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 Interested In a Microsoft Buyout, But Microsoft Isn't

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the baby-come-back dept.

Yahoo! 174

Linux Blog writes "The Google-Yahoo advertising deal has been rejected by the Department of Justice, and Google has pulled the plug on a search-ad partnership with Yahoo that would have given Yahoo major new revenue, but that raised antitrust concerns. Now, Yahoo has said the 'For Sale' sign is still on its front lawn and that Microsoft should buy the company. The internet portal's co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang made this comment despite the fact Yahoo rejected a $33 a share offer from Microsoft back in May. What a huge loss for the share holders. Microsoft was quick to respond that their buyout efforts were a thing of the past, but left the door open to a search partnership."

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

Wait a sec (3, Interesting)

log0n (18224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687211)

I thought Yahoo gave MS the finger a few months ago. MS offered $33/share for Yahoo, who is now worth $14. Epic phail for Yahoo.

Re:Wait a sec (4, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687225)

Not as bad as you made it look. The MS offer involved MS stock, and if people had taken it, they would now have about $20. Still not the best decision Yahoo ever made.

Re:Wait a sec (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688461)

Not as bad as you made it look. The MS offer involved MS stock, and if people had taken it, they would now have about $20. Still not the best decision Yahoo ever made.

Actually the offer was made with a mixture of cash and stock, so the net result to shareholders would have been higher than the $20 you quote based solely on MSFTs stock price.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688517)

I did my number on the total value of what they offered. I.E. Assuming everyone got an equal mixture of cash and stock. If you were stupid enough to ask for Microsoft stock alone (and got it), then you would have gotten LESS than the current value of the Yahoo stock. If you were smart enough to ask for pure cash (and got it), then you would have gotten the full $30+ value.) Of course, neither of those situations were likely to happen.

Re:Wait a sec (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688563)

Huh????

The offer was for each share of Yahoo you could get up half in cash and the remainder in Microsoft stock (not 1 to 1 mind you). Since the offer was dropped, MSFT went to around 22, and YHOO went to 14. MSFT at the time was trading around 28 to 30, and YHOO well, that was 33. You would have been better off with any deal...

Greed (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687241)

It's worth watching.

Re:Wait a sec (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687299)

$14? They're at $12.20 at the time of this posting, and they hit sub-$12 in the last 24h (and have done so dozens of times).

Some respected business analysts said they're worth more like $7.50/share (WAY over inflated P/E ratio and such).

And now Google and MS don't even want of them anymore. They should get with AOL, it would make for the most epic FAIL ever (worst than the previous bubble burst, just by themselves)

Thanks god I don't have any YHOO stock!

I for one, welcome our new epic FAIL overlords.

Is Steve Ballmer qualified to run a tech company? (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687871)

"And now Google and MS don't even want of them anymore."

With Google, it was an understandable problem. But perhaps Microsoft is just playing games.

For me, the underlying issue is this: Have Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates ever made any statements that indicate that they have an understanding of technology? The book The Road Ahead [wikipedia.org] was surprisingly empty of information, and Bill Gates had co-writers for that book.

An answer to that question would help answer another fundamental question: Is Steve Ballmer qualified to buy Yahoo and improve the company? Yahoo paid Terry Semel $528 million for working 6 years, then fired him because he didn't know anything about technology, and other reasons. Would Yahoo going to Microsoft just be another case of billionaires trying to do something about which they know little, and care less?

Re:Is Steve Ballmer qualified to run a tech compan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688311)

So Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates no nothing about running a successful technology company??? You're an idiot.

They must be doing something right (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688635)

For me, the underlying issue is this: Have Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates ever made any statements that indicate that they have an understanding of technology?
.

Microsoft saw a modest 2% growth in profits in its first quarter of FY2009. It held $21 billion in cash in September.

Microsoft is one of the six companies in the industrial sector with a AAA corporate credit rating from S&P - and the first industrial to make the list in ten years.

The others are Automatic Data Processing, Exxon Mobil Corporation, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

In 1980 there were 30 industrials with AAA ratings.

