Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Ends Talks With Microsoft, Embraces Google Instead

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-google-you're-so-good-to-me dept.

Yahoo! 214

snydeq writes with a story from InfoWorld which says that "Yahoo has ended its talks with Microsoft and is instead nearing an agreement with Google. Yahoo's purported reason for breaking off the talks? That Microsoft was only interested in purchasing Yahoo's search business, not all of the company. 'Such a transaction would not be consistent with the company's view of the converging search and display marketplaces, would leave the company without an independent search business that it views as critical to its strategic future and would not be in the best interests of Yahoo stockholders,' the company said in a statement. The deal with Google allegedly involves Yahoo's search advertising business. The move likely will draw more ire from Icahn and may in fact remain part of the elaborate poker game between the two companies. Microsoft said this alternative transaction remains on the table and did not confirm that talks between it and Yahoo have concluded." Update: 06/12 23:58 GMT by T : CWmike writes "Just hours after saying it ended talks with Microsoft, Yahoo announced that it will start running advertising from Google alongside Yahoo search results. Yahoo expects the deal, which has a 10-year term, to generate $250 million to $450 million in operating cash flow during the first 12 months."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LULZ (4, Funny)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770275)

Because that is just want Microsoft wants to hear. Yahoo is teaming with Google. Burn baby burn.

Re:LULZ (3, Funny)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770311)

Oh and also, cue the chair jokes in 3,2,1...

I sense a disturbance in the force... (5, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770811)

...as if millions of chairs cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:LULZ (5, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770315)

Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?

I'm not a MS supporter (or troll), that was an honest question...

Re:LULZ (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770427)

Of course not. But a GOOHOO! monopoly... then we'd need to worry.

Re:LULZ (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771319)

no, no, no... Yahgle!

Re:LULZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770677)

"Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?"

For non-Windblows people, yeah, most definitely it's a better situation when given a choice to pick your poison.

Yahoo Needs Neither Microsoft Not Google (1, Insightful)

MOBE2001 (263700) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771005)

Jerry Yang did the right thing, in my opinion. He must hold on to his core search and advertising business. However, he would do well to diversify as soon as possible. Consider that both Microsoft and Intel have been riding on last century's legacy technology (x86 and Windows) for a long time. That sweet ride can't last forever. Now that the industry is transitioning from sequential processing to massively parallel computing, and given that neither Microsoft nor Intel have delivered on the real promise of multicore processors, Yahoo has the opportunity of a lifetime to sneak behind those two slow-moving behemoths and steal their pot of gold. Someone should tell Jerry before it's too late. Multicore processors is where the real action is at. Whoever solves the parallel-programming/multicore-design problem will rule the computer industry in this century.

Re:LULZ (1, Insightful)

ady1 (873490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770785)

Monoply: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ...
Last time I checked, Microsoft does has a market share and is an alternative, although mostly crap.

Re:LULZ (2, Interesting)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771569)

Last time I checked, MS was convicted of abusing their "monopoly" while Linux and MacOS existed.

Look on the bright side (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770927)

At least there'll only be one toolbar to remove from people's browsers...

Re:Look on the bright side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771205)

I'll 2nd that!

We have to deal with that crap on a regular basis. BHO's suck!

Re:LULZ (4, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771013)

If it allowed Flikr integration with the rest of Google, hell yeah.

That's about the only Yahoo! service that I still consider superior to Google's offerings.

Superficial reasoning aside, yes and no.

On one hand, a Goo-ho! would involve diluting the corporate culture of Google, risking it becoming less of a company that I look up to as an example of how to be successful and ethical. That would be bad. On the other hand, these two companies could actually mesh well when you consider WHAT they provide. The resulting conglomeration would have about the best of most of the 'big' web services that are offered out there.

