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!

Microsoft Just Can't Quit Yahoo

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the oil-and-water dept.

Microsoft 124

itwbennett writes "Back in October, rumors surfaced (and then quickly subsided) that Microsoft was considering another bid to purchase Yahoo. Now the rumors are back, and this time Microsoft is said to be in talks with other prospective buyers about some kind of partnership to acquire the troubled Internet company."

cancel ×

124 comments

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

I have $5 (3, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163342)

Perhaps I can buy Yahoo. On second thought, that's probably too steep.

Re:I have $5 (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164574)

Everyone makes jokes but they seem to miss the big picture. I can tell you from my position running my little shop that the VAST majority of the common folk that walk through my door have Yahoo.com set as their home page. Sure we geeks think its a cluttered mess, but they love it. Also Yahoo Mail last I checked had the highest numbers of in use accounts of ANY other Webmail including Gmail.

That is a HELL of a lot of eyeballs one can ads for and advertise your other products to. If the sweaty monkey can get it at a decent price instead of the scary billions he originally offered that Yang was frankly insane not to take? Well then it might actually be a win for the monkey.

Of course if it is like everything else that dumbass touches he will completely cock the whole thing up, either ruin it with some horrible "Windows Live 2.0 Web Cloud Powered By Bing" kinda bullshit, or he'll let his Apple fetish go nuts and it'll be some bad iTunes style skinning. Ballmer seems bound and determined to fuck the company right into the ground and I'm sure he'll figure out a way to bone this. if I didn't know better I'd think Google had sent him as a mole to destroy the company, but sadly he is just "Apple Pepsi CEO" levels of stupid. See his desperate trying to push a cell phone GUI onto Windows in the vain hope he can get developers to make apps for a Windows tablet nobody actually wants for an example.

BTW if anybody hasn't tried the Win 8 developer preview its out now for free and you really should give it a go. its got epic fail written on it so deep you're amazed it doesn't make your PC release a rancid shit smell when you run it.

Re:I have $5 (2)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164692)

BTW if anybody hasn't tried the Win 8 developer preview its out now for free and you really should give it a go. its got epic fail written on it so deep you're amazed it doesn't make your PC release a rancid shit smell when you run it.

Mod parent informative! And pray for all the poor bastards doomed to run Win8. On the one hand, I think they should release it as-is, and thus spur mac and linux adoption. On the other hand, I worry that it will open a portal to R'lyeh. Either way, leave it to Microsoft to design the only interface that could make Unity look good. For certain values of 'good'.

Re:I have $5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164962)

BTW if anybody hasn't tried the Win 8 developer preview its out now for free and you really should give it a go. its got epic fail written on it so deep you're amazed it doesn't make your PC release a rancid shit smell when you run it.

Mod parent informative! And pray for all the poor bastards doomed to run Win8. On the one hand, I think they should release it as-is, and thus spur mac and linux adoption. On the other hand, I worry that it will open a portal to R'lyeh. Either way, leave it to Microsoft to design the only interface that could make Unity look good. For certain values of 'good'.

So if Apple or a Linux project pre-pre-release code they are working on solely for the purpuse of getting developers started on the API, but all other functionality and UX is work to be done/added later and basics are just thrown in to make it run, you would still make your final conclusion about the final end user version of the next Apple/Linux product based on your user experience with it? Seems the error Microsoft have done is that they are so focused on serving developers, that they didn't think about all the non-developers misunderstanding the purpose and jumping to conclusions.

Re:I have $5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38165208)

Right, because ribbon-izing the file explorer and ditching the desktop/start menu don't represent fundamental design decisions and will never make the final release. I'll have a hit of that if you don't mind...I love the smell of shilling in the morning.

Re:I have $5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164916)

Everyone makes jokes but they seem to miss the big picture. I can tell you from my position running my little shop that the VAST majority of the common folk that walk through my door have Yahoo.com set as their home page. Sure we geeks think its a cluttered mess, but they love it. Also Yahoo Mail last I checked had the highest numbers of in use accounts of ANY other Webmail including Gmail.

