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!

Rumors Flying On $20 Billion Microsoft Offer For Yahoo

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the wishful-thinking dept.

Microsoft 112

gadgetopia is one of many who wrote to tell us about the many rumors flying around that Microsoft may be aiming another deal at Yahoo, this time for $20 billion. The story was apparently originally broken by the UK-based site Times Online, and contained lots of details about the supposed deal. Since then, Ross Levinsohn, reported to be part of the new management team, has denied there is any truth to these rumors, leading to questions about where all of this supposed information came from. Yahoo has declined to comment officially.

cancel ×

112 comments

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

Sounds like pump-n-dump (5, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952907)

In this climate I don't see Microsoft buying -anything- for a $20B outlay unless it were the next Google. And Yahoo isn't.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (4, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953131)

I agree, Yahoo's revenue streams have been dropping and their annual profit's have not been good. MS would have to have a compelling reason to buy Yahoo as the acquisition would probably not give them a competitive advantage over Google.

With all this talk of Windows in the cloud, and seeing what Microsoft have just done by adding Netflix to the Xbox 360, it appears like they are looking seriously to selling appliances/subscription services. If they could convert even a fraction of their OEM market into hosted services, it could be as lucrative as their Office and Server licensing streams.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953339)

Microsoft doesnt want Yahoo to make money, they want Yahoo for the hits and content.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953359)

Microsoft doesn't want Yahoo. It wants Yahoo out of the way.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0, Redundant)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953749)

Microsoft doesn't want Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google to not have Yahoo.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953879)

Microsoft doesn't want Google to not have Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google's cute sister.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (4, Insightful)

f0dder (570496) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954077)

Microsoft wants Yahoo patent portfolio.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (5, Informative)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955479)

Correct, Yahoo owns a great deal of Google stock due to the patent dispute around online marketing.

Why Google is not taking care of this is kind of beyond me.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25958353)

Microsoft doesn't want Google to not have Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google's cute sister.

Then why are they going after the pig with lipstick?

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (2, Interesting)

The_Beige_Volvo (1420579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953529)

Such as for the email traffic. Merging hotmail and yahoo would yield approx. 2/3 all webmail traffic routing through MS owned sites. I use webmail clients for all my email these days - could be a pretty powerful piece of market share to have (all users that is - I'm not that obsessive about checking my email). Volvo

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

wdr1 (31310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955817)

Uh, no. They don't give two squats about either.

What they do want is the advertiser base for sponsored search.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956263)

I'm not sure why they would spend $20 billion to serve ads on Yahoo's search. What would make more sense to me to to buy everything *except* Yahoo's search (mail, flickr, etc). Yahoo has some sweet web apps, and I think that would better compete with Google. MS already has search.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956453)

Yahoo has a revenue stream? you mean people still use them despite their over cluttered pages and inferior services.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25957707)

Yes and yes. Hohhhh boy, are you ever out of touch.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958411)

I do believe they have a revenue stream and an "Exchange Killer [zimbra.com] " (at least a competitor) and they are definitely one of the top five search engines. I think search engine ranks right now must be... 1) Google, 2) Google, 3) Google, 4) Yahoo, and 5) Google. So a second MS acquisition attempt is very plausible.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953219)

...leading to questions about where all of this supposed information came from.

A better question would be, why is gmail trying to suppress that information? Check your spam folder, and click on 'Display images below' (otherwise, you won't see it).

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953225)

I don't see Microsoft buying -anything- for a $20B outlay unless it were the next Google

Microsoft has money to spend and AAA corporate credit. Exxon-Mobil grade credit. Why shouldn't it be out shopping for bargains?

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953323)

Microsoft has money to spend and AAA corporate credit. Exxon-Mobil grade credit. Why shouldn't it be out shopping for bargains?

No kidding. This is the perfect time for a shopping spree. Guys like Yahoo's shareholders will be screaming for this sort of a buyout to save them from losing their shirts.

Microsoft has more cash than Jesus right now. They have nothing to worry about.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953461)

Microsoft has more cash than Jesus right now. They have nothing to worry about.

Not likely. According to this website [slashdot.org] , in the year 2000 alone, American evangelical Christians raked in $2.66T (yes, that's trillion, no, that's not a typo.) If, according the site, 9% of these 'born-again' Christians tithed -- contributed 10% of their income -- then that should be about $23.94B in 2000 alone. If we count all 9 years between 2000 and 2008, and people are giving to Jesus at the same rates, I figure since 2000, Jesus must've raked in at least $200 billion or so, probably more. Let's be conservative and say the number is closer $300 billion.