A Yah-soft would just be the next interation of Microsoft Live! before it tanked yet again due to poor manaegment and a lack of any discernable goals other than "we need to be out there, doing... something!"

depends on who you are... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771201)

For example, if you are a chair in Redmond, i wouldn't be in your place.
If you are a Yahoo stockholder, it M$ would give you an one time cash, but then Yahoo would be left to rot. With Google, they might have a good business, and eventually merge wholly with Google.
If you are a M$ stockholder, you should probably buy Yahoogle stock, it is safer (better for you), believe me.
If you are Icahn, you suck.

Re:LULZ (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771229)

  1. Yahoo and Google are committed to the web, not some silvershite bullshit!
  2. Both companies appear to be comfortable with the idea of competition
  3. Neither company has ever touted anything like "The Microsoft Network", proprietary forerunner to MSN
  4. Less risk of injury from flying chairs


And plenty of other reasons...

Re:LULZ (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771531)

It probably would be a bit better but if the US isn't going to stop MS' monopoly then the only way to put an end to that is to counter it with other monopolies.

Re:LULZ (3, Insightful)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770381)

but now Microsoft only has 1 target. yahoo has just about admitted that google has won the search business.

Re:LULZ (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770765)

But does having one target now help MS in any way? They knew Google was their main competition. If they could beat Google, they could beat Yahoo. The problem was that they couldn't beat Google. Maybe as a consolation they could beat Yahoo but going for 2nd place is admitting defeat too.

Re:LULZ (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771589)

I don't think it was about going for second. I really think Microsoft really wanted Yahoo as a way to compete with Google. Yahoo does in fact have lots of interesting tech, like pipes, as well as an entire suite of superior web portal offerings with a decent advertizing and anyalitics business to go with it. MSN is at the bottom of the heap from a tech prespective, but at the top as far as resources its parent company could put into it; that is if they had some direction to go in. Yahoo technology and its brand could have given that to Microsoft, and they might have been real competition for Google in its core spaces had they aquired Yahoo. Yahoo on the other hand does not have the capital or market position to keep on pace with Google and will continue to faulter without something to save them. Sure it could be something amazingly inovative and market shifting; or it could be a large pool of Microsoft Money(pun entended) that would enable them to take what they have and make it substantially better.

Microsoft tried as they always do to manipulate the market place and get themselves a sweatheart deal rather then playing a more "fair game" as fair as large cap market stock deals get anyway. They ended up souring the deal. I think it was bad business on their part. They should have made a fair offer and done the deal. Sure Yahoo got hurt more then Microsoft did but thats not what it was about. Microsoft really lost an oppertunity they wanted, no matter how the outsiders and small investors see it, the Microhoo fiasco was a failure of Microsoft's.

I don't know what Google gets outa Yahoo other then sheer mass. I don't think Yahoo represents the top drawer tech when compared with Google. Yes there is some good Yahoo technology that Google can assimilate easily, but its probably not worth what Google has to pay. The brand and portal offerings are of little value to Google becase theirs are already better. To Google's credit though they have gotten quite big and demonstrated from a leadership standpoint they can manage the mass. If you are going to tangle with an 800lb gorrilla like Microsoft, being a 600lb gorilla rather then the 500lb you already are might give you that little bit of extra inertia needed to prevent Microsoft from steam rolling you by tring to take the web proprietary again with dotNet, still more activeX, and silverlight.

Re:LULZ (3, Funny)

Samizdata (1093963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771643)

(to a familiar banjo tune)

YaHOOOOOOOOOgle...

Carl Icahn (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770281)

One of the few losses he's ever had. But then if you are a billionaire, you can foul up once in a while. Witness Paul Allen of MS fame.

Re:Carl Icahn (1, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770387)

he hasn't lost just yet.

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

The smartest thing he ever did was get out of the running of Microsoft. I was always of the opinion he was an ok bloke.

Re:Carl Icahn (3, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770433)

If there was one Microsoft gazillionaire I'd actually want to meet, it would be Paul Allen.