That is a HELL of a lot of eyeballs one can ads for and advertise your other products to. If the sweaty monkey can get it at a decent price instead of the scary billions he originally offered that Yang was frankly insane not to take? Well then it might actually be a win for the monkey.

Of course if it is like everything else that dumbass touches he will completely cock the whole thing up, either ruin it with some horrible "Windows Live 2.0 Web Cloud Powered By Bing" kinda bullshit, or he'll let his Apple fetish go nuts and it'll be some bad iTunes style skinning. Ballmer seems bound and determined to fuck the company right into the ground and I'm sure he'll figure out a way to bone this. if I didn't know better I'd think Google had sent him as a mole to destroy the company, but sadly he is just "Apple Pepsi CEO" levels of stupid. See his desperate trying to push a cell phone GUI onto Windows in the vain hope he can get developers to make apps for a Windows tablet nobody actually wants for an example.

BTW if anybody hasn't tried the Win 8 developer preview its out now for free and you really should give it a go. its got epic fail written on it so deep you're amazed it doesn't make your PC release a rancid shit smell when you run it.

Agree on the point that Slashdotters don't seem to get how big Yahoo (and MSN/Hotmail too) are in terms of usage (and that is measured as active usage, not just old non-used multiple throw-away accounts).

But curious about your conclusion on Windows 8. You do know this is a pre-Alpha alpha release just targeted at developers? It is not ment to be used for any other purpose than for developers to start playing with the new APIs using HTML5 and JavaScript - is that what you are doing and don't like?

Re:I have $5 (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164980)

BTW if anybody hasn't tried the Win 8 developer preview its out now for free and you really should give it a go. its got epic fail written on it so deep you're amazed it doesn't make your PC release a rancid shit smell when you run it.

So maybe 2012 will finally be the year of the Linux desktop, the year everyone stops using desktop OSs anyway.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163346)

Post.

Also yahoo isnt that bad of a company. I get the feeling that they think it will add some more "not google" market share.

And thats fine by me.

Re:First (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164378)

Post.

Also yahoo isnt that bad of a company. I get the feeling that they think it will add some more "not google" market share.

And thats fine by me.

I'd prefer it to also be "not Microsoft".

Re:First (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164996)

Post.

Also yahoo isnt that bad of a company. I get the feeling that they think it will add some more "not google" market share.

And thats fine by me.

I'd prefer it to also be "not Microsoft".

At this stage, "not Google" is as important as "not Apple" and rather more important than "not Microsoft".

Microsoft were/are evil (I've lost track) because they had a monopoly, it wasn't the fact that Microsoft were evil and just happened to have a monopoly on desktop OS as well.

Attention Muslims (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163356)

Your religion is a lie. You're all shitballs. Abandon this lie and society will be grateful for it.
 
Fuck Mohammad! Fuck Allah! Fuck Islam!!!!!!!

Re:Attention Muslims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163612)

While it's true that 1) their religion is a lie and 2) they're all shitballs, they would still be shitballs without their religion.

Re:Attention Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163638)

Do you know that Arabic speaking Christians refer to "The Father" as Allah?

LK

Re:Attention Muslims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163706)

"The Father" == "God"? Sorry us non-religious don't get all your terminology, or really care that much. (Not the original AC.)

Re:Attention Muslims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163850)

And more interesting is that Islam is the evolution of the two other Abraham religions i.e. Judaism and Christianity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [wikipedia.org] ) . Same unique god, prayers, fasting, against unmarried sex, covering body, 6 days of creation and hundreds of other important similarities.

Re:Attention Muslims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164240)

Sure, and I'm sure Jooooos & Xtians have all the baggage like honor killings, FGMs, jihad violence against infidels, beheadings, conviction of raped women on adultery charges, and a whole lot more! One more of the 'there are no differences' bullshi'ite!

Re:Attention Muslims (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164356)

Please refer to the Crusades and Inquisition.

Re:Attention Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164390)

Please refer to the Crusades and Inquisition.

I am not sure what you are saying here. That murder and killing is alight because the Crusaders and Inquisition did it in medieval times (so we could start doing it again ourselves), or that everyone should get a turn at being murderous and uncivilised so that we should just let the Muslims get on with it?