That makes Microsoft's $30 billion or so in current cash (according to Google Finance) seem a bit puny in comparison, huh?

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953561)

If, according the site, 9% of these 'born-again' Christians tithed -- contributed 10% of their income -- then that should be about $23.94B in 2000 alone.

The key word is IF and that's a huge IF. You're really dreaming big if you think all those people gave 10% of their net income.

That makes Microsoft's $30 billion or so in current cash (according to Google Finance) seem a bit puny in comparison, huh?

No because Microsoft is a single entity with that much money. Your nonexistent fantasy dollar amount is spread around hundreds of thousands of churches. Christians can't even agree on religious doctrine much less how to spend money. I'm sure it's being put to good use though, such as helping the spread of STD's so teenagers will be afraid of sex before marriage.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953663)

Woooooooosh.

(The single entity, is, of course, Jesus. That's why it's funny. Laugh.)

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25955469)

Meta-whoosh!

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (2, Funny)

Whiternoise (1408981) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954717)

So why can't the church solve the credit crisis =P
It's not like God needs it?

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956083)

If God doesn't need money then why does he insist on sending his minnions to my front door to beg for it, is it some kind of test?

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25958469)

If God doesn't need money then why does he insist on sending his minnions to my front door to beg for it, is it some kind of test?

And that's when the Rabbi said: I have an idea, let's take all the money and put it together then throw it into the air and what God wants he keeps!

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25954961)

I figure since 2000, Jesus must've raked in at least $200 billion or so, probably more. Let's be conservative and say the number is closer $300 billion.

That's REVENUE.

Do you have any idea how much a natural disaster costs? Let alone a MIRACLE? I mean, after operating costs, they're barely breaking even up there!

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958813)

Miracles are free, of course. Hell, Jesus' frickin' father supposedly created the flippin' Earth and everything on it in 7 days with $0!!! (Money hadn't been invented yet...) Certainly something as relatively mundane as turning water into wine must be even cheaper than free.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25959021)

Yahoo is not a bargain. Their money would be better spent in other ways. I think they realize that now.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (2, Informative)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953431)

They'd definitely buy, this is a great buyers market after all. The trouble is that this story was pretty thoroughly debunked yesterday [techcrunch.com] .

Yahoo is closer to Google than you think (2, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953823)

Yahoo is one of the few companies that's positioned anywhere near a place where they could grab a share of what Google's doing.

They have some of the web's most trafficked destinations -- I think they're still #1 in traffic even with the rise of the social networking sites. Part of it's mindshare and brand recognition, part of it is the sheer variety the apps in their portal portfolio (flickr, delicious, groups...).

Microsoft right now is in a position where they are losing control of the web as a platform. Even with some huge advantages leftover from their desktop dominance, they don't seem to be able to do all that great at creating compelling destinations, and what's more, there's an increasing number of destinations that don't require any of their technology at all.

Frankly, if I were betting on which company were more likely to be relevant in 10-15 years, I'd bet on Yahoo.... assuming it survives investors who've forgotten there's such a thing as a decade, and suits and others who can't get their heads around Yahoo's assets, much less put together the engineering culture and talent the company does need to make its bid for resurgence.

Be sure that Microsoft understands this. Getting their hands on these web properties could do wonders for their efforts to shoehorn their proprietary tech back into popular usage. They may not be able to execute, but it's quite probably worth even more than a $20 billion shot.

I don't like the idea so much, because I think their product "management" of IE from 2001-2006 shows that rather than deserving any kind of trust, they're all too happy to leave their products in a state that should constitute criminal theft for sheer number of hours of productivity it stole from web developers, if they can get away with it, which, even in the current environment where their grip is looser than it used to be, they more or less can. But it's a very real possibility if MS acquires Yahoo.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955541)

Yahoo's market capitalization is only $14,904,080,000.00 as of today, so why would MS offer to buy Yahoo for 33% more than the market value of the company?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying it's stupid.

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (5, Informative)

fatwilbur (1098563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956301)

Takeover offers are always, ALWAYS at a large premium to current share prices. This is what entices the shareholders to sell their shares to Microsoft (or whoever).

Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957133)

history lesson: Yahoo were the previous Google, back in the mid 90s.