Re:Carl Icahn (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770975)

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

His various dot-com and VC projects have mostly cost him money (IIRC), his sports teams have mostly sucked, his 413 foot yacht has fallen to number 8 on the World's Largest Yacht list [wikipedia.org] and Jimi Hendrix was, in hindsight, wildly overrated. Without the billions in his pocket to begin with, you wouldn't say he's doing that well.

On the plus side, he's nowhere near as appalling as the seven guys with bigger yachts than his.

Re:Carl Icahn (2, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771087)

...and Jimi Hendrix was, in hindsight, wildly overrated.

cough I think you mean the Experience museum in Seattle, not Jimi himself ;-)

Re:Carl Icahn (1, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771203)

No, I meant Jimi himself. Talented, creative guy, turned in probably the best performance at Woodstock, but still...

Re:Carl Icahn (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771259)

Ok someone bitchslap that dumb white guy for complaining about the size of someones yacht and calling Jimmy Hendrix over rated. Man, I'm white but I still gotta call you too white.

Re:Carl Icahn (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771357)

Did you not follow the Trailblazers' season last year?

Re:Carl Icahn (4, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771077)

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

Overall, sure, but he has certainly had his share of losers [businessweek.com] . For example, "BusinessWeek magazine calculated he had lost $US12 billion in the previous five years." [cyberiapc.com] .

It almost brings a tear to my eye... (2, Funny)

sultanoslack (320583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771593)

...thinking of those poor, unfortunate billionaires.

Re:Carl Icahn (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771613)

He lost it? Did he check the couch cushions?

Oh, you mean he *spent* it.

So... (1)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770303)

... Yahoogle?

Re:So... (4, Funny)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770341)

Goohoo.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770373)

Either way it spells hilarity. Surely a company with either name would be inherently incapable of evil.

Re:So... (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770769)

Gesundheit!

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770813)

Yagle?

Re:So... (1, Funny)

ady1 (873490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770819)

Goohoo!

Don't forget the !

I bet if there is one thing Yahoo would change in the combine name, they would make it Googlllle!

Go Get It, Lycos! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770903)

Goohoo.

Sounds like a drink. "Enjoy the chocolatey goodness of Goohoo!"

Vonage gets in on this and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771009)

(cue annoying dancing guy)
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo

Re:So... (1)

mattmcm (1143125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770407)

Yahooligans.

Re:So... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770485)

Yahoo No Evil.

No, 'Hoogle' (1)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771425)

Fewer syllables

I wonder if Ballmer... (-1, Troll)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770337)

...has a giant cardboard cutout of Eric Schmidt in his office now to throw chairs at. Next to his mini methlab.

Godwins (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770345)

That's like Czechoslovakia turning it's back on Britain and embracing Hitler.

Not surprising... (5, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770351)

Given that MSN search is horrible, I can see where MS would want to vulch that one piece of Yahoo, and that probably wouldn't run afoul of anti-trust laws. In any event, as a huge fan of Flickr, I'm glad there is no longer a serious threat that my beloved photo service will succumb to Redmondian rapine.

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons.

Programming is simple. Business is complicated.

Re:Not surprising... (5, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770403)

I'll go one step further - I can't wait when my Flickr account will be integrated with my Google account ;) (oh, and del.icio.us is also sort-of nice... ;P )

Re:Not surprising... (1)

VoltageX (845249) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771459)

That's if Google don't kill Flickr in favour of their own Picasa web service.

Re:Not surprising... (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771549)

Well, if really discussing (unlikely?) Google-Yahoo merger...IMHO Flickr would survive, it has a different target audience than Picasaweb (which is perfect for sharing photos with your family (you know, those people easily confused by Flickr features), but not much more), and actually has a community around it.

Re:Not surprising... (2, Informative)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771591)

If Google were to absorb Yahoo, the more likely outcome would be that they'd keep running both of them and end up just merging infrastructure on the backend. It would be like Youtube / Google Video is now.