In late 2008 the odds are 7 in 10 a US industrial will be rated "below investment grade" - aka "toast:"

Microsoft joins select industrial club with S&P's AAA rating [bjp.com]

Re:Wait a sec (3, Funny)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688251)

Some respected business analysts said they're worth more like $7.50/share (WAY over inflated P/E ratio and such).

P/E ratio? This is the new economy, we don't even worry about having a business model, let alone ancient concepts like the P/E ratio. Yahoo has nine bazillion users, so it must be worth trillions. Not only does it have lots of users (which is all that really matters, dontcha know) it apparently even makes some money from somewhere - that must be worth an extra 2 or 3%.

Re:Wait a sec (2, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688397)

Dude, the bubble burst almost nine years ago.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688497)

Don't tell me, tell Twitter.

man the lifeboats (2, Funny)

DuctTape (101304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688459)

Yahoo has nine bazillion users, so it must be worth trillions.

Well, perhaps eight bazillion users since some folks may not welcome the Redmondian overlords. I've got my escape pod over at Gmail ready to go should Yahoo! be boarded.

DT

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688541)

I work for Yahoo, you insensitive clod... seriously. :(

Re:Wait a sec (4, Funny)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687335)

This reminds me of a generic story. Boy asks girl out on a date, and she says no. Two weeks later, girl comes to boy and says yes, but the boy says that he has moved on, but might be open to a fuck-buddy only partnership.

Re:Wait a sec (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687425)

Look I told you that story in confidence...

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687481)

Oh please... like any Slashdotter has EVER had the girl come back!

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687711)

More like any slashdotter has ever approached the girl in the first place...

Even CmdrTaco had to do it over the intertubes.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25689063)

Why do we always have this slashdot bias about girls never coming back? In high school, I was repeaditly turned down by this hot chick who came over and played on my C64. I kept asking her out and she kept saying no.

Eventually after seven years (I was using a 486 running slackware) she said yes. Today we screw every night.

The trick was confidence in myself. I never sold out to other women just like Yahoo should never sell out to M$ and their evil ways. My chick would have dumped me if I installed windows, and Yahoo would dump M$ if they ran windows too.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688405)

Look I told you that story in confidence...

Did you miss the "Post Anonymously" checkbox?

Re:Wait a sec (1)

vandit2k6 (848077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687687)

Do Slashdotters really ask girls out on a date? What happened to the geek population?

Re:Wait a sec (2, Insightful)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688219)

Geeks are like Mules. They are a cross-bred animal and almost always sterile.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688223)

Don't worry, the boy in the story isn't a slashdotter.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688331)

It's become larger

Re:Wait a sec (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689073)

Man does not live by hand alone.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687815)

All's well that ends well...

Re:Wait a sec (2, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688245)

She says no again, then comes back 2 more weeks later saying ok, but he tells her only if he can bareback and she has to take it in the pooper!

Re:Wait a sec (5, Interesting)

mickwd (196449) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687413)

A brilliant hand of poker played by Mr Balmer, I think.

I do wonder whether they ever would have actually bought Yahoo. There's no way they could buy them now at the price they originally offerred, thanks to the economic downturn. But if it wasn't for the downturn, I do wonder whether Microsoft would instead have done "due diligence" into the state of Yahoo the company, and then loudly and publicly walked away, claiming they didn't like what they saw, screwing Yahoo's credibility.

So without spending anything, Balmer's caused turmoil in one competitor (Yahoo), while getting the competition watchdogs interested in the power of another (Google) - and distracting them both, perhaps causing them to take their eye off the ball for a while.

Re: Mr. Ballmer's Poker (2, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687995)

See, you're partially on to something. For all his chairs, Ballmer is *sneaky*. We're still bashing Vista as their technical offering, but MS got to where it is by some clever business deals. Way back in the day John Sculley torched Apple when MS pulled a fast one on them.

Hate to say it, but... (3, Insightful)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688685)

No doubt, for all the things I dislike about Ballmer, I'll call a spade a spade; he played this one well. Now he can come back in a month or two when the stock bottoms out and offer $10/share, and with the ball in his court he can probably make other stipulations on the deal. I'm thinking he got this play straight out of Billg's play book - Bill's been known to be an awesome poker player from what I've heard.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

poached (1123673) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688715)

I think you give chair-throwing Balmer too much credit.

