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!

Carol Bartz Is Out As Yahoo's CEO

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the didn't-leverage-cloud-synergies-enough dept.

Businesses 200

itwbennett sends word that Carol Bartz is no longer the CEO of Yahoo. Company CFO Tim Morse will take up the job's responsibilities temporarily. In an email to Yahoo staff, Bartz said she had been fired over the phone by the chairman of the board. The AllThingsD blog sums up the situation thus: "[When Bartz replaced Jerry Yang], she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place. Not so, as it has turned out. While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill. The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up."

cancel ×

200 comments

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

Poor Guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322618)

How is he going to feed his children?

Re:Poor Guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322712)

Guy? Carol is a woman's name.

Re:Poor Guy (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322772)

Tell it to Archie Bunker!

But I wonder if this Tim Morse character knows how to use a mop?

Re:Poor Guy (1)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323842)

Tell that to Frylock, Shake and Meatwads neighbor.

Re:Poor Guy (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322804)

The summary uses the pronouns "she" and "her". Perhaps Carol Bartz is a woman?

Re:Poor Guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323000)

Sexist pig!

perhaps it's because their pages suck (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322620)

Whenever I look at a yahoo page, it's invariably full of crap, almost like someone intentionally tried to make it as annoying as they possibly could.

Simple, clean, lightweight, and maybe I'd use it for something. But at the moment, yahoo is completely useless. I'm astonished anyone goes there for any reason any more.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

tmx84 (2349066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322654)

Thats because "yahoo.com" is more then just a search engine. You want clean and simple go to search.yahoo.com

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (3, Insightful)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322686)

If I was looking for content their content layout isn't stellar either. its a mish mosh of colors and horrible design principles.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322724)

Why does search.yahoo.com look suspiciously like google.com?

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323868)

Because it's just forwarding to bing.com while keeping the yahoo.com url...

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322744)

"Thats because "yahoo.com" is more then just a search engine."

When it's that bloated, slow, and full of crap, it doesn't matter WHAT it's for. It sucks waaaay more than a page should suck for the purpose it's trying to serve.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (4, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322708)

I don't know...I have been using it as my home page for longer than I can remember. Sign in to my.yahoo.com and set it up the way I like it, done. Clean and simple.

Yahoo also has my oldest mail account, at something like 14 years. That account is all over the web and if I get one spam e-mail in six months that doesn't get caught it's something I notice because it's so unusual.

Oh yes, and Maps. Google Maps? Forget it, they still don't know my street exists and it's been here for five years. I like MapQuest, but sometimes it just flakes out and won't give me directions. Yahoo Maps is the most consistently reliable for me.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (4, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322808)

I'm the exact opposite. Profile: 28, male, married, very tech literate (own a hosting/tech consultancy firm). Gmail account for everything (personal, business, local community college account even for the fine welding/fabrication classes they offer that I take), Calendar as well for personal and business, Finance for my portfolio. Hell, as I type this, I'm in Google Chrome, which syncs all my bookmarks across my Windows and Mac machines, as well as my Nexus One and my Xoom tablet. File storage? Google Docs. Contacts? Google Contacts, also synced across everything. Google Maps and Navigation for more uses than I care to type out at the moment. I emailed someone at Google my new subdivision street (with supporting info), and the data was corrected in under a month.

My point? Yahoo was your thing, Google is mine. Yahoo may have had the lead, but they gave it up (for various reasons, mostly business/management related).
Its all about momentum, and I think Yahoo doesn't have enough vision, management competency, nor technical talent to compete against the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple anymore.

Sorry to be the Messenger (or Google Talk, if you prefer).

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322904)

Yep. Like my thing is pussy. Vag. Tasty trim. Hairless honeypot. Most of slashdot prefers another man's asshole (or mouth).

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323056)

You are adorable, Mr. Welder/Hoster/ex-Fermilab/28 year-old person. Please expound on how Yahoo services and Google services are the tools of people who are "exact opposite[s]".

"Yahoo was your thing, Google is mine." Was? Did he die? Did Yahoo?