Re:Not surprising... (2, Insightful)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770465)

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons.
On a deal this huge there's so much back-room strategy and PR feinting / posturing it's impossible for us normal geeks to get the real story. It's akin to planning the D-Day invasion while saying, 'yeah, we're thinking about sending a boat or two over there eventually.'

Re:Not surprising... (2, Interesting)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770595)

look beyond the tactics and for a second consider the strategy, what does yahoo really want? What does Icahn want? Ballmer? Google? Who do you think will win after putting the whole thing in perspective?

My guess: No one. (2, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770755)

"Who do you think will win after putting the whole thing in perspective?"

I'm guessing that no one will win. Apparently no one has done even a little bit of creative thinking.

Re:Not surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770911)

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons.
Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771625)

Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.

No, I was echoing commentary I've read in the past that Microsoft never really intended to acquire Yahoo. I don't pretend to understand the details, but your comment is very ignorant.

Re:Not surprising... (5, Funny)

CowboyNealOption (1262194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771151)

I have always found it amusing that MSN returns 142,000 hits for Ubuntu while Goooogle returns 93,400,000 hits (and yahoo returns 174,000,000). Either MSN is filtering results or they just aren't indexing the web very well.

Re:Not surprising... (1, Interesting)

quazee (816569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771505)

These figures are 87.5% bullshit anyway, MSN included.
That is, until the search engines can actually display that 12011674th match.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771615)

The point is that, if that's all the pages that MSN is indexing that contain that term, you're much less likely to get the most relevant results back for that and more specific related search queries.

Does this mean resistance is not futile? (5, Funny)

multi-flavor-geek (586005) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770379)

Or does this mean that both Google and Microsoft are gathering their own Borg collectives. I am so confused. Someone get me a glass of water, something with a snazzy brand name please....

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile? (5, Funny)

mattmcm (1143125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770417)

Have some Watr, courtesy of Web 2.0.

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile? (1)

Drakonik (1193977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771375)

"Watr: H20 2.0"

What Yahoo Wants? (3, Funny)

denobug (753200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770419)

So first Yahoo doesn't want MS to buy them out. Next they don't like the fact that Microsoft only want part of the assets(instead of the entire company). Really, what does Yahoo wants? Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (4, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770501)

So first Yahoo doesn't want MS to buy them out. Next they don't like the fact that Microsoft only want part of the assets(instead of the entire company). Really, what does Yahoo wants?
Sounds like to me the CEO of Yahoo doesn't want to sell out to Microsoft, but also doesn't want to be crucified by the board for not selling out to someone. Google seems like an attractive option for him, if that's the case.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (-1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770587)

Does not DESERVE to take Yahoo!!

They'd just ass-immolate it and run it into the ground, like so much else they've rubbished.

Any other mouthpieces trying to slay Yahoo!'s board for not selling out to mshaft needs to STFU, however big their name. Just STFU and back off. Leave Yahoo! ALONE. Besides, mshaft has too damned big a war chest and they need to be reigned in. PERIOD.

Moreover it seems that as Virtualization might have to still cope with OS-agnosticism, then maybe it's better that Google has Yahoo! than to watch mshaft take hold of Yahoo!, plain and simple.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (2, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770683)

Does not DESERVE to take Yahoo!! They'd just ass-immolate it and run it into the ground, like so much else they've rubbished. Any other mouthpieces trying to slay Yahoo!'s board for not selling out to mshaft needs to STFU, however big their name. Just STFU and back off. Leave Yahoo! ALONE. Besides, mshaft has too damned big a war chest and they need to be reigned in. PERIOD. Moreover it seems that as Virtualization might have to still cope with OS-agnosticism, then maybe it's better that Google has Yahoo! than to watch mshaft take hold of Yahoo!, plain and simple.
A bit bitter (and bipolar) are we?