Re:Wait a sec (0)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687921)

repeating something that was stated in the summary and adding "Epic phail" to the end now qualifies as "interesting"?
from the summary:

The internet portal's co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang made this comment despite the fact Yahoo rejected a $33 a share offer from Microsoft back in May. What a huge loss for the share holders.

shouldn't there be some kind of literacy requirement for mods?

Re:Wait a sec (2, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688255)

d00d, he spelled fail with "ph" - that makes it teh Internetz speak!

Re:Wait a sec (1)

Neil Sausage (633803) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688609)

If the U.S. Patent And Trademark Office has taught us anything, it's that taking something that already exists and adding internet-speak to it makes it a novel creation.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

saveyourboredom (1398037) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689017)

Yeah but things have changed since a few months ago! Yahoo are finding it hard to play with the big boys and need help, esp with everything that's going on.

Please don't buy em Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687215)

Cause all Yahoo is good for is fantasy sports, and I don't really want Microsoft to fuck that up.

and Flickr. (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688495)

The one and only Flickr. [flickr.com] Maybe you've heard of it?

This is like celebrity gossip... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687229)

If we relate buyouts to marriage, partnerships to casual sex and the Department of Justice to the organisation that's meant to protect teen celebrities from big bad grown up pedophile celebrities... you get the picture.

It is better to wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687231)

Maybe Microsoft is only waiting for a cheaper Yahoo. I believe that next time (within 2-3 months ?) they will offer 20 $ or less.

Offer (3, Funny)

Konster (252488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687239)

Offer $.50 per share, nothing more. Yahoo is a dead brand and a dead service.

I am *shocked* that Yahoo didn't take MS's first offer and run away, giggling.

Yahoo has no chance for any kind of meaningful partnerships now that MS and Google are no longer in the picture.

Re:Offer (1)

syngularyx (1070768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687281)

If it is so dead why M$ should buy it? There is something useful to M$ after all...

They don't need a new partner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687497)

Yahoo! is filling the void AOL left behind for millions of users. Their portal and front-ends are regularly visited and they offer good services that are well integrated.

Re:They don't need a new partner (3, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688163)

AOL died when dial-up died. it's been long enough that most of those users have learned how to use the web (the real one, not that AOL playpen crap).

the whole point of the internet/web is that there's no strict division between content-producers and content-consumers. and unlike TV/radio, you don't have a consolidated corporate media acting as gatekeepers of information. web users are free to find (search for) content that suit their own interests, no matter how odd or obscure those interests are. there's no censorship, and no spoon-feeding of pre-approved corporate-sponsored content. that's why indie music is on the rise, and file sharing has also boosted viewership of indie films. a "web portal" runs completely counter to that media freedom and independence--at least conventional Yahoo!-type web portals; iGoogle [google.com] is a different story since you can customize the modular layout, and anyone can create their own widget.

in any case, most ex-AOL users were pleasantly surprised by how much better the "real" internet/WWW was compared to their previously sheltered online existence using AOL. by the time broadband became standard in most households, the internet was already well established in mainstream culture, and the web had become a vital tool in the daily lives of ordinary people. so people no longer needed the digital training wheels that AOL provided. most people i know were quite glad to be rid of AOL's restrictive and overbearing services & interface.

the only people who still prefer the AOL "web experience" are the elderly who still haven't adapted to internet culture and the information age we live in. but even many 60-70 year-olds are taking to the web surprisingly well. and the rest are, well, going extinct. AOL died because they catered to a transitional market/demographic. the internet was still new and largely alien to most people, so their "well integrated," penned-in and sanitized online environment was in demand. but it's 2008 now, and if Yahoo! continues to chase a long gone 1990's market, then they'll become a technological anachronism just like AOL did.

Re:Offer (4, Interesting)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687791)

Yahoo owns Zimbra which can compete with exchange.

I'd hate to see microsoft buy yahoo just for that reason.

Re:Offer (2, Insightful)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687835)

I think Yahoo is a dead brand to you. You'd be amazed by the number of people who have Yahoo as their homepage and use several of Yahoo's built in services such as gaming, weather, etc. You have a list of sites to get all the services you need, and if you find a site that does one or another service better, you are perfectly happy changing it (I'm guessing). But there are a lot of people, as someone else mentioned, that came from the AOL world and like having one portal with the the "interweb" stuff in one portal. They go to one place and get their news, weather, horoscope for the day, and they like that.