Your shtick is priceless, old man.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323576)

Adorable? Thats interesting. Not sure what your whole comment is about (yes, I can weld, I learned how to and was certified at my local community college, which I'm sure you'd find is close to my old employer, Fermilab, where I stayed for only a year due to the incompetence and bureaucracy of their Computing Division. Yes, I own a hosting company, its not huge but big enough for me to live a comfortable, fulfilling life, allowing me time to pickup skills like welding, scuba certification, a CFI pilots license, etc. And yes, I'm 28, turn 29 this year, and have been doing IT since 18 with no college degree and a GED).

Yahoo tried to be the big data conglomerate, but lost out search to Google, social to Facebook, mobile to Google and Apple, etc. I doubt they'll be around in 3-5 years (or will be just an empty shell of their former self). Tech evolves quickly. My whole response was to say: This is me as a person, my needs, and what I use. Original poster highlighted features he thought we important for Yahoo's personalized homepage, Webmail, and Maps. I simply posted out my opinion regarding the subject, and my thoughts that Google provided superior products.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323186)

funny that the only replies you got were from AC's.

They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.

Good on you :-)

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323644)

Yeah, if they have usernames, their argument is meaningful, otherwise, it's meaningless. You're proof that having one doesn't stop you from being a giant dumb ass.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323970)

And you're proud of this? You aren't a real fanboy unless you have Google tattooed over your ass.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

xaoslaad (590527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322958)

You should consider letting google know your street is missing. It took them a bit to take action on my report written by a street in the first person begging to be found, but they did wnd my street now appears in google maps....

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323190)

I agree, I still use Yahoo and it's great. One of the best finance sections, good news parsing, the front page has interesting stuff. I don't mind ads too much because I enjoy learning about new products. And Yahoo usually has entertaining ads on the home page, not 6 words. Plus they have a lot of pretty cool API stuff like YQL [yahoo.com] , which is the coolest thing I think I have have seen in a while. Google, sure. They have a lead in search. But I always get the feeling I'm not a person when I'm there. I'm just another data point to Google. Whereas at Yahoo they appeal to all my senses, and they have a big staff of Human Editors. Google would strive as hard as possible to remove those humans. Great, if you're a nerd, but I have emotions and other needs and I like having an expert person do little sifting no matter how perfect the algorithym was that returned the results.

Yahoo is not just going away. They have a pretty good looking balance sheet and they make money. Not hand over fist but they do make money. And they own a lot of other sites besides just Yahoo.com. And, finally, they own Associated Content which is like the AP of web content feeds. I think with something like YQL, they can really start doing this next generation of "Web 3.0" (or is it Web 4.0?) stuff where you have data and presentation separate and then some type of Human Edited aggregation service that can make up new content by summing or multiplying other sources, and then link out to the sources. If you haven't messed with YQL, check it out. No stupid SOAP or other junk required, it has a javascript console. And you can do searches with SQL type joins and stuff on almost all yahoo owned content.

Plus the world needs diversity. I can use Google and Yahoo. Nothing makes me more irritated/sad for the future than one of these Google snobs who say things like "I use only Google stuff and there's no reason to every use anything else so there. I do this nerdy thing and this nerdy thing and don't you wish you were me." Like stop sucking Google's dick, you are their product! Now granted, we are also Yahoo's product, but it seems so less cold and calculated. I don't like the coldness of Google.

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (1)

MichaelKristopeit351 (1968158) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322924)

yahoo is the worst

Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323984)

Yeah, it's just like Google.

I mostly use ixquick [ixquick.de] now for web search, on account of their robust privacy stance (not that I can verify they do what they say, but being HQed in another country at least reduces their pressure to secretly cooperate with US agencies), but their metasearch doesn't get as good of results as Google used to. It's better than Google now, though, since Google's aggressive "helpfulness" now makes me click the "yes, I really meant what I typed, not something else" link once every 5 or 10 searches.

Still haven't found a decent news portal -- Google News now sucks epic balls.

I miss what used to be Google. Afraid I'm becoming a bitter old man now.

typical... (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322644)

Maybe they should be concerned less about hiring "managers" and more with hiring people with actual ideas.

Re:typical... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322722)

What brilliant insight there, genius. With such original thinking, maybe you should send your resume over to yahoo for consideration as their next CEO.

How many businesses have you run? Yeah I thought so.

Re:typical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322738)

And how many have you run? What makes you the expert?

Re:typical... (1)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322764)

Carol Bartz is that you?

Re:typical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323062)

No I am not Carol. I only wish I could be as good as her at what she does. This whole situation is crap.