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770693)

Please don't.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770991)

wait. google was there from the beginning of the msft talks and if the board can keep their company the way they want it, make more money in the long run and avoid being butchered by Icahn or Ballmer, then what is wrong with calling it the way it is? Some business people actually hold themselves mildly accountable for their actions. Not saying google isn't evil too, they're a corporation, but they don't act nearly as evil as the Ballmers and Icahns of the world.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (0, Troll)

Zosden (1303873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770965)

Why doesn't M$ deserve Yahoo they earned there money fair or not. This is suppose to be a free-market

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771183)

Why isn't the mafia allowed to buy legitimate businesses with money it has made through racketeering, prostitution, theft, extortion, and kidnapping? This is suppose to be a free-market

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1, Flamebait)

stubear (130454) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771271)

You sound like the whiney "DON'T PICK ON BRITNEY, LEAVE HER ALONE!!!!!" bitch. Perhaps you should make a YouTube video and give us all a good laugh. Otherwise, STFU yourself.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771663)

"You sound like the whiney "DON'T PICK ON BRITNEY, LEAVE HER ALONE!!!!!" bitch. Perhaps you should make a YouTube video and give us all a good laugh. Otherwise, STFU yourself."

Double-bitch on YOU!

I don't even HAVE nor LISTEN to any Britney, and rarely knowingly dance to her. SO, quaDRUPAL DOUBLE-BITCH on you, you spent nuclear rod.

It's like cyphercell said:

"wait. google was there from the beginning of the msft talks and if the board can keep their company the way they want it, make more money in the long run and avoid being butchered by Icahn or Ballmer, then what is wrong with calling it the way it is?"

You must be a ballmer or icaan kiss-up. If you're a nerd who cares about software freedom, you would pull your head out and voice up for Yahoo! not being butchered. You see, I've NEVER been and NEVER WILL be an mshaft-fan-boy. Don't know that you ARE, but your attitude would probably let them off the hook.

Google's not perfect, but they're a damned welcome sight better than msoft. Haven't you stopped to consider that if corporate negative Karma exists that microsoft would have a HELL of a lot to answer for? Open your damned mind!

People like YOU are the insecure among us who slam-dunk me with - scores hoping to dissuade others from reading our rants and opinions. Yeh, much of what I write here is way off-beat humor, expression of outrage, and the occasional informative URL, but you, you are not making a convincing argument for why microsoft DESERVES to get its grubby mitts on Yahoo!

If mshaft is sooooooo innovative, the fuckers would never NEED to bid to buy Yahoo! Obviously, whether or NOT Google "won", Yahoo! is mshaft's admission that it sucks very much at trying to do what Google and Yahoo and MySpace, Facebook, and others DO do. So, mshaft needs to stick with core business and stop being omni-bit-vacious.

Besides, if mshaft gets a hold of Yahoo!, there will be some more thousands added to the rolls of the unemployed (even tho they stand to get generous anti-take-over severance packages...)...

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft (1)

Drakonik (1193977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771387)

Leave Yahoo! ALONE.
"Yahoo! is a person too! Just LEAVE YAHOO! ALONE!"

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770897)

Microsoft and google are huge rivals with huge bank accounts, so playing them off each other to compete over you seems like a good strategy. I'm not sure what "wanting" to be bought out by one company vs. another really means to a CEO. If courting google makes Microsoft jealous enough to overbid for Yahoo, I think Yahoo would accept.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (1)

atomic777 (860023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771149)

Yahoo has thrown the white flag to Google, and will now effectively become a media company using Google's advertising platform. Not a good time to be an engineer at Yahoo.

While now #2 in the US market [comscore.com] , Yahoo still sees 84% of the eyeballs on the US internet in a given month. If Google's advertising technology can leverage that tremendous reach better than Yahoo's can, then they are doing their shareholders a huge favour in doing this.