Re:Offer (4, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688177)

My Yahoo (new version) is more like a web based full feature RSS reader now. So people having My.Yahoo as default start page aren't all exactly AOL etc. types.

A wing of Yahoo does perfect and future ready things even replying every single user flame on their blogs. Another wing, sadly, can't understand the need of IMAP in todays World, tries "Tower" ads in Yahoo mail, doesn't allow search.yahoo.com tab customisation, doesn't tie "Yahoo Widgets" prefs to user account and doesn't make that genius "Yahoo Go!" work on high end smart phones just because of a simple resolution setting.

I got like 5-6 tabs on My Yahoo and it is my start page since Yahoo invented it (about '98).

Yahoo has a serious image problem among slashdot geeks it seems. It is up to Yahoo and the companies, consultants they should hire to figure the base of the problem. What causes it? The valid reasons of course, not "yahoo.com being lame". Yes, it is lame since it targets the average web public. Not you :)

As you mention them, AOL's image problem is beyond fix. Even their CEO says something like that. I am afraid Yahoo gets same treatment while they do everything in favour of geeks and developers recently. They should fix it before it gets to AOL point.

aint gonna happen (1)

ohellno (1402759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687249)

too late.Microsoft aren,t interested now

Microsoft will bide their time ... (2, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687259)

... until they can get the pieces of Yahoo that they want for a good price. There is certainly no rush in this climate.

Re:Microsoft will bide their time ... (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687513)

didnt they recently approach yahoo just to buy the search division but were turned down (again)

This is getting embarassing for Yahoo... (5, Funny)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687275)

They're like a prostitute with no clients and a huge "won't anyone buy us" sign strapped to their heads...

Don't mod this funny, I'm dead serious.

Re:This is getting embarassing for Yahoo... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687435)

There's no dead serious tag on slashdot.

Re:This is getting embarassing for Yahoo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687557)

Why would this be modded "funny"? It isn't.

Re:This is getting embarassing for Yahoo... (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687691)

Because someone might see the word "prostitute" and think I'm trying to make a funny analogy.

Re:This is getting embarassing for Yahoo... (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687571)

Hmmm... A prostitute that gets turned down after a lot of attention and a price drop... Could there be an STD in the mix?

Re: STD (2, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688029)

SearchTechnology Disease?

Wait, what? (3, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687311)

Someone please walk me through this. A few months ago, MS was trying hard to rape-buy Yahoo who debated itself like a virgin Catholic schoolgirl. Now Yahoo is getting on its knees and MS doesn't want it anymore? What on Earth happened to the both of them in the meantime?

Re:Wait, what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687367)

The sea of FUD receded and Yahoo was left naked, rather than clothed.

In other words, their true value became clear, and they are indeed worth less than they claimed.

Re:Wait, what? (2, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687383)

Microsoft was never serious about yahoo. It was a two-fold attack -- demoralize yahoo (and their shareholders) and spook google.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689051)

I hoped Yahoo sued MS since things went real chaotic at Yahoo after the MS Offer (!). Even as Yahoo user, you can easily notice it. MS offer was like FreeBSD virus (OS Yahoo runs on), everything slowed down, stopped, ridiculously cancelled, changes without asking users etc. etc.

For example they were wise to put a very basic RSS reader (in Apple mail.app fashion) to their new Mail and they removed it without giving any valid reasons. That is just the latest event. There is also "Profiles upgrade" which people already labelled as "Facebook wannabe". They now say it was because of their "platform" idea but they don't get it, it is the USER who should decide things and can go away indefinitely.

This is a company who beta tested My Yahoo for almost a year, asking users for changes and even removed advertising based on user feedback. Somehow, things totally changed after MS offer.

I even suspect if MS bribes or promises stuff to some staff inside Yahoo.

Re:Wait, what? (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687397)

MS was willing to pay $33 a share to keep Yahoo from aligning with Google, now that it's become patently obvious that the DoJ isn't going to allow that to happen the strategic value of Yahoo to MS has gone down significantly.