What the heck!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952943)

Yes...no...yes...no...yes? What is this? Does Ballmer run on Windows and is his system32.dll and/or user.dll corrupt?

Re:What the heck!? (-1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952957)

No, just chair.dll.

Re:What the heck!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953387)

Whoever mods parent Funny gets their privileges revoked.

If he knows what he's doing ... (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954949)

He runs OS X.

But we all know the real answer. :) Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm this dogfood tastes greaaaat.

Hmmm. (4, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953013)

44 billion to 20 billion.

Are they trying to actually buy the company or do they just happen to have cameras in place at the Yahoo Shareholders Meetings. Maybe Ballmer just wants to have some footage of some other hypertensive sweaty jumping exec to replace his favorite internet memes.

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956259)

Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.

Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958531)

Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.

Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.

If that's true then Google really is an unstoppable behemoth now. Honestly, there isn't enough room on the internet for Yahoo to make a living too? I don't get it. But, I suppose that's why I'm a geek and not a suit.

Surely there's a way for a Yahoo to shed 50% of its mass and use its name recognition to drive some kind of revenue stream. Even if it is just selling tee-shirts or something dumb like that. It worked for /. and thinkGeek (sort of I guess).

Going under? I don't know. I certainly agree that they are not doing well at all. I'm sure there's a rabbit in a hat lying around here somewhere though.

Fools and their Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953043)

It's amazing to me how much money Yahoo has cost itself due to the egos of their D&O's. And yes, if you invested in this company you are "the fool who follows the fool."

Re:Fools and their Money (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953781)

I's amazing to me how much value Yahoo's shareholders lost after the US government ("here to help") put the big kabosh on a Google/Yahoo deal.

Re:Fools and their Money (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953895)

here to help

Which, despite your sarcasm, they did. Google's got enough eyeballs as it is, we don't need them scooping up near all of them.

Hardly (1)

nwf (25607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953059)

That couldn't possibly be true. Surely, Yahoo is holding out for $10B, given their track record.

Perhaps they are waiting for a government bailout?

Feds won't allow it (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953079)

They better get their sale concluded before next year.

Hostile takeover (5, Interesting)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953111)

I recall reading an article a while back that Microsoft wasn't able to pursue unless Jerry Yang was ousted.

Well, from now to then:

* Ichann was elected to the board
* Yang received severe criticism from the FUD machine
* The project management of Yahoo services just went plain crazy (like deleting all of your user information in an 'upgrade')
* <<insert more stupid crap here>>
* Yang "stepped down"
* And now report are that the 44.6 billion dollar deal is a mere 20 billion.

Say what you will, but this isn't mere chance. Yahoo was one of the companies that helped to make the internet what it is today, and I am very suspicious about most nearly everything on the list above.

Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

Re:Hostile takeover (4, Insightful)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953253)

Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

How could you blame Microsoft on this? They offered the 44.6B and were turned down by Jerry Yang. Let me repeat that last part....Jerry Yang, the sane one, turned down the deal. His decisions resulted in a lesser valued company and now according to this article Microsoft is making another offer. How this leads to M$=EVIL I don't know.

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953705)

The statement "M$=EVIL" is a tautology 'round these parts.

Re:Hostile takeover (5, Funny)

cyberjessy (444290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954357)

At his sister's wedding, Michael Corleone tells his then girlfriend Kay Adams the story of how Don Corleone helped his godson Johnny Fontane. Michael explains that his father went to convince Les Halley, the bandleader, to release Johnny from a personal service contract that was holding back Johnny's singing career. Halley refused both the initial offer of $20,000 and the following offer of $10,000, completely missing the significance of that lower offer.

You know what happened then.

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

Fastball (91927) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956441)

Jerry Yang wakes up to find Susan Decker's severed head in his bed?

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

enigma9 (812497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954807)

MS is evil (or at least Ballmer is) because he can raise and crash stock prices based on small comments that get reported, and he knows this. MS was ranked third behind Google and Yahoo, and now with just rumors is able to knock Yahoo down quite a bit. I would not call Yang crazy for turning down MS; would you turn your baby over to Ballmer?

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957463)

a) Microsoft raised stock prices based on these small comments, but I don't see how they can lower them, other than restoring them to where they were before they made these comments by denying any further interest. I don't know what makes you think MS is even behind this rumour. If you wanted to buy Yahoo, you would suppress rumours that you were about to buy them to keep the share price low. If you didn't want to buy Yahoo, you wouldn't do shit to make Yahoo's price go up anyway.

b) Yahoo isn't a baby, it's a giant publically traded corporation. I would exchange a giant publically traded corporation to Ballmer for twice what it's worth in a HEARTBEAT.

