Everybody seems to think so. From message board comments saying Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) handed Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) a present to analysts saying it clearly: Yahoo! is the real loser.

I can understand trying to block Google from gaining market share, but I can't understand buying a company just for that. Yahoo! was already third in video-sharing sites traffic and has recently improved its Yahoo! Video site with a deal with CurrentTV. So would a deal with YouTube, enhancing an already strong position, would have been the best use of the company's resources?

And would investors have been as forgiving of the $1.65 billion price tag if it was Yahoo! not Google that was forking up the bill? Mind you, Google did mention the deal would be somewhat dilutive of earnings. For Google, the accomplishes an improvement in a weak area - social networking. For Yahoo! what exactly would it have been?

The analyst that made most sense to me was Jeetil Patel from Deutsche Bank. He said that there is a difference between what drives branded advertising -- advertisers' budgets, and what drives paid search -- web distribution. From that difference, Google, and more so now with the YouTube deal, is better positioned than Yahoo!, which relies more on display ads.

If Yahoo! needs more distribution, which can never hurt, perhaps a better deal would be with Facebook given this site's unique positioning, as long as Yahoo! doesn't rush into an expensive deal of course. But first, I say, Yahoo! actually needs something to distribute and any deal might be putting the cart before the horse if Yahoo! doesn't roll out Panama soon.

Yahoo! shares closed at $24.47 today, down 56 cents or 2.24%.