It was worth it to MS to pay $33 per share in order to still have a chance at that market. Right now, with that out of consideration the value to MS has dropped significantly.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687467)

Microsoft got he DOJ to bite on the anti-trust front... of course if MS tries to by Yahoo, Google has an even better argument to not allow MS to have them... Oops. Reminds me of the Oracle-Peoplesoft takeover. Their board tried everything to prop the company up but investors left um swinging until Oracle was the only choice.

But it seems the real game was just to keep Yahoo from going to Google. Microsoft doesn't have to buy them now, just wait out for them to sink after all the stockholders are scared off. Then customers or business units can be picked off the carcass later.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687865)

I doubt the DoJ will touch a Yahoo-MS deal. Such a deal wouldn't advance any MS monopoly that exists so long as MS didn't try to leverage this into an OS. And it wouldn't create any new monopolies (think Google's advertising business). Anti-trust isn't necessarily about keeping companies from being big. Microsoft can perfectly well grow new business in different markets to make itself bigger and not get into anti-trust trouble. They care about one company entirely owning or dominating a section of the market.

Re:Wait, what? (2, Interesting)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687401)

This is payback for Yang's ego, Balmer is just watching Yang twist in the wind. They'll pick up Yahoo just before bankruptcy ..my guess is around April '09

Re:Wait, what? (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687891)

I don't know if it is in Microsoft's interest to wait that long if that's their intent. It looks like Microsoft would want their IP, and their search business, so assets such as hardware and real estate probably don't mean much to Microsoft (the kind of things that get sold off during or right before a bankruptcy). But if Microsoft wants either their portal or advertising business, it's likely in their interest to get it before customers and investors start to bail on fears of Yahoo going under. Customer base and confidence definitely have street value.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687437)

This is how I've taken it (not necessarily the way it is).

Microsoft initiates a hostile takeover bid for Yahoo! disrupting employee morale as well as investor confidence (and general mucking around like Microsoft tries to do). Yahoo! wasn't really in a position to be bought, thought the cultures would clash too much, etc., and rejected the offer.

Now that the economy has tanked, and Yahoo!'s share price is less than half of what MS was offering, they decide that perhaps a buyout was really in the best interest of the share holders (as well as their own bank accounts). They go back to MS and say lets make a deal, but MS's intention was never to acquire Yahoo! for its inherent worth, it was only to remove one more obstacle in the way of their internet dominance.

Now that the market has crushed their competitor, they don't have to spend any money to do it themselves. MS got exactly what they wanted in this situation: removing Yahoo! from the equation. And for an added bonus, they got to keep several billion dollars in the process.

If you look at IE, Windows Server, Pocket PC/WinMo, Zune, Xbox, etc, MS is rarely interested at taking on a market leader head on (they may act like they are, and say they are, however). What they do is destroy the smaller players until either they have market dominance (because the largest player has < 50% of the market, and MS has decimated the other > 50%), or they are second in the market which is generally still a profitable position.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687923)

Yahoo the business is pretty much the same as when MS offered 33 a share. The general economic climate, of course, has gone to hell. Whatever had originally attracted MS is still there and should be even more attractive now that MS could probably get Yahoo much cheaper.

I think that is why a lot of people are expecting another offer to come down eventually. Personally, as a shareholder in MS, I like the buyback better than I like a Yahoo acquisition. For a small fraction of the Yahoo price MS could pour years upon years of MUCH more massive losses into its search business. As we've seen with XBOX that strategy can actually work--if you can afford it. MS can afford it.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688735)

Well, Yahoo turned down daddy MS and "opened up" to the hot kid Google. However that caught the eye of the over protective parrents and Goog run off after a brief fooling around.

Now that Yahoo is no longer virgin...

yahoo's hubris (4, Insightful)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687389)

Where's your middle finger now Yang? Do you see the pitchforks and torches of shareholders on the horizon? Hope it was worth it.

Re:yahoo's hubris (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688505)

Any "fuck-off" to Microsoft is worth it, by definition.

The sad part is this second Act.

Considering AT&T caused me headaches with thei (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687399)

changes give their customers Yahoo web interface, even though I don't want any advertising, I got one word to say:

Ya-fu&-hoo!