Re:typical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323160)

So you're a Carol fanboi. Great, just when Steve Jobs finally exits stage right, now we'll get to hear all new gushing drivel about some other former CEO.

Re:typical... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322778)

Yahoo! has plenty of ideas. It has a problem with execution -- particularly timely execution, which is very important in a market that changes as rapidly as the one they're in.

Re:typical... (1)

statsone (1981504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323060)

took long enough. Closed and sold off parts and is now finally gone. Should see a takeover soon.

Re:typical... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322850)

Lots of people have ideas. It's the manager's job to figure out which ones are good ideas.

Re:typical... (4, Funny)

md65536 (670240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322922)

Most of the managers I know tend to think that all the good ideas come from managers.

Fired over the phone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322652)

Oh poor you. I'm sure your "severance package" will more than make up for the injustice you suffered today.

the reason she failed is that . . (4, Insightful)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322662)

She ran the company just to manage the day to day business than to provide thought leadership and future vision.

What kind of "future vision" do you want? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322682)

What the fuck kind of "future vision" do you want? Are you talking about changing how the game is played? Are you talking about turning the industry upside-down? Are you talking about taking the rain out of the cloud, and the social out of the Web 2.0? What about the dilemma of the purveyor of fine information technologies? What about the standardization of search and the commoditization of advertising? Are you taking this all into account with your demand for "thought leadership" and "future vision"? Don't forget about the serialization of socialized media. Flickr, anyone? Twitter? YouTube?

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (5, Interesting)

rekoil (168689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322714)

More to the point, it seemed that the biggest initiatives within Yahoo while I was there (from 2009 until early this year) were *all* centered around profit, not users - mainly, cost-cutting and ad tech. As if the goal wasn't to grow users, just grow revenue and profit per existing user. What opened my eyes was when the cost-cutting initiatives that made sense - primarily the data center consolidations, which definitely needed to get done ASAFP - started getting pushed back due to the need for quarter-to-quarter profit management. Bartz should have grown a pair, pushed forward the consolidation even if it meant missing the street for the quarter, allowing Yahoo to reap the rewards much sooner.

I'll also never forget the quarterly all-hands meeting where the major product announcement for the quarter was...*full-page ads on the login page*.

Sorry I didn't stick around to see Bartz go, but I couldn't risk her *not* going.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322898)

Out of curiosity, my pet theory was that Bartz was installed by Microsoft after the 2008 buyout failed, under the premise that Yahoo would invest heavily in Microsoft's ad network and bing search engine back end. Is there any truth in this? Or did she simply take the path of least resistance and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?
 
Particularly after the backdoor buyout of Nokia and installing a Microsoft executive as CEO there, Bartz at the time sure looked like a backdoor buyout of Yahoo.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323442)

The recent yahoo mail upgrade has major problems with firefox. I was wondering how they messed this up so badly, but having a Microsoft plant as CEO (~if~ this was the case) would explain this.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323914)

> and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?

LIE down. This is not difficult. LIE.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (1)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322992)

That sounds about right. Under Carol's reign they got rid of Delicious, made some awful UI tweaks to Flickr, ran some obnoxious ad campaigns. As a user, I didn't see any improvements. Quite frankly I'm at a loss to come up with anything positive Carol did... and that's just from a user's point of view.

Of course, the board got what the board wanted: someone who wasn't as stubborn as Yang. It's kinda like HP. They've found a string of incompetent CEOs to focus on dismantling the company. But Yahoo! was Yang's baby and he didn't want to see its portfolio handed over to Microsoft for slaughter. It's a shame, really, as the whole MSFT buyout would have been good only in terms of short-term stock value.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (2)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323332)

Yahoo has the Stocks button on the home page of every iPhone. Have they taken advantage of this prime location? I don't use it because news items are typically months old. Apple should auction this spot off to a start-up that will do something innovative with it.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323666)

There is an accounting difference between revenue and profits.

Yahoo di dnot make revenue. Only profits. Revenue = profits - costs. So basically, she did the usual cost accounting tricks that Wall Street loves in order to boast its ratio totally forgetting that a suckier portal means less revenue to generate profits from. Duh.

I would assume she would be the Wall Street darling for increasing profits, but maybe shareholders are developing brains these days and looking at sales and revenue generation rather than productivity gains from firing people.