Re:Attention Muslims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164424)

How about mass-killings of civilians Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan by Christians? Should we let Christians get on with it?

Re:Attention Muslims (0, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164438)

How about mass-killings of civilians Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan by Christians? Should we let Christians get on with it?

Of course not - but I expect you are talking about fighting Muslim terrorists who started it, which should be allowed.

Re:Attention Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164482)

Who started what? Iraq war was started on the false report of WMDs. And as a result hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have suffered and the whole infrastructure of the Muslim country has been lost.

And by the way let me remind you that Taliban was created by Christian US to stop USSR communism. If you breed snakes, you should not complain when they beat you. Also if you bother bees you will not be safe even inside your run away to your home.

Leave Muslim countries and be safe (if you can ever ignore their oil).

Re:Attention Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164518)

Leave Muslim countries and be safe (if you can ever ignore their oil).

I think you will find that Muslims are killing non-Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and many countries that were not involved in the invasion of Iraq (which was a huge mistake that I opposed at the time). Like we are now finding with the "Arab Spring", but we should have known already from Afghanistan and Iraq it is better for Muslim countries to be controlled by a dictator than by an Islamic theocracy.

Re:Attention Muslims (2)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165048)

it is better for Muslim countries to be controlled by a dictator than by an Islamic theocracy.

Yeah, why should they have their own version of democracy, the fucking foreign bastards?

We know best, and it was rather unsporting of the so-called "democratic protesters" in the Arab Spring to get rid of some good friends of the West.

The next thing you know, Johnny Foreigner will be wanting to control his own country's economic resources!

Re:Attention Muslims (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165032)

I expect you are talking about fighting Muslim terrorists who started it, which should be allowed.

The logical error that Bush and Blair made was to say that because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, therefore all Muslims are terrorists, therefore we are entitled to invade Iraq and Afghanistan because they have Muslim governments we don't like with some sort of tenuous link to Al Qaida.

Re:Attention Muslims (0)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164782)

Are you retarded or just trying to look as if?

The GGP insinuated that the jewish and "christ"ian religions have no violent past. Now, taking into account that "christ"ian atrocities have continued roughly until 600-500 years ago, and islam is roughly 600 years younger than "christ"ianity, give the muslims a few centuries to become civilized, k?

Re:Attention Muslims (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164826)

I am not sure what you are saying here. That murder and killing is alight because the Crusaders and Inquisition did it in medieval times (so we could start doing it again ourselves), or that everyone should get a turn at being murderous and uncivilised so that we should just let the Muslims get on with it?

Are you retarded or just trying to look as if?

The GGP insinuated that the jewish and "christ"ian religions have no violent past. Now, taking into account that "christ"ian atrocities have continued roughly until 600-500 years ago, and islam is roughly 600 years younger than "christ"ianity, give the muslims a few centuries to become civilized, k?

OK so you are going with the second option of saying that the Muslims should have a turn at being murderous uncivilised barbarians. Personally I son't think it retarded to hope that freedom and tolerance should be extended to everyone, but seeing that this is your opinion can I ask how far we should permit this barbarism for the next couple of centuries. Should we just let them kill non Muslims for their belief in Muslim countries? Or should we also allow them to commit honour killings within the Muslim community in the West? Or do you want to go the whole hog in letting them be barbarians and allow them to fly planes into our buildings and set off bombs in our streets and on trains and just say "well its only fair because of the Crusades?"

Re:Attention Muslims (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164998)

OK so you are going with the second option of saying that the Muslims should have a turn at being murderous uncivilised barbarians.

And you've gone with the first option of actually being retarded - christian style.

Nowhere did I say they should be allowed that. I only think christians and jews should stop being so sanctimonious having (not even really completely) just only become "civilised". And stop shoving their way of life down everyone's throats.

Re:Attention Muslims (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165052)

OK so you are going with the second option of saying that the Muslims should have a turn at being murderous uncivilised barbarians.

And you've gone with the first option of actually being retarded - christian style.

I can see that not having an answer you resort to insults. You are wrong on all counts here because I am not a Christian.

Nowhere did I say they should be allowed that. I only think christians and jews should stop being so sanctimonious having (not even really completely) just only become "civilised". And stop shoving their way of life down everyone's throats.