Put Yahoo on eBay (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687423)

Yahoo should auction off its outstanding shares on eBay. I've got $5 right here.

Re:Put Yahoo on eBay (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687573)

I think they should do an A&E "Sell this house" special with Yahoo! before trying to sell anything. There would be a fat designer with a tight t-shirt telling the owners "oh, this is not a very good front page, let's get rid of all those clumsy links and do something clean, google-like.". And they could put some flowers and a mirror so the page could look bigger.

Maybe this way the shares would go up. Maybe.

Yahoo? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25687433)

Are they still around?

Re:Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688579)

They still have about 50% of all US households stopping by one of their properties every day. What they need to do is figure out how to continue to make money on all those looks.

Is this the nail in the coffin? (1)

iceT (68610) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687457)

First, Yahoo kills their music store, and everyone with music tracks from them are now left with NOTHING. Now they lose their ad revenue deal w/ Google? If MS truly isn't interested any more (i.e.- their lack-of-interested isn't a bargaining chip), could this be it for Yahoo? What do they have left that's viable?

Yahoo has its head up its Yang (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687463)

they're going the way of Pets.Com -- eventually anybody who wants a piece of them can get the right one for pennies a pound at the bankruptcy court. why pay more?

Perhaps it played out like this (3, Funny)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687607)

Yahoo: Hey, wanna buy us?

Msft: Hey, remember how we tried to buy you and you repeatedly said "no" and caused us much embarrassment?

Yahoo: Well, yeah.

Msft: Good then. FUCK OFF.

Yahoo (5, Funny)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687637)

Ya-who?

Great Job DOJ! (2, Interesting)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687727)

Here's a company struggling to survive and rather than let capitalism work and let them do a deal with the market leader you prevent it, and watch the company go down the tubes (pun intended). Here's the best part - without Yahoo sucking up advertising dollars, the vast majority of the interest in them will still go to the market leader - but no, you can't allow that to happen and then prosecute any sort of actual abuse - no, you have to prevent the possibility of abuse - you know what's best for everyone after all.

What's next - will we give Yahoo a few billion taxpayer dollars for a bailout?

Great system - government doesn't allow market to work - and then takes money to make it work (for sufficiently poor values of "work").

Re:Great Job DOJ! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688065)

When MS tried to buy Yahoo (who was already struggling then), I bet you were probably one of those who yelled BORG! and railed against the proposed offer. Replace "rejected Google, based on anti-trust" with "rejected Microsoft, based on anti-trust" and I bet you would be writing your congressman to congratulate the DOJ!

Re:Great Job DOJ! (2, Insightful)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688383)

Great system - government doesn't allow market to work - and then takes money to make it work (for sufficiently poor values of "work").

This is the 'modern' Republican way.

Privatize profits and socialize losses. (Corporations only of course.)

Conservatives need to take this last election and use it as fuel to go read any of John Dean's recent books on the failure of the Republican party by betraying true conservatives.

(Even Goldwater before he died screamed for the Republicans to stop going down the road that led to Bush II and the move to corporate authoritarian policies.)

Re:Great Job DOJ! (2, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688471)

as opposed to the Democratic way, where Pelosi is calling for bailing out totally-blue unionized-companies such as GM? The Republicans' mistake in bailouts (besides the bailout ever being considered acceptable in free society in the first place), was in not targeting the bailout to those corporations that would then reward the Republican party. The Democrats are quite keen to not make that same mistake. Lots of taxpayer (of all political persuasions) will now be made available to those industries and companies that hand significant money back to the Democrats in the form of political donations.

Who was it that said a capitalist (or Republican) will sell you the rope to hang himself? ...

Re:Great Job DOJ! (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688675)

This is a crap argument. When MSFT tried to buy anything or anyone people screamed bloody murder.

The government did their job and ensured that the number 1 and 2 don't get together and control the market.

When you say, "oh we will let capitalism do its work." I call BS! Because if there were true capitalism people would not be able to handle it since many things as they are today would be very very different.

I always use the hockey game comparison. Rules are there to make the game fair, not tilt it in anybody's favor. No rules, and only "free market" and what you have are brawls! Sure one person will win, but it would not be pretty and definitely not a hockey game!