It's not unlike the problems at IBM in the early 90's, where a broken corporate culture was re-invented, the company rebranded as services company utilizing the assets it had. If the execs at Yahoo can swallow their pride, they may be able to make the company a financial success once again. It just won't be the Yahoo we all know right now.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771253)

There's exactly one thing Microsoft wants in Yahoo: yahoo.com. The domain name.

Jerry Yang knows this, hence the 2 reasons why he doesn't want to sell...

First, Yahoo does very little that Microsoft does as well (and given the quality and market share of Live Search, that doesn't count). That means Ballmer wants to buy his way into a new market. He wouldn't do that, with the approbation of Gates and the rest of the board, if they didn't think it would be worth ten times that in ten years. To Yang this confirms that selling now is a bad move.

Second, it means that pretty much all of yahoo is, in case of takeover by Microsoft, destined to be shutdown or put in hibernation like Hotmail. Of course he doesn't relish the idea of the company he started being destroyed in such a way.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (0)

Strudelkugel (594414) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771369)

It will be interesting to see if Yang is still CEO after the next shareholder meeting. Icahn will certainly be on the rampage after seeing his profit potential evaporate, as well as those (T. Boone Pickens) who followed his trade. No doubt there are plenty of institutional shareholders who are unhappy about Yahoo! not taking the $40 offer, and now the $33 offer.

It's very hard to imagine that the Google deal will cause Yahoo stock to run back to $33 / share anytime soon. Google can't get too involved with Yahoo, or the DOJ will become interested. Yang's zealotry has cost shareholders billions of dollars. (I don't own any YHOO.) His arrogance is just stunning. My guess is the current Yahoo board will be removed and Yahoo will be sold for parts anyway.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770875)

Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick.

I go through this every day and multiple times onthe weekends. Annoying as all hell. My reply added no value to the conversation, but I needed to let it out.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? (1)

CowboyNealOption (1262194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771083)

Make sure to pick a restaurant she hates (and preferably one you like), and suddenly she will start to voice an opinion.

Let me be the first to cry (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770443)

antitrust. Competition made the search market healthy. If they team up and work together we lose that. It'll be just like Microsoft circa 1995 again, with googhoo(yagle?) having their fingers in everything search and ad related. No choices. I don't like this at all.

Re:Let me be the first to cry (1)

Maestro485 (1166937) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770689)

I'd be willing to concede a search monopoly if they do, in fact, call this new company googhoo(yagle?).

Not So Fast... (1)

mytrip (940886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770445)

Yahoo has a problem with Carl Icahn trying to take the company over that it has to deal with first.

If they don't do something to appease angry shareholders like do a stock buyback, they might wind up as Microhoo anyway.

Slashnot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23770457)

Yahoo in talks with Google?
This title made me think I wound up on slashnot [slashnot.com] by accident.
Gnu's for Gnerds. Stuff that mattress.

Re:Slashnot? (3, Informative)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771067)

Wow, in about 15 seconds that went from being a site I've never heard of, to the one site I have chosen as the worst I've seen in years. Sometimes you think you've learned to keep clear of horrible sites, but the lure of something Slashdotty is too strong to resist. Apparently its own maintainer agrees, as it hasn't been updated in two years.

By the way, for an actual good Slashdot side-site, http://www.seenonslash.com/ [seenonslash.com]

Yahoo Ends Talks With Microsoft (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770605)

"Embraces Google Instead"

Next thing you know, Yahoo will be extending Google. And then, good Lord!

Together they will be unstoppable (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770661)

With Google and Yahoo finally working together, just IMAGINE how many Chinese dissidents they'll be able to turn it!

Here's an idea (3, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770715)

Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Just get a clue already and stop trying to buy everyone just to get a shortcut.

Re:Here's an idea (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771075)

Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion?

QDOS -> MSDOS
MAC OS -> Windows
Spyglass -> IE
BSD TCPIP stack -> Spider stack -> Windows NT stack
JAVA -> J+ -> J#
Flash -> Silverlight

You must be REALLY new here!

