I wouldn't mind if they sold it to Google. Google wants to be more "social" and their own Google Bookmarks kind of sucks and has been neglected worse than Delicious.

What's so "social" about Delicious? This is a serious question.

You can subscribe to bookmarks from other people (only if you already know their logins) and you can send bookmarks to others (using a weird for:nick meta-tag). Both features seem a bit sketchy by today's standards. This was definitely a breakthrough when Delicious was launched, but nowadays people expect more from a social site.

Not that I care about social features. I didn't miss them in Delicious, and I don't miss them in Pinboard. But it just doesn't sound convincing to brand Delicious as a great social product for Google to acquire.

If Google won't run their integrated service, why would they care for Delicious?

Or at least that's what I was thinking before the example of Google Videos and YouTube came to me.

Well, in theory, delicious would come with its own team of people who are interested in it, just like YouTube would have.

Ideally, del.icio.us would come with this team of people: http://www.petefreitag.com/images/blog/delicious_office.jpg

Haha, wow. Look at those chairs. So frugal!

I wish they would sell it back to @joshu.

Google Chrome has a nice bookmark (and also preference) syncing feature.

Although the purposes somewhat overlap, storing bookmarks in "the cloud" and adding a social feature is fundamentally different from bookmark syncing. And it's a much better approach IMO because it's not tied to endpoint devices/applications for a function that requires a network connection anyway.

But will "someone who really cares" pay what they want?