The closest comparison I can come to is this really odd Irish or is it English game where they kick this thing across town and it turns into a brawl. Not pretty to watch.

Re:Great Job DOJ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688859)

When you say, "oh we will let capitalism do its work." I call BS! Because if there were true capitalism people would not be able to handle it since many things as they are today would be very very different.

Sure things would be different, but might they not be different in a way that is better?

I always use the hockey game comparison. Rules are there to make the game fair, not tilt it in anybody's favor. No rules, and only "free market" and what you have are brawls!

Funny that you are advocating the initiation of force, while arguing that if we don't systematically initiate force then it will lead to the initiation of force.

Re:Great Job DOJ! (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689075)

The government did their job and ensured that the number 1 and 2 don't get together and control the market.

So now it's the government's proper job to read the economic tea leaves and decide which companies are worthy of survival ...

Re:Great Job DOJ! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689039)

To be fair, I don't think that Yahoo was failing this badly when the actual decision was made. (I may be wrong.) The legal pipeline is slow.

Taxes (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25687733)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/yahoo-plays-catch-up-offshore-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7BB54D432E-20D4-47B3-B7E9-204593E9E00D%7D&dist=msr_2 [marketwatch.com]

Long Story Short: MS & Google both have offshore tax dodges setup, so they end up paying around 24% tax rates, while Yahoo pays around 40%. Yahoo wants to join the offshore tax dodgers, but the IRS recently decided to crack down on the practice.

This isn't in the article, but IIRC, Obama has already made it clear that he's going to close such loopholes in the tax code, which will translate to higher taxes on corporations and more revenue for the Treasury Dept. (let's not have the discussion on whether this is a good or bad thing for business and the country)

Re:Taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688113)

more revenue for the Treasury Dept till businesses all leave. I can reply with anything I want, and saying don't means nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688167)

I'll avoid the discussion about whether this is good or bad for the business and the country, but I will take issue with the "more revenue for the Treasury Dept." comment. Companies generally have to make money (or at least break even) to survive. If the government is taking more money by increasing the taxes the company has to pay, then the company needs to generate higher profits to satisfy the shareholders. Obviously there are two ways to make higher profits -- get more customers to pay the company more money, else figure out how to offer the same product at the same price to the consumer but at a lower cost for the company (i.e. cut expenditures like goods and salaries). When the company reduces salary costs by cutting employees and reduces other expenditures by buying fewer goods, people at the supplier's company get laid off and the supplier stops buying as many goods (lather, rinse, repeat). The increased revenue that you speak of the treasury receiving doesn't amount to much after one takes into account the losses that result directly from increased taxes on companies. There is a balance somewhere, but I'd argue 40% is on the high side, not the low side of that balance.

Re:Taxes (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688559)

Reducing costs with layoffs and buying less is the driving mechanism of the economy.

If I can get the same work done with fewer people, that frees up them to do other work. It is the reason that the industrial revolution took us (those in developed countries, I am assuming most /.s are) to a situation where most people can sit around and debate these things.

Sure, it sucks to be layed off, as I am sure all the weavers felt when they were made redundant by factory looms, but that is why more than a small handful have significant leisure time.

Re:Taxes (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688329)

Can we have a discussion on whether Obama will actually follow through on his campaign promises? History (and human nature) argue against it.

they will make it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688161)

Yahoo will pull through this.

Re:they will make it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25689015)

Chances are that you own a lot of Yahoo stock that you bought for a brickload, I bet. True or not, that's okay; a shit-ton of the comments screaming for Yahoo's execution come from Microsoft and Google shareholders. The rest are ignorant, disinterested trolls.

I don't own any Yahoo, Microsoft, or Google stock (and never have), and even I agree with you. I very seriously doubt that they can still do it alone, so I expect a yet-unrevealed third party to step in when the price and timing are right. The end result will likely be a Microsoft-free Yahoo that will retain its #2 position behind Google and ahead of Microsoft. I see NO innovation coming from Microsoft, at least no innovation that people actually want, ever. (They seem to stumble blindly on their successes, if you pay close attention to history.) On the other hand, Yahoo is sitting on a lot of existing assets and properties that could easily be converted into much more profitable ones, even in spaces that Google doesn't yet (or never will) occupy.