Funny way to tell them not to be sanctimonious (which I agree they often are) - by saying that we should "give the muslims a few centuries to become civilized".

Re:Attention Muslims (2)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165090)

The people who commit "honour killings" do so because of tribal cultural traditions which predate Islam and have survived due to poverty and lack of education. Most Muslims from more advanced/civilized countries would condemn them outright.

Re:Attention Muslims (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165166)

The people who commit "honour killings" do so because of tribal cultural traditions which predate Islam and have survived due to poverty and lack of education. Most Muslims from more advanced/civilized countries would condemn them outright.

Yes that's why there are dozens of honour killings by Muslims in the UK each year" [wikipedia.org] . And before you try the "they're not all Muslim" thing, there have been many dozen Muslim honour killings, one Christian, one Hindu and a few Sikh

Re:Attention Muslims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164628)

Inquisition I agree with you, although it was something the Spaniards did after reconquering their country from the Muslims. But as far as the Crusades go, the reason they started was that Muslims were busy attacking Christian pilgrims to Palestine, and massacreing them - most of them unprovoked. It was only after them that the Christians started their attempts to take back the Holy land, and out of 12 crusades, only about 2 or 3 of them actually came anywhere near Palestine. The second Crusade, for instance, ended up being hijacked into a war against the Byzantines.

The equivalent of the crusades would be if say 'Christian' troops had captured Mecca & Medina, and then made it a policy to massacre Haj pilgrims trying to get there. In such a situation, Muslims would be justified if they were to start wars to take back those 2 cities. That's what the Christians tried to do (unsuccessfully) for Bethlehem & Jerusalem

Re:Attention Muslims (2)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165018)

Sure, and I'm sure Jooooos & Xtians have all the baggage like honor killings, FGMs, jihad violence against infidels, beheadings, conviction of raped women on adultery charges, and a whole lot more! One more of the 'there are no differences' bullshi'ite!

The vast majority of Muslims do not believe in or support those things. It's like saying that all Christians are fundamentalist nutjobs who think the world is 6000 years old and homosexuality is a sin that should be punished by stoning because it says it in the Bible somewhere.

The supernatural elements of Islam are virtually identical with Christianity anyway. Again, it depends how literally you want to take them, but if you believe in a single omnipotent god, whether you call him God or Allah is irrelevant.

Re:Attention Muslims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38165184)

So fucking what? Christians are living a lie and are also shitballs.

Yahoo has value, just not all that much (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163358)

Yahoo does have some value to Microsoft. Its news, weather, and finance services are widely used. Users of those services overlap with Microsoft's customer base, and are good advertising targets for the things Microsoft sells.

Re:Yahoo has value, just not all that much (2)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163392)

Yahoo does have some value to Microsoft. Its news, weather, and finance services are widely used. Users of those services overlap with Microsoft's customer base, and are good advertising targets for the things Microsoft sells.

Unfortunately they (and everyone else) can develop and implement those services themselves at a fraction of the cost of acquiring them from Yahoo.

Re:Yahoo has value, just not all that much (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163410)

The service itself isn't what is valuable. The name and user-base is.

Re:Yahoo has value, just not all that much (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163522)

Well, maybe the user base. Since Yahoo is using Microsoft's search engine technology, all Microsoft would be really doing is buying its indirect customer base.

Re:Yahoo has value, just not all that much (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164878)

Just offer something better*, and you'll see all those users change services, and the name lose all the value it now has. The only service Yahoo offers that users can't change easily is email.

* Better from the point of view of the users, obviously. Of course, I don't know what that means, If I knew, I'd be making it, not posting here.

Re:Yahoo has value, just not all that much (1)

wik33 (2505880) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164560)

And specially for Bing too.

NDA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163362)

This stems from the fact that they signed an NDA with Yahoo?

APPLE should buy them (5, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163372)

Apple is the company that should buy them, and use iOS & Lion to do w/ them what WP7 does w/ Bing and Android does w/ Google. That's the only buyer that makes sense. Otherwise, which Yahoo! services are so valuable to make it worth adding another redundant search engine to the ones they already have? Hotjobs? Yahoo! Groups? Which ones?