Re:Hostile takeover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25956055)

Can you really blame Yang for the change in value, at this of all times? In that same span the US stock market overall dropped 40% or so. The change in MS's offer is just due to MS being its usual opportunistic self; they aren't offering the old price anymore because they think they can get Yahoo for less now in a recession.

Re:Hostile takeover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953687)

Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

what the hell are you smoking? Jerry Yang is the reason Yahoo is in the toilet, Jerry YAng is the reason shareholders did not get $30+ a share and have to look dreamily at $15 a share in the hopes that one day they may achieve that again. Yahoo was massively overvalued and Yang turned down a chance to cash in that massive overvalue, MS were not ruthless, they were stupid in offering so much, thankfully for them YAng is a moron and turned them down.

Re:Hostile takeover (4, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955111)

Jerry Yang is the reason Yahoo is in the toilet

Uh, probably not. Over past 12 months Yahoo! is down 60%. But guess what? AMD is down 80%, the Dow is down 40%, Sun is down 85%, MSFT themselves are down 45%, even Apple is down 50%.

Shall we blame Jerry for 12 months of decline across the board?? If you correct for the market downturn, even just the Dow index, then Yahoo! has barely dipped.

(Actually the offer was made around 1 Feb, but the dips since then are about the same.)

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956681)

While what you say is true, you seem to be forgetting "the stampede of the stupid", more commonly known as day traders and amateur traders. When MSFT made the offer the stampede bought like crazy hoping to make a quick cashout, and when MSFT went "nah, no thanks" the stampede ran the stock in the toilet as they ran away.

I think a lot of what is wrong in the stock market can be traced to the stampede, since you better care about nothing but the quarterly report lest the stampede run your stock into the ground. Nobody ever looks at the big picture or the long term anymore, which is running the whole thing into the ground IMHO.

Re:Hostile takeover (2, Insightful)

Mex (191941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955627)

Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

Man I agree MS is ruthless and I respect Jerry Yang but I just can't blame Microsoft here. They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value directly because of his refusal to sell.

You mention some mistakes that Yahoo made but how is all that not his fault?

Re:Hostile takeover (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957281)

They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value...

This is interesting. What caused that drop in value?
How does the Yahoo! before the offer differ from the Yahoo! after the offer? Did someone important leave? Did Yahoo! stop offering some critical service? If not, then what? A loss of ~50% of a company's value is kinda huge, no? Where did all that money go? Did it get lost in a sock drawer?

bogus. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953115)

ballmer is not doing it. yang can't broker it. nobody's got $20 billion in cash that isn't piled under the mattress and has some curious brown stains on top of the bag.

not going to happen.

Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953179)

It's gonna be 7 billion.

Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (5, Interesting)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953185)

Yahoo represents the "old web" that Google is beating the pants off of. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft/MSN's own resources are as good or better. What Microsoft is trying to do is get a leg up on Google, and purchasing Yahoo just won't do that.

Microsoft is better off buying something smaller, perhaps InterActiveCorp (IAC), owners of Ask.com and Excite, Evite, and Match.com, but even then it's only accomplishing the same thing. Whatever base they draw from, be it Yahoo, IAC, or MSN itself, they're going to have to do some radical building of new technology to go anywhere.

They are going to have to invest in actual development firm(s), and buy some up-and-coming companies like 37signals to get some real innovation. However, Google has already been doing this, so MS is getting sloppy seconds, and when you add that to the fact that Microsoft is horrible at the this concept (it's more typical that MS buys a company, takes its most salable product and integrates it into the MS product, then shelves the rest of the company and fires the staff).

ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support if it wants to be a contender (or is this Silverlight's aspiration? *shudder* ... Silverlight should contend with Flash. None of the big web2.0 apps use Flash). This absolutely must be key to their web services plan if they want to stay a "leader" in the PL field. Remember when Hotmail went offline because they couldn't successfully port it from BSD to Windows? They still managed to do it eventually (or does it just run though a proxy?) ... porting languages is MUCH harder.

Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953681)

youtube. all the music sites.

also, Microsoft has adopted jQuery for their AJAX needs. i think it's a pretty good pick, personally.

Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25955027)

You're completely missing the point. Yes, Microsoft has better tech (for many things, not all), but it has no users. Yahoo is the old web, but it still has users. This is pretty much the whole point of the acquisition for MS.

Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955311)

I think Yahoo has been slowly reinventing themselves in the past two years. To call them "the old web" is rather shortsighted.

Maybe they're not moving as quickly as many people would like, but that's a different institutional issue. Also, consider that Yahoo has a crapload of "old web" customers and users who in many cases are simply averse to change. You can't just one day drop them in a super slick Ajax interface that ties into nine different social sites and expect them to be thankful - because they just don't care about that sort of thing. Microsoft tried that and it didn't work.

Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25955587)

Your post was sounding reasonably good, until the part about "ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support...".

Does this [asp.net] not count?

Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956651)

ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support if it wants to be a contender

Recall that story not long ago about official jQuery support in Visual Studio?

Not a surprise (1)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953195)

It has been obvious that this was going to happen ever since Icahn bought his board seat, and especially since he then got Yang fired.

Ballmer's misspeak a few weeks ago was another big clue.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953203)

Honestly, why is MS trying to get Yahoo? Yahoo is everything you would find in a dying company, a loss of public interest and a loss of revenue. Sure, MS could say that they owned a large portion of the search market, but what does that get them? Just about everyone is heading to Google and no doubt MS would manage to mess up Yahoo enough to make their few loyal searchers go elsewhere.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953251)

There's something you're overlooking -- neither Youtube.com nor Google Video allow the posting of porn. Yahoo! does, making it one of the few mainstream providers who do. After that you have specialty niche sites like redtube.com and pornhub.com.

Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn? lulz.

Re:Why? (1)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953627)

Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn?

Well... Bill Gates does have a lot of time on his hands now...

Re:Why? (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953677)

Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn? lulz.

If so, i hope that the companies involved realize that Embrace, Extend, Extinguish does NOT only apply to the wacky snuff fetishists.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953787)

After that you have specialty niche sites like redtube.com and pornhub.com.

This, my friends, is why I love Slashdot. I learn something new every day!

Re:Why? (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953919)

porn and blue screen....hummm you may have something there...

Re:Why? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956667)

There's something you're overlooking -- neither Youtube.com nor Google Video allow the posting of porn. Yahoo! does, making it one of the few mainstream providers who do.

Not to mention Yahoo Groups. If you ever wanted to read something like some hot Severus/Frodo NC-17 BDSM fanfic crossover with furry pics, that's the first place to look ;)

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953353)

and a loss of revenue

I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!

If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953457)

Profitable as in financial profitability currently, but might I remind you that Yahoo had to lay off 7% of their employees recently. That isn't a mark of a profitable company, or one that will be profitable a year or two into the future.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953765)

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "Profit" with "Sustainable Growth". If you have a lemonade stand thats making you 50$ a week as a kid, do you stop because its not going to grow by 50% each quarter? Layoff's are not a metric of growth in any event as quite honestly, most companies tend to have way more people than they have.

Having more employees than you need is not the sign of a profitable company either, although granted having to fire employees is stating that they either screwed up and had more people than they should have or they screwed up and have to trim to try to recover.

You're right about one thing in all of that though, layoffs of that magnitude definitely mean that someone somewhere screwed up hard (or a committee of someones). Not a good sign for them REMAINING profitable, but until they arent making a profit they remain profitable.

Re:Why? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953807)

If they are still profitable then they had too many employees,

All companies are lying off people. (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957191)

You sell less you need less people, you do so to keep the company profitable.

Honestly, in which planet are you living?

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953595)

If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.

Which certainly doesn't make it worth even $20,000,000,000, especially if there is no indication that that profitably is increasing.

Yahoo! is a mature company, not an up-and-coming star. Unless you've got some real synergies to realize by acquiring it, that means that its current profitability has to justify the cost of the acquisition. Even if it was making $1 billion per year in profit and showing signs of doing that indefinitely into the future, that would only be a 5% annual return on a $20 billion investment, which is decent, but not stellar; but its not doing that much, and its not showing a lot of promise of keeping up what profitability it has, either.

Re:Why? (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954601)

So, we have a profitable company here that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter? After paying the employees? After taxes? You mean, pure profit?
Why in fucking hell are they so eager to sell it then? How greedy can you even get? If this kinda attitude is the norm nowadays then I can only shake my head in disgust and say: everyone involved probably deserves what they'll get.