Re:the reason she failed is that . . (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323224)

Um, yahoo search is Bong now... After Yahoo taking M$ that's EXACTLY what she was supposed to do... Tend the shop until it sinks. Nearly every interesting project Yahoo! had steps on Microsoft's toes in some way.. Her "job" is to integrate with Microsoft's plans or can the projects... Oh, and to bring Yahoo! Stock to double it was when she started.

Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322688)

Surprisingly enough you need to be more than an HTML based Gopher, with a 2nd rate search engine.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322736)

I actually like their my yahoo stuff and their financial pages. For free its not bad...

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322752)

Maybe that's part of the problem. Trying to make money off stuff that's only good enough if it were gratis isn't going to get them anywhere as a money making business.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322754)

I love their fantasy football....
But yes, other than that I avoid yahoo...
I haven't even checked my yahoo mail in years...
Probably have won many european lotteries by now...

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322768)

Oddly enough, yahoo mail is now probably their single decently designed property. A lot better than gmail anyway.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322832)

Surely your joking? Yahoo operates my ATT email and it takes me several clicks to get to my messages, past ads and garbage. Yet, I am stuck with Yahoo. How much of their business is of this kind? Good riddance when the day comes.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322856)

You Sir, are an idiot.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

r3x_mundi (1356467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323858)

I actually agree. I wasnt impressed when my local ISP outsourced their email to them. However, their recent mail upgrade is pretty awesome. It has nice web UI, and works well with desktop mail clients too e.g. archives everything you sent through SMTP.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322906)

Their fantasy football is great.

Their fantasy football app is horrible. Absolutely horrible. Honestly, upon first loading it downloads and caches a huge video. On my Android phone, it routinely is taking up 50+MB of space to *JUST SHOW TEXT*, and has limited options for how to browse and do things. This causes all types of problems particularly since I am running low on internal memory and I move iot to the SD card, and it takes no kidding 30 seconds to launch because it has to pull all that data across from the SD card, cache, load, then hit the internet, look for a new video to download, etc. But man, do it ever eat up the bandwidth downloading new videos all the time!

They. Just. Do. Not. Get. Mobile.

They bought out the group that does Sportstacular, which is one of the nicer sports apps out there, and I've just been waiting for that to go to shit also along with all their other mobile properties.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323156)

I love Mobile Smartphones, they are starting to bring back sanity in websites. Why can't all websites function like the good ones do on my Droid? Clean, unbloated, fast loading ...

It is sad when I hit a website on my gig Inet connection (at work) and .... buffering buffering ....

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322780)

Hopefully a new CEO will be enough to take them in a more innovative direction. ...Nah, who am I kidding?

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322940)

The primary skill for a CEO of a company like Yahoo is the ability to create an environment where skilled and creative developers want to come and work.

You need to create an environment where someone with a good idea can work on it and turn it into a success (or at least try). Where you can work on interesting things, instead of spending all day every day figuring out how to advertise to people. Instead of focusing on cutting costs, focus on creating good products, and making them a success. Good developers like to work on things that are interesting and successful.

All the new CEO has to do is attract good talent and get out of their way. Remove their barriers that are distracting them from day to day.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323558)

Lancing leaches is another skill that is very important, that and telling workers from leaches.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (2)

schnell (163007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323590)

You need to create an environment where someone with a good idea can work on it and turn it into a success (or at least try). Where you can work on interesting things, instead of spending all day every day figuring out how to advertise to people. ... All the new CEO has to do is attract good talent and get out of their way. Remove their barriers that are distracting them from day to day.

No offense, but Google is just now belatedly realizing that this is not what you should do. They are shutting down "products" left and right because for years they have greenlit seemingly every neat idea that an engineer had, and basically none of them except AdWords and Android have positively impacted the bottom line. We would all like to work at companies like you describe, but it turns out that creating that type of environment doesn't help unless you do have managers who are exactly "barriers" to the bad ideas and letting the good ones through. And those are very hard to find...

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323672)

The problem Yahoo is facing right now is that a lot of its good engineers have left, primarily because it's become a miserable place to work. Do you have a better idea for attracting good talent to your company? I'd love to hear it.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (2)

r3x_mundi (1356467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323912)

There is a bit in truth in both of those statements. Google may be shutting down a lot of its "experiments", but they had all served their purpose and their benefits have been incorporated into existing products. Innovation doesn't mean green lighting every "neat idea"...they should all serve a purpose, but if you don't allow your employees to spend some time to innovate and try new things, your never going to improve your products. Some of the worst places ive worked at is where they punished you for thinking outside the box or doing something different, even if they had real potential to provide a lot of benefits.

Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322842)

Yahoo! search was pretty irrelevant technically. That's why it's was outsourced to Microsoft. It still makes a lot of money. (2.5 - 3 cents per search according to Wikipedia)

Not sure what you mean by "HTML based Gopher". The entire WWW is HTML based Gopher. Do you mean the directory? That's irrelevant too.

Yahoo! is a media business funded by advertising. Their competitors are big content sites like MSN, AOL and it's acquisitions (e.g. HuffPo), Gawker Media, and big traditional-media players like ESPN and the various newspapers. In that space they are far from irrelevant, commanding significant market share, large audience, and massive ad revenue.

Yahoo Mail (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322710)

Mildly on topic:

Thanks for making it so every time I load Yahoo Mail my browser locks up for 5 seconds! I really appreciate that.

I know! (3, Funny)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322818)

Maybe they can hire Steve Jobs. I hear he was the CEO of a pretty large company who left recently.

Oh damnit now I can't remember the name of that company! If only they were in the news more I'd remember them.

Re:I know! (1)

md65536 (670240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322926)

Maybe they can hire Steve Jobs. I hear he was the CEO of a pretty large company who left recently.

Oh damnit now I can't remember the name of that company! If only they were in the news more I'd remember them.

Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple. He left for health reasons, so I don't think they have a good chance of hiring him.

Re:I know! (1)

ani23 (899493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322956)

I believe he was joking.

Re:I know! (1)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322990)

WHOOOSH!!

Re:I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37322968)

Maybe they can hire Steve Jobs. I hear he was the CEO of a pretty large company who left recently.

Oh damnit now I can't remember the name of that company! If only they were in the news more I'd remember them.

Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple. He left for health reasons, so I don't think they have a good chance of hiring him.

*whoosh*

Re:I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323124)

Really?

Seriously, really?

The woosh was so loud people complained to the air force about the sonic boom.

Re:I know! (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323656)

It was my understanding he left because the devil came to claim the soul he was promised to help Apple excel? So sorry Yahoo but that soul is already spent

Re:I know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323662)

Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple. He left for health reasons, so I don't think they have a good chance of hiring him.

Come on, Steve, it's okay to let go...

Women CEOs = Failure (-1, Troll)

bedouin (248624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322962)

There's a reason only about a dozen Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs, and almost none of them are in tech.

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (0)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323010)

There's a reason only about a dozen Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs, and almost none of them are in tech.

One hour and 15 minutes to get to the truth.

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (2)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323034)

Ooh! Ooh! Women tend not to be sociopaths, they are just insane in other ways. That must be what you mean. Or it could be that it takes more than a few generations of techincal equality to achieve actual equality.

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (2)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323044)

Point of Clarification: Ms. Bartz did not seem like the right person to fix an entity as fundamentally broken as Yahoo!

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323080)

Ooh! Ooh! Women tend not to be sociopaths, they are just insane in other ways.

A 'take no prisoners' woman is just a fake sociopath, so she probably has all the bad traits without the ability.

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323086)

Misogyny? Old school sexism? Ongoing, entrenched cultural values that discourage females from even considering certain roles, let alone creating an environment that might foster or cultivate them in such pursuits?

Could it be that the criteria for choosing CEOs that selects for individuals that are indistinguishable from sociopaths have inherent biases? Which is working out _so_ well, by the way. Why, just look at the economy.

Hush now, little troll. Grown-ups are talking.

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323114)

Misogyny? Old school sexism? Ongoing, entrenched cultural values that discourage females from even considering certain roles, let alone creating an environment that might foster or cultivate them in such pursuits?

No, women generally just suck as tech CEOs. They seem to do OK in fields where they're primarily selling to women, but hiring a female CEO seems to be one of the fastest ways to trash the profitability of a tech company.

(Either that or tech companies hire female CEOs when they're already melting down because no-one else wants to be blamed for the upcoming disaster)

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (-1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37324012)

I like when people pretend there's no difference between men and women, but when a woman tries to enter a male dominated field she merely takes on typical male mannerisms.