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163396)

But who wants to use Yahoo anymore?

Re:APPLE should buy them (3, Interesting)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163990)

Those who make it the 4th high traffic website of the world: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/yahoo.com [alexa.com]

And from the same website, the highest share of traffic comes from:

mail.yahoo.com 46.68%
search.yahoo.com 23.99%
yahoo.com 23.55%
login.yahoo.com 26.03%
news.yahoo.com 14.11%
answers.yahoo.com 14.15%
finance.yahoo.com 6.40%
fantasysports.yahoo.com 1.90%
sports.yahoo.com 5.82%
cn.yahoo.com 1.74%

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164888)

I use, and a lot.

Its email sevice is better than gmail, by the way. It simply works, intead of globering the browser with uneeded javascript and changing every default action of every UI element.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165118)

I use, and a lot.

Its email sevice is better than gmail, by the way. It simply works, intead of globering the browser with uneeded javascript and changing every default action of every UI element.

To be fair, email systems in the 1980s had a better UI than gmail.

But not having ever to worry about exceeding your mailbox limit is what made gmail popular, and you can't argue with a feature like that.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163398)

Apple is the company that should buy them, and use iOS & Lion to do w/ them what WP7 does w/ Bing and Android does w/ Google. That's the only buyer that makes sense. Otherwise, which Yahoo! services are so valuable to make it worth adding another redundant search engine to the ones they already have? Hotjobs? Yahoo! Groups? Which ones?

Why? When they can just lock their user base into an iSearch, iJobs, iGroups? The interface will look even better and the search results will essentially be the same anyway.

Re:APPLE should buy them (2, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163468)

Why? When they can just lock their user base into an iSearch, iJobs, iGroups? The interface will look even better and the search results will essentially be the same anyway.

Okay, I think you're missing the point here. There is no iSearch, iJobs, or iGroups. Apple doesn't have spiders crawling the Net or a big index of results already built up. The grandparent poster is suggesting Apple buy Yahoo and rebrand all their properties as you suggest rather than having to build them from scratch. There's no reason Apple couldn't redo the interfaces and give them hooks into OSX/iOS while keeping the valuable back end.

Re:APPLE should buy them (4, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163586)

I think you are missing the point. The value of someone like Yahoo is not their technology, it is their user base and brand, you can build the tech they have or license it many times cheaper than the cost of buying Yahoo and as apple tightly control their userbase Yahoo becomes a vastly overpriced company for them.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163654)

I keep wondering where this tight control you folks rage about is, and I can't find it. Can you tell me where I should look? I know you wouldn't lie in the service of fanboyism, so I must be locked down... but here I am, doing whatever I want with my computer. What did I miss?

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163976)

What did I miss?

I wish I could tell you. Maybe if you weren't so locked down...

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163924)

Both you and SeaFox are right. This way, Apple would get both - Yahoo!'s user base, and a readymade portfolio that doesn't need to be rebuilt from scratch. Yeah, Apple does have to determine the right price for Yahoo! and not overpay for the stock, but aside from that, this looks like it would be a perfect synergistic arrangement, w/ little redundancy anywhere. Whereas w/ either MS or Google, the only thing that would happen is hijacking Yahoo! users to either Bing or Google, not necessarily guaranteeing satisfied users who will stay w/ the service. Whereas, w/ Apple, no such changes would be needed to Yahoo!, aside from fine-tuning such services for iPhones & iPads.

Another thing such a deal might achieve - resurrect some services like Geocities, which were a pretty good resource!

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164032)

Is there any reason Apple has to choose one brand or the other? They can use the same technology for both and just adapt the user interface to suit the type of user. Apple can keep plugging along with Yahoo's Search and Mail as they've been running the whole time and still do a separate tier of those services for their Macintosh/i-device customer base. Plus, having control of the Yahoo properties gets Apple access to new ways of reaching potential customers (without buying ad space from someone else). Apple has Photostream in their iCloud service, but I think a lot of those iPhone/iPod Touch users also have Flickr accounts [macrumors.com] . Integration of the two would be a great value-adding service for iCloud users.