On a more productive note: If you're so worried that all your products are crap and that your profit *may* decline into the two-digit millions-per-quarter range (god forbid!) then here's what you do:

Fund startups.

If your inhouse staff has grown so incompetent that your products are not competitive anymore then that's what you need, fresh blood.
Most startups can go a very long way with investments as low as $100k (or heck, $1mio, as if it mattered on the yahoo scale). So if you only fund the most promising ones and keep it real overall then you'll probably hit the jackpot once or twice per year.

To someone who's in the process of building a startup (and fighting for every penny) this whole discussion feels like a slap in the face.

Re:Why? (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957699)

One name: Carl Icahn. The man doesn't know the meaning of the term 'innovation'.

Gerry

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953775)

I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!

If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter

you say that as if means something revenue/profit etc are only meaningfull when you put them in perspective of their market cap/growth rate and P/E etc. Several $100.000.000/quarter sounds fantastic till you look at there market cap, revenue growth (or rather lack there of) and then you see that even at $10 a share they are significantly over valued. several hundred million a quarter is fine if all you ever want to be is a small time company with a market cap about half of what yahoo currently have, at that rate they should have there share price sink to about $6 a share then that would be sufficient to make such a crappy profit look reasonable.

Re:Why? (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953583)

They're buying a big portion of the search market. Believe it or not some people still use Yahoo for search.

Google owns around 70% of the searches on the 'net and climbing.

Yahoo is a very distant 2nd at ~17%.

MSN is around 8%.

These figures are around a year old.

If they have any hope of catching Google they'll need to combine forces, jettison some overhead and then still work like crazy to gain every percent.

Man I still remember when Alta Vista owned Search. Those guys really blew it.

Re:Why? (1)

glidermike (1062790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955591)

If Microsoft buys Yahoo I'll be one of the users that will leave for good.I've had an account at yahoo for years-my isp is partnered with them (Rogers in Canada). Microsoft will screw it up just like they did with Hotmail. Plus what about the open-source projects and developers at Yahoo? I can imagine they'll run like hell too.

Re:Why? (1)

WingedEarth (958581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956433)

Microsoft buying Yahoo is kinda like Sears merging with K-Mart. Who cares? They're tired companies with tired, old business models. Microsoft's only good products are Word and Excel, and it has the industry chained to its Windows platform, so Microsoft will continue to make enough revenue to act like a hedge fund and buy up other companies. Yahoo is the Google that never evolved. K-Mart is Wal-Mart without the efficiency. And Sears is that great American company that is no longer really American (they import all their products) so no one really cares about them and their stores have no character and no appeal, so they might as well be another K-Mart.

Re:Why? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956749)

You seem to be forgetting the two things that I personally believe is the real target for MSFT, and that is webmail and the patents that Yahoo holds. Yahoo still has the #1 webmail in terms of clients last I checked, and together with Hotmail would give MSFT not only a lot of eyeballs but a ton of data to mine and put them far ahead of Google in the webmail arena.

And then there are of course the patents that Yahoo holds, sorry I can't remember the specific number offhand but there is one that will make Google REALLY nervous if it fell into MSFT's hands. I think those two together, with sites like Flickr with Yahoo Search as a bonus, could make it worth 20B to MSFT.

Why waste time with rumors? (0, Troll)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953693)

This doesn't belong on /. Come on.

Rumors with many details coming from the UK? That's all they have. You want to know where the details come from? Duh! A writer that was about to get canned unless he/she came up with something big to sell their publication.

I could sit down and write up a rumor in 5 minutes with tons of details and hide behind the annonymous source shield forever. For that matter, if this is worth /.ers time, lets start a whole rumor blog. Everyone! Start a rumors here. Put all the details you like to make it sound reliable, but quote nobody.

Go away, leave us alone (3, Interesting)

onescomplement (998675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953755)

It is Microsoft's board goodbye to Ballmer. He could not exist outside of Microsoft so giving him half of their cash to watch him go down in a self-involved ball of flames is reasonable. The bleeding will stop far short of that. His ego will not let him do something else. After all, he never dated. He married an employee. He is a weak thinker and undisciplined, at best. I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me. At that point I came to realize the poor quality of many people in our business and Ballmer in particular. My butt still hurts. It is time for you to go, Ballmer. You are not interesting, you were never interesting, you are a clown that makes development at Microsoft incredibly difficult if for no other reason than you are an incompetent developer.