BTW, all freedom of information advocates should be fighting against the reduction of competition in the information aggregation space. To compare to the televesion news market, we in the U.S. are lucky to have so many different sources for our news. Ignoring any conspiracy theories, we can choose from any number of them and make up our own minds about the truth. Many people around the world are limited to one news source, oftentimes that which is run by the state itself. Obviously, this is dangerous. The already low & lonely number of competitors in the search engine space is similarly dangerous. Such services effectively serve to aggregate and prioritize the presentation of information, and are exploitable in that capacity.

We have to stop thinking of Yahoo vs. Google vs. Microsoft vs. the remaining 0.0000000001% of the competition as merely a userbase issue. All of the ignorant "So what?" comments are already a sign that this is the case. Anyone who doesn't care enough about this simply has yet to be hurt. That doesn't make it a non-issue, that only makes it a matter of time.

MS finally figured it perhaps? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688241)

Yahoo users were packing and leaving if MS deal was done. Obviously, they are the ones who REJECTED MS offers, even tied to Windows interface and have chosen Yahoo. MS could end up buying yahoo.com domain name while massive numbers of users have already moved to another platform/OS neutral provider named Google.

MS on the other hand does everything to prove they are the very same company who doesn't understand what "Web" is. Opera users are AGAIN reporting Hotmail "new version" major problems. Yes, that is right, the conspiracy which has been said to be very costly for MS is in action again. (search for Opera lawsuit MSN)

I understood Yahoo rejecting MS offer by very good reasons but I don't get how the heck Yang can make such mistake showing a true web/services giant as weak to general public. If he should be fired, he should be fired for that reason. On Web services for general public business, MS is a joke. Owner of Live.com that is. The provider which people (non techie) downloads Google Toolbar just not to use it.

Apple should buy Yahoo (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688601)

Apple cannot forever rely on hardware sales alone. They should have their own portal.

Here's Another Idea (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688637)

Layoff the rest of the people you don't need. Cut unprofitable services. Improve the quality of those services that are profitable. Maintain your R&D division. Come up with some new products.

In other words, turn yourself into a profitable, but smaller company going forward. Why, you might even consider the possibility of being around 20 years from now as an independant entity.

I mean, at this stage, why continue thinking "exit strategy" like a 2-year old startup?

I know, I know. It's an odd idea in hi tech. It seems to work pretty well for the grocer, the tailor, the baker and various other businesses though.

Oh, and especially, please, pretty please? Get rid of the obtrusive 3rd party ads. I block all that crap. If you just put a tasteful, static GIF on your pages, I wouldn't block your ads. Nevermind that though; I've paid for Yahoo services before. Their music service was good before they stopped maintaining it properly. I've never paid Google for anything. So. Yahoo, why don't you start serving customers like you once did? Why don't you place unobtrusive ads like Google does?

Whatever you do, please don't change your old-school Finance pages--your GNUPlot based charts would be irreplaceable. Don't get bought. Please.

But what about the profits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25688689)

Though not wildly so, Yahoo has been consistently profitable. Meanwhile, Microsoft's online division has consistently lost money. In the most recent quarter, their online division lost close to half a billion dollars. Combining Yahoo! with Microsoft would result in an online division run by Microsoft's management, who will lose boatloads of money. Sure, selling Yahoo! would have been great for speculators out to make a quick buck, but how are losses for the foreseeable future good for investors?

Yahoo wants to buy MICROSOFT? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25688883)

Hahahaha...

Oh wait, nevermind.

Teenagers (4, Funny)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25689113)

You know, all these companies sound like teenagers.

The rich asshole kid on the block (M) wants to get the cool chick (Y), not because he likes her, but because she wants to go out with the cool kid (G), and M won't have any of that. But then the cool kid realizes Y is just a whore and dumps her. And now even the rich kid doesn't want her anymore. So everyone thinks Y is a cheap slut. In the mean time, the geeks (Sun, IBM...) don't even try going for the whore because they are busy doing their own stuff. As for the classy chick (Apple), she's single because she looks down on everybody.

The stock market sure is one crazy high school.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?