As an iTools/.Mac/MobileMe user for years I'd love for my email to show a reliability more on par with what I get from my free Yahoo Mail account.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164454)

it definitely isn't the technology, not since they junked most of it and 'partnered with microsoft' to use bing for the searching.

Re:APPLE should buy them (3, Insightful)

twistedemotions (231376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163652)

Apple doesn't have spiders crawling the Net or a big index of results already built up.

As far as know, since the Microsoft/Yahoo search deal, Yahoo doesn't have those things either. Microsoft handles that for them. Yahoo Search is now just a front end for Bing.

I suppose Apple could come up with a similar deal with Microsoft for iSearch. It's Yahoo's variety of other properties and brands that have the value now.

Re:APPLE should buy them (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163630)

That would have made sense the last time we went through this. Now that MS and Yahoo are in bed with each other on the search side of things I don't think yahoo has enough value for Apple to want to even consider it.

The other thing is that yahoo would seriously hurt the apple brand. Apple is about new, hip, cool, yahoo is this (by today's standards) old internet company that those of us who had geocities e-mail accounts still use as yahoo accounts. No one in the reality distortion bubble of Apple is going to see acquiring yahoo as a step forward. If yahoo were 1/10th the size and made similar products it might make sense, but on a cheap day yahoo is a 15 billion dollar buyout, and is more like a 20-25 billion buyout to get complete ownership, that's a shitload of money for a huge big outfit and culture that wouldn't really fit with Apple.

MS is a whole other ballgame. Merging yahoo and hotmail would give them a huge base to rival google with, and would bring them into a noticeable share of the search market, and give them a full on portal to the web that they've failed at miserably. All of the things wrong with yahoo for apple apply to MS, but MS has fucked up all of those things enough that buying yahoo might actually look like an improvement over whatever they can manage.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163856)

Merging yahoo and hotmail would give them a huge base to rival google

Err, Yahoo/Rocketmail and Hotmail/Live both have more users than Gmail.

Re:APPLE should buy them (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163650)

About a month ago, I stated pretty much this same case to a co-worker when we were idly musing about yahoo's fate. Apple is in the perfect position to do this. In addition to yahoo's user base, they get the services and business model, flawed though it may be, to keep it running. In addition to the yahoo mail,. search and groups, launch iMail, iSearch and iGroups along side them and let yahoo's existing customers and advertisers subsidize it until it's ready to turn a profit.

LK

Re:APPLE should buy them (3, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163670)

There is some logic in what you say. However, if I was on Apple's board, I'd be worried about tying up a ton of management time, energy, and focus. If you buy Yahoo, you buy big headaches - morale, layoffs, merging cultures, skeletons in the closet, hundreds of decisions about what to do with different properties (virtual and physical), many new vendor relationships, new legal relationships/issues, etc.

And it wouldn't be a small purchase - we're still talking billions. Yes, Apple could afford it, but by size I mean king-sized issues. This isn't like buying some small startup with interesting tech where you roll into into yourself and six months later it's no longer part of your day-to-day worry. Buying a company the size of Yahoo will take X% of your management talent for a year or two.

The questions are (a) how big is X, and (b) is what you get for that X% worth the headache and (more importantly) the opportunity cost.

Re:APPLE should buy them (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163710)

All your fancy math aside, I can state simply that Apple would not acquire Yahoo because that would cheapen their brand. The layperson assumes that everything Apple makes is totally proprietary, top-notch, justifying a higher price. Apple's purchase of Yahoo would be a Frankenstein-esque grafting of some ugly diseased limb. People will lose respect for Apple because they will believe that Apple is "going plebian" and becoming uncool.

I am not an Apple fanboy and will use any chance I can to ridicule Apple and its users, but I'm only being straight-up here. I know the feeling personally, because I lost a lot of respect for Java (then still overseen by SUN) when they started shoehorning the Yahoo Toolbar [java.com] in with Java installs. The move was cheap, tacky, and a huge disappointment overall.