Re:Go away, leave us alone (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953903)

The bleeding will stop far short of that

Microsoft isn't bleeding. It saw a modest growth in profits in its first quarter of FY 2009. If holiday sales are poor this season. it is far better positioned than most to weather the storm.

I've got a stone to sell you (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954071)

..since you have an axe to grind...

Re:Go away, leave us alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25957505)

I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me. At that point I came to realize the poor quality of many people in our business and Ballmer in particular.

Huh? Bootloader? Ballmer asked you for a Bootloader? Why? What exactly did you contribute? How did you get fucked(sic) by him?

[[Citation Needed]]

Re:Go away, leave us alone (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25957721)

How do you confuse the man Ballmer with the term 'developer'?

Gerry

Re:Go away, leave us alone (2, Insightful)

Mex (191941) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958741)

" I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me."

Wow, care to share that story?

IANAL (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954407)

but could one explain to me how a convicted monopolist would be allowed to do this? Or maybe I'm way off base here

Re:IANAL (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25956343)

It doesn't work that way. Microsoft are not a "convicted monopolist". They were found guilty of ceertain anti-competetive practices in regards specifically to using their position as the market leader in Operating Systems to push Internet Explorer(along with some other things.)

That conviction was mostly fluff because even the people who brought the suit in the first place don't have any actual resolution to the underlying problem short of "make Microsoft stop making Operating Systems so we can be a monopoly instead".

This does not make them a convicted monopolist because there is no such thing. Nor does even being found guilty of anti-competetive practices in a certain arena have anything to do with another arena where they are not a monopoly. Being told you can't do something in one area does not mean "they can't purchase any companies whatsoever"

Microsoft do not have a monopoly on web search, or on any of the other services that Yahoo might provide them. Even Yahoo and Microsoft combined would yield a distant second to Google. Google would not be allowed to make this purchase(and in fact an advertising deal between google and yahoo was struck down for this very reason).

I know everyone on slashdot would just love it if Microsoft were just shut down and put out of business, but that's not how this works. They did some things that were illegal, they got caught, ended up with a slap on the wrist because there was no feasible solution and moved on. They certainly get some pretty intense scrutiny when they try to buy things, but only where they might create a vertical or horizontal monopoly. So long as google exists, Microsoft buying Yahoo isn't going to do that.

All of Yahoo! or just search? (1)

acb (2797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954505)

Aren't they just asset-stripping Yahoo!'s search business and throwing the rest back to die like a finless shark?

(Though does anyone use Yahoo! Search? Come to think of it, does anyone use any Yahoo! properties other than Flickr and del.icio.us these days?)

Still, at least then, Flickr won't be "upgraded" to an all-Silverlight/Windows Media service that integrates tightly with the Windows 7 desktop or something.

Re:All of Yahoo! or just search? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955235)

"(Though does anyone use Yahoo! Search? Come to think of it, does anyone use any Yahoo! properties other than Flickr and del.icio.us these days?)"

I think a lot of people still use Yahoo! Mail, and finance.yahoo.com (their financial info website; the finance site is really well done, as far as I can tell, and I don't think Google has anything that quite compares to finance.yahoo.com).

I mostly stopped using Yahoo search a long time ago, though occasionally I'll try it to see if it gives me different results than Google does. But I still think the finance site is an excellent informational resource.

Other way around (1)

Akzo (1079039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954873)

Microsoft is glad they didn't buy Yahoo.

when too large to move (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25958127)

as microsoft is, your only method of competition is cash and discomfort. The internet has always, and will always be something just out of reach for them.
for the love of god, dont develop additions to something youve ignored and tried to buy for the last 10 years, it will only fail. Silverlight will never have the dominance flash has, Live search will always suck by comparison to google, and for gods sake MSNs page does everything newscorps fox.com does short of hurl dickpills and ab workouts at me (but the sensationalist fluff prevails the same.) the only thing microsoft has managed to do with regard to the internet is screw up java just enough so that it wont run right on icedtea, offer the ActiveX backdoor into my PC, and piss me off by taking the 'when all else fails, mandate the browser and the technology to allow the user to continue' mentality. tabs in your browser arent an innovation or new feature if you're competitor offers them free of charge in their faster, more secure browser.

for christsake, it failed twice. stop pushing money on a company thats been with the internet for all intents and purposes since day one, and doesnt need a multibillion dollar conglomerate to run it into the 'embrace extend extinguish' obscurity so many other decent corporations, projects, and technologies have seen.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>