I personally think, only MS can have use of this program, I doubt xobni will ever have any serious clients in the enterprise, they product is ... not that usefull in my opinion! And it target totally the wrong paradigm, more power in an non web client, this is useless, the correct place for this functionality is an enterprise portal! not outlook
Is the old model of the 80s/90s a good model where Microsoft is the big fish that either swallows everybody (for a price of course) or pushes them out of the pond altogether?
Contrast the "Microsoft model" with the "Apple model". If Xobni was a startup that added the same amount of value exclusively to Mail.app, then it would increase the overall diversity of applications for OSX (not to mention quality); granted, the fact that OSX isn't as popular as Windows might be factor with how Xobni/Mail.app might grow, but for the sake of illustrating the necessity of diversity when it comes to competition, let's put that on the side. On OSX, you have a number of excellent independent developers that add value to OSX thus increasing the number of things you can do with the OS. No doubt, there is absolutely nothing on OSX that you cannot do on Windows (forgive the double negative). But the fact that Microsoft is the big fish, independent developers need to be wary of the big fish by either getting bought out (good) or competing against them (most of the time VERY bad). Btw, a similar phenomenon is happening on the Web with Google, but we have yet to see how this is played out...
The "Microsoft model" is monolithic. As a result of the best case scenario playing out more often than not, if you show promise as an independent developer Microsoft will buy you out, thus decreasing the number of independent developers that have innovative ideas and increasing the number of crappy third-party software available (I will add that the fact that Windows is so ubiquitous might have something to do with this last opinion). Microsoft maintains dominance and every innovative idea out there eventually becomes a Microsoft department - slow, boring, and part of Microsoft. This is bad for Microsoft and ultimately bad for consumers.
OmniGroup is a real-life example of how the "Apple model" encourages independent developers such that they let them exist without the need for Apple to purchase them. Their suite of tools would really fit in well with some of Apple's offerings; but Apple doesn't buy them out because it is to Apple's benefit for OmniGroup to exist outside of Apple as an example of what you can do with OSX (as an independent developer), without having to worry about outside competition from Apple. Another example would be Delicious Monster. Apple benefits from the well being of outside developers as these developers add value in a way that encourages diversity. Small groups of devotees pop up around such outside developers and this ultimately trickles up to Apple in a positive way.
Xobni is an extremely well engineered piece of software, which probably required a high level of expertise to create; and this highlights another point: there is a high level of technical ability that is required to push the Windows platform in an overall innovative direction for independent developers. Whereas Apple makes it easier to develop/deliver a finished product, on Windows it is more difficult to compete against a Microsoft-made application. Simply put, the barriers to entry (development-wise) are significantly lowered on OSX than they are on Windows (I simply do not believe that OSX developers are more competent than Windows developers!). Microsoft certainly gives you tools to create some cool stuff if you have the development mojo/kungfu to use it well (as is exemplary with Xobni). Apple gives you tools that allow for easier/rapid development so that you can get your ideas to market gracefully.
That said, I wish the best for everybody involved in Xobni. No doubt getting bought out would be a big score for them and the Ycombinator folks! You guys have accomplished more than what I could hope for and all the best to you.
I fail to see a difference between Microsoft and Apple (except for design skills). It's not like Microsoft bought each and every company that created a software product for windows. And there are software companies that Apple bought, killing their windows branch in the process (ie Logic, which is now Apple only).
I think one big difference between the two is that you don't hear much about "Apple buyout" rumors as opposed to the frequency you do hear about "Microsoft buyout" rumors. I also alluded to the fact that there is an analogous phenomenon beginning to emerge with "Google buyout" rumors and internet startups.
Btw, I hope I'm not coming off as saying that Apple is saintly in their business practices. I'm mainly saying that it is evident to me (hence it is my opinion, not an imposed fact) that Apple does more to encourage diversity with third party developers and such diversity is overall synergistic.
I also hope that people don't perceive my question above as being a troll against Xobni/Ycombinator! I'm just asking a general question.