Women rarey are the type to sit in front of their computers for 10 years straight during adolescence; very few will EVER enter tech because it is a geek discipline that requires a great deal of isolation. Everyone likes to jump on the evolutionary bandwagon here, but then negate that women have inherited certain traits that make them suitable for wifehood, not lumber jacking. They prioritize socialization over technical merit, because evolution has bound them to spending their formative years making themselves pretty to attract a wealthy man who will impregnate them, not code.

And males have evolved to focus on a trade, master it, and then impregnate/screw as many women as he can afford.
   

Re:Women CEOs = Failure (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323208)

Because tech guys equate female leadership with their mom yelling down the cellar stairs at them. And they resent it.

Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (4, Interesting)

drgroove (631550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322982)

Yahoo still doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?

Yahoo reminds me of that old SNL skit - it's a floor wax, and a desert topping. Only Microsoft comes to mind as a parallel when reviewing the absolute scattershot approach to online monetization that Yahoo has taken, but M$ has a host of other products / services (ok, just Office & Windows) that keep it's bottom line solid, allowing it to experiment w/ various approaches online until it finds a "hit". Yahoo doesn't have the luxury of online experimentation that M$ does; it needs to find a magic formula and stick with it, which it seemingly refuses to do.

BTW, I bet dollars to donuts that in ~5 years, Yahoo, AOL, and IAC (Ask.com) merge. They could call themselves "That 90's Web Company". LOL

Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323088)

BTW, I bet dollars to donuts that in ~5 years, Yahoo, AOL, and IAC (Ask.com) merge. They could call themselves "That 90's Web Company". LOL

Sorry, LOL.com already appears to be taken.

Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323246)

Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?

Sorry, are we talking about Google or Yahoo?

And, to be clear, everything you just pointed out as a negative about Yahoo is a positive for Google. Yahoo's just trying to find the same formula for success that Google did. Failing, but that's what they're trying to do.

Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323468)

On the contrary, Google is focused around a symbiotic pair of products. They have what is by far the most popular search engine and they have one of, if not the, most popular advertising network on the internet. Everything else is an offshoot of those two businesses. Even things like Android, which at first blush may not seem like it's related to their advertising efforts, was created because they could see what would happen if the iPhone OS (later iOS) became the dominant mobile platform...developers would be forced to use iAds and Google would get shut out.

Really, almost everything that Google has created has been geared towards their advertising business or has been a natural offshoot of something they've become good at while pursuing advertising.

Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323564)

The difference is, for the most part yahoo doesn't do anything well; certainly not well enough to get users to switch from existing services. The internet isn't the frontier it was through the 90s; everyone has a computer and habits (some don't, but they don't want a computer). Why should I switch from gmail to yahoo mail? So I can pay extra for pop3/imap?

Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up (5, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323728)

Here is a secret taught in most business schools.

Most great companies know who they are and do not void in other areas. What is Yahoo? Yahoo was Yang's cool internet links.

10 years ago they were the internet yellowpages with awesome links to cool sites and a huge resource for information. Back then before slashdot I used Yahoo for tech news and reading and discovering computer related things. They had stuff for auto enthusiasts and for many different subjects. You didn't need to search unless it was something very specific. It was a great resource for the undeveloped internet to get around in. A cooler version of AOL for tech grownups. Yahoo search was not too bad either if you needed to find other things. They were THEE portal.

Today the portal SUCKS. It was crippled around 2003/2004 ish. They tried to imitate Google first with focusing users on the search page instead of the portal links and communities. Then No NO we are advertisers put HUGE AD on page. Make Yahoo default homepage!! etc

Yahoo also had a great IM program (back then) and chat rooms and forums before porn spammers bugged you every 3 minutes with private messages and before spyware/malware was installed in the bloated Yahoo IMs of today.

To this day they could make a comeback as no one has replaced them yet as a cool portal for communities, groups, and cool links. Google is mostly minimalistic to find something new and that is it. But like HP and and a skeleton of companies that died before them they tried to focus on the dollars and change who they are until they are a no one. Yahoo could have turned into the facebook with Yahoo 360 and into something that still is a void in the market. Mainly a cool portal for everything you need or want that is managed.