Re:APPLE should buy them (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163992)

The toolbar was one of the worst things about Yahoo!, but offering Yahoo! jewels like Finance, Flickr, Groups, Mail wouldn't cheapen Apple, as it would be just one of the peripheral things associated w/ Apple, such as Bonjour. For a merger, Apple could make it a simple merger w/ a stock swap, w/o trying to do expensive things such as merging corporate cultures and other such things. Yahoo! becoming a part of Apple won't change what iDevices look like, nor will it be a brand altering change to Apple.

Essentially, what we are talking about is a few things more than making Yahoo! the default search engine in Safari (assuming it's not going to remain Bing) or getting the Yahoo! services above made available on Apple. Apple can then make all Yahoo! members a part of its own network w/o starting any new services.

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164060)

No way, bro. The genius of Apple's marketing is that everybody who buys an Apple gadget believes they are unique in owning one, despite the fact that everybody else owns an Apple gadget. Most importantly, though, is that Apple can and does give the public the impression that everything they do is top-notch, so they don't do a whole lot of it, even when its been done before.

Contrast that to Microsoft and Google's approach - Both brands are diluted - Microsoft buys up all its second-rate competitors and shills the fuck out of its second-rate competition(Bing and Silverlight are good examples). Google buys and produces good ideas, throws them all at the wall, and hopes that they stick so they either benefit from their competitors' ham-handed ineptitude (Microsofts' acquisition of Hotmail was a smart move until they tried to shoehorn social networking into it, and the bloat prompted their userbase to leave) or the fact that Google's very ad-supported services are free and have the best SPAM filter.

Re:APPLE should buy them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163680)

Microsoft would be bad, Apple infinitely worse.

If Apple took over, the only app to execute would be iLeave

Re:APPLE should buy them (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163748)

Otherwise, which Yahoo! services are so valuable to make it worth adding another redundant search engine to the ones they already have? Hotjobs? Yahoo! Groups? Which ones?

Yahoo! Groups are widely used, as is Yahoo! mail. It's finance pages are widely used as well.
 
But one of the real jewels in their crown, and one most people don't associate with Yahoo - is Flickr. There's a huge community there, and it's not only one of the most powerful and fully featured photosharing sites... There's an extensive community of discussion boards as well. (These are nearly unique among the major photosharing sites AFAIK.)

Re:APPLE should buy them (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164810)

I am pretty sure that Yahoo search uses Bing.

Users (4, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163386)

Microsoft would just be buying Yahoo's users.

Which is a shame, because yahoo voice chat was the best trolling on the internet. There was a bug where, if you got ignored, you could simply leave the room and come back. Those who ignored you couldn't see your posts, but they could hear your audio.

My drunken friends and I spent many a night trolling the Christian chat rooms with pornographic recordings. Here's how we'd do it:

First, every Christian chat room had its own resident loudmouth who would spout bible verses all night without relinquishing the mic. We would get him off by starting a feedback loop, placing our microphone directly in front of our speakers, causing the feedback to be fed through the windbag's speakers into his mic. The feedback would be so horrible that the guy would get off the mic.

Next, with our mic at our speakers, we would play pornographic audio snippets from porn movies. The whole room would be exposed to those awful recordings and stir up into a frenzy of anger and disgust("I have kids in here listening to this with me!") and we would sit back and laugh, porn blaring, as they ignored us one by one. Then, thanks to the aforementioned bug, we'd leave the room and go back in.

The best part was when some asshole tried to grab the mic and wouldn't relinquish it, but he wouldn't turn his speakers down so even if the whole room had ignored us, our porno-audio was still going through his speakers, into his mic, and being fed back into the room. Since he was so desperate to keep control of the mic, he lost either way, and the room was forced to hear pornographic audio.

Finally, they would get smart and turn their speakers off. Then the person on the mic would start singing while the rest of the chat room fumed and ranted around him. It's like when a kid hears something he doesn't want to, cups his hands over his ears, and goes, "la-la-la-la-LAAAAAA."

It was classic.

Re:Users (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163418)

Ok, please go back to 4chan now.

Re:Users (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163568)

You just can't appreciate the value of a good and valuable trolling.
With religious schizos there is no such thing as a "bad trolling". ^^

Re:Users (1)

yourdeadin (944000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163428)

Clearly you have too much time on your hands.