Re:Here's an idea (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771419)

Not really, I'm just sick to death with how Microsoft operate and have always operated.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771123)

This story is about Google possibly buying out Yahoo.

Why doesn't Google just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Just get a clue already and stop trying to buy everyone just to get a shortcut.

Oh, god, no... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770743)

Please, Google, don't incorporate anything from Yahoo. Please. I'm beggin' you.

Re:Oh, god, no... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770861)

Hear! Hear!
Just the thought of that makes my lunch want to escape forcefully!

Re:Oh, god, no... (3, Insightful)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771529)

Please, Google, don't incorporate anything from Yahoo. Please. I'm beggin' you.
Flickr? Del.icio.us?

Re:Oh, god, no... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771697)

Except Flickr and Del.icio.us, of course. I can see some nice possibilities with those two services integrating with Google.

All of the search bits though... Ugh. I hated Yahoo when it was the only big player in the search/portal market, I tried to avoid using it like the plague sticking to the crappy DMOZ, Hotbot, and Webcrawler alternatives. Though getting listed on Yahoo in the mid-90's was shades of awesome.

If these were any other two companies... (5, Insightful)

Thai-Pan (414112) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770925)

...would we be seeing the same reaction on Slashdot?

Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta, (purely hypothetical) and offering a 45%+ premium. And Transmeta in response turned it down and set up internal policies to make generous severence payments to employees who chose to leave after the acquisition.

What do you call that? I call it gross breach of fiduciary duty to your stockholders. I am fortunately not a Yahoo stockholder, but if I was, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

imagine this ... (0, Redundant)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#23770999)

Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta, (purely hypothetical) and offering a 45%+ premium. And Transmeta in response turned it down and set up internal policies to make generous severence payments to employees who chose to leave after the acquisition.

Imagine that Apple made a 100% offer on $40 offer for the die making division of Transmeta and then after the refusal Apple got some corporate raider to quietly buy up the stock and then sell it off causing it to tank at which Apple stepped in at 60% of of $20

What do you call that? I call that shady dealings

Re:imagine this ... (3, Interesting)

Thai-Pan (414112) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771103)

Except Yahoo's stock was at $19 before the Microsoft bid and now it's $23.50. How does causing its stock to rise by 24% qualify as 'tanking'?

Re:If these were any other two companies... (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771107)

I agree that you can't have it both ways - go public to get investors, then make private decisions to screw those investors. But for us Average Joe Dualcore consumers, Microsoft failing to become less powerful is the best we could ask for. Google becoming more powerful is questionable, but so far they've used their power for far greater good than Microsoft.

Re:If these were any other two companies... (2, Insightful)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771605)

What is this "gross breach of fiduciary duty" you speak of? Is that a legal thing?

Yang boarding a flight to the Caribbean with suitcases stuffed with cash would be one thing, thinking beyond a one time buyout deal is quite another.

From almost exactly a year ago: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9388783?f=related [cfo.com]

Suing a corporation for not selling their grandmothers for a nickel is an abuse of the legal system.

look out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771209)

Thar be chairs a flyin today maties!!!

This sucks! Google sees too much already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23771247)

I changed from using Google search to Yahoo, simply because Google is almost omnipresent on the web already. They are tracking me across all the sites with any Google ads in it already, so no need for them to see my search queries as well.

Sigh. With this kind of deal, I guess I have to look for a new search engine. But since I don't 'do' Microsoft, what's the alternative?

Suppoesed poker game (2, Interesting)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 6 years ago | (#23771431)

The "elaborate poker game" is pure speculation (no pun intended). It is entirely possible that Yahoo mgmt and executives actually think ownership by Microsoft is bad for the future of the company.

This "Yahoo is bluffing" meme assumes that it is illogical for Yahoo to think that they are better off without Microsoft. Why is it so hard to accept? From where I'm sitting, a Microsoft deal would be bad for Yahoo.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?