But that is going to be very hard. Ask.com is still around believe it or not but the term Yahoo might as well mean MSN or RealPlayer. They left their roots and focused on cost accounting. They could have bought out Google if they were smart back in 2005 before the IPO. That would have saved them but still. Bad UI designers and wrong focus on ads crippling the portal was their mistake .... and a bad search engine too

You know... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323006)

I bet that $44.6 billion dollars Microsoft wanted to give them is looking pretty good in retrospect...

yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323008)

anyone remember back in the day? when this new mosaic thing was the hot product ? and some thing called 'netscape' your buddy down the hall had on his weirdo 'linux box'?

did anyone think back then, that we would have to listen to this corporate bullshit? stock price and quarterly earnings? this is what we built the internet for? so we could listen to investment bankers yell at people about ad revenue?

Re:yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? (2)

SigmoidCurve (188795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323222)

Well said. I look around at the endless swamp of copycat startups and wonder why I am in this ridiculous industry. At one point I thought the world was changing, instead of the same tired advertising cliches wrapped up in shiny social apps and glittering cloud storage. The fact that a stagnant stock price is used as evidence of Bartz' failure is itself part of the problem. Haven't these short term metrics already been thoroughly discredited? Then why does the financial press keep returning to them?

FTLOG people, please innovate. The internet right now is a thick wasteland of d-baggery without a soul. Every other site serves stealth cookies and multiple MBs of javascript code all trying to figure out more ingenious ways to take your money. I miss 1995, I'd give anything to complain about someone's use of the blink tag or tables used for layout.

Re:yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323228)

I was that guy down the hall

Re:yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? (2)

snookums (48954) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323320)

The Internet used to be pirate radio, a speakeasy, and the underground press rolled together.

Now it's television.

UH OH (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323016)

Old Boy Network: 1

Bartz Gals: 0.

No chance for rematch under Yahooligans rules.

Ergo, Old Boy Network wins.

Tough Tittie.

--//00

Re:UH OH (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323310)

Nope. Bartz Gals == Old Boy Network.

Women don't bring anything new to upper management. They act just like men. Kind of like the ending in "Animal Farm."

I liked Geocities, and 9.99 webhosting (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323136)

I still gotta migrate my 40$/yr web hosting back to something that charges $9.99. I think it is very weak for a company to go,"Yo, we're gonna charge 4x what everyone else is charging all of a sudden." It is just a hassle to change webhosting.

Here is another question: Is there an online advertiser that does stuff like Google Ads, but instead, lets you white list the ads before they come on your site? I don't like a lot of scammer sites, and I don't want my readers stumbling into them.

Firing by phone isn't illegal... (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323158)

... but it's in very poor taste, and heinously unprofessional. Even worse, the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person can make it look like they were trying to hide something, and may even provide sufficient basis to warrant an investigation. They may not have done anything wrong, in which case it will blow over, of course, but it'll still be a bit of a pain in the rear for them for the time being if an investigation does end up happening

Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323254)

It's also not the height of professionalism to e-mail the entire company to tell them you just got fired. In fact, "fired" isn't really a word associated with CEOs; they "resign" or "leave for personal reasons" with a hefty severance package.
In fact, in Yahoo's press release they say Bartz was "removed by the Board from her role as Chief Executive Officer," which implies to me that she has a new position twiddling her thumbs, probably at her old salary.
You have to do something pretty blatant to actually be fired (i.e. for cause), but maybe e-mailing the entire company to tell them that you were fired comes close.

Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... (2)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323392)

... e-mailing the entire company to tell them that you were fired ...

This is why you fire people in person. While they are in your office you have IT cancel all their accounts and log them out of everything so they can not access the corporate network or email when they leave your office.

Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37323328)

Save your sympathy until we see what her severance package is.

I'm betting multiple 10s of millions.

Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323758)

"... but it's in very poor taste, and heinously unprofessional. Even worse, the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person can make it look like they were trying to hide something,"

Yep

I am sure a employment lawyer would be drooling over this. I do not know how CEOs are treated compared to us, but my guess is you still need to prove why they were fired. Maybe the severance package is a way to shut them up so they wont sue etc. She might get a really big one because of the way she was terminated. The fact that she is a woman could be a case if they can find a single instance of sexual harrasement or porn on someone's computer. Sleazy yes but lawyers getting paid big bucks will find anything.

Maybe it was a bad phone argument in a heated discussion?

I wish you nor I could get something like that other than GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE or please leave immediately.

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>