FierceVOIP has issued its list of 15 emerging companies. There are a pair of Canadian firms that appear - Atreus Systems and Borderware Technologies - compared with one (Natural Convergence) in 2004. Last year's list featured Skype, Vonage and 8x8.

The Register's Andrew Orlowski thinks little of the eBay-Skype deal based on an analysis (scolding) he offers up. Here's just one example of his take: "Couldn't eBay have done something more sensible with $4 billion - like give the money back to its shareholders - or to the Katrina relief fund?" And I thought I was critical of the $4.1B deal!

Just a quick follow on a post yesterday that looked at the next big deal in the VOIP space. By stepping back and taking a look at the Web landscape, does it seem that unreasonable for a Google or a Yahoo to go after eBay, or a Microsoft to acquire Google or  IAC/InterActive Corp.? Yes, these would be mega-billion dollar deals - a Google-eBay merger, for example, would be worth at least $140 billion. But they're not unrealistic given we're at the cusp of Web 2.0 of the New New Web where lucrative business models such as pay-per-click have emerged and it has become obvious there are tremendous profits to be made from offering Web-based services and content to consumers around the world. Perhaps this is the opportunity to establish a huge foothold in Web 2.0. Look at Google: for all of its dominance of the search market, it's still a one-trick pony. There's little doubt it can ride this pony for a long, long time but what happens when the growth of the pay-per-click markets starts to slow - much like eBay has apparently realized the prospects for its flagship auction business are not as bright. With an $80-billion market cap and $6-billion in cash if its secondary offering is completed, Google has the financial muscle to do pretty much anything it wants. You can bet there are few investment bankers running around trying to sell this vision. Stay tuned!
Update: According to Bloomberg News, Merrill Lynch analyst Luaren Rich Fine believes Google could acquire AOL.

You knew it was only going to be a matter of time before Google moved into the blog search market. The question was whether it would be done through the typical "beta" program or through an acquisition such as Technorati. This issue has now been answered with the launch of  Google Blog Search (hat tip to Om Malik for quickly noting its existence) So where does this leave Technorati, Ice Rocket, Blogdigger, Feedster, etc. given there is probably room for a small handful of blog search engines and you know Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft will get into the game soon? I think the key will be differentiation. While Google Blog Search keeps Google's clean, no-frills look, it does not have - at least not yet - the bells and whistles that make Technorati and Ice Rocket so interesting. There is no ranking system or information on how many other sites have linked to a post, for example. What it means is Technorati, et al have to keep on innovating and provide new features such as detailed statistics. It may force some companies to merge to maintain their buzz and their viability. What about a three-way deal, for example, between Technorati, Pub Sub and BlogBeat? Maybe Tom Raftery's view that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. will look to acquire Technorati starts to make more sense now.
As for Google Blog Search, a quick test drive shows it's pretty sweet - fast and effective. Without a doubt, I'll start using it on a regular basis but I have no plans to abandon Technorati for the time being. Dave Taylor provides a nice overview on how to use Google Blog Search's new features, Robert Scoble does his own test run and provides some insight into Google vs. Technorati, while Anil Dash and SearchEngineWatch's Chris Sherman deliver comprehensive looks at the various features. On a lighter note, Rick Segal suggests that Technorati "don't worry, be happy" given its the blog search engine being targeted by everyone these days. A list of frequently asked questions from Google about the blog search beta can be found here.