Re:Users (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163626)

Yahoo chatrooms were awesome, back in the day, before spam bots took over. It was a great way to troll people and get laid. Kind of like slashdot, but without the sex. Heterosexual sex, anyway.

hah! Yahoo still exists? crazy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163422)

Cue the fingerpainters coming to pile on the "but it's not Google" bandwagon.

No one cares what brands you like. Facebook may try to teach you otherwise. Doesn't make it true. Same goes for which search engine you use. Nobody cares.

Would Google want them to buy Yahoo!? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163458)

If Microsoft bought Yahoo! would there be a mass exodus of Yahoo! users to Google services? People who just don't want to deal with Microsoft. Plus, hasn't Yahoo! been losing money hand over fist for the last few years. Why spend billions on something which had it's heyday and can't turn a buck?

Re:Would Google want them to buy Yahoo!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163560)

Plus, hasn't Yahoo! been losing money hand over fist for the last few years.

It's the perfect synergy with what is apparently Microsoft's online strategy of seeing how much money one can loose on the internet.

It makes no sense... (1)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163464)

Given Yahoo's foray into the media business, I seriously wonder what the benefit to Microsoft is?

Somehow I don't see Microsoft getting into the media business and while their online services have been hit-and-miss in the past, it isn't like Yahoo is going to bring anything of value to their online platform.

Yahoo is still relevent (5, Informative)

Soupster (1242846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163502)

If you look at their quarterly reports Yahoo is quite profitable actually, and they are still the third most used website on the internet. In terms of user minutes they trail only slightly behind Facebook (#1) and Google (#2).

Additionally, their patents have separate value [forbes.com] that can be quite powerful if used offensively, as all the smartphone manufacturers are doing now.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (2)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163634)

From what I've noticed, though I don't have any data to back this up, Yahoo is significantly more popular in non-english speaking countries than Google is. Most of my Japanese friends, for example, have Yahoo mail accounts, and Yahoo Japan as their home page.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (1)

opposabledumbs (1434215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163798)

Same in Hong Kong, Taiwan and I think in Thailand. Chinese people that I have asked about this say that they prefer the cluttered search page of Yahoo to the clean one of Google.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164054)

It's because when they say it, it rhymes with "booger".

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164532)

This is both surprising and unsurprising to me. On the one hand Chinese web pages tend to be a clusterfuck of colours and words all over the page. But on the other hand Baidu has a very clean search engine google style and is the most popular in China. Not sure about other South East Asian countries.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (3, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163996)

Yahoo Japan is actually a different company. I think they were part of Yahoo originally, but were spun off.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (1)

pandronic (1275276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164018)

Same in Romania ... everybody has a Yahoo Messenger account (which BTW is a horrible application) and all the clueless people (most people) have a Yahoo Mail account as their main account.

Re:Yahoo is still relevent (2)

shione (666388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164506)

Yahoo is super popular in Japan. Even Yahoo auctions which nobody else uses outranks ebay in Japan.

Yahoo! should merge with... (5, Funny)

drgroove (631550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163648)

Yahoo! should merge with Ask, AOL, and Lycos. They could call themselves That 90's Web Company.

Re:Yahoo! should merge with... (1)

miahmiah (1325117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163688)

Needs a better name, but I agree!

Re:Yahoo! should merge with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163788)

OldSkool?

Re:Yahoo! should merge with... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164384)

Microsoft + Yahoo! + AOL in the 1990s was our biggest fear. Now it is a joke. Oddly enough free market does balance itself. While people worry about things that can happen in 10 - 20 years few have the patients to wait it out.
If you are the big guy on the block you will get lasy and a new disruptive technology will come and you find one night that you are a now and old fart of a company. It will happen to Google, it will happen to Apple.

Re:Yahoo! should merge with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164712)

Can it happen to facebook please?

Forget user base, forget technology... (1)

SlovakWakko (1025878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163692)

...it's all about the patents that Yahoo! owns.

Already a done deal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163714)

A co-worker of mine is leaving to join Yahoo on Monday. He was told yesterday that within three months he will be a Microsoft Employee. He is not best pleased as he is an Open Source devotee. He is talking with a lawyer today to see if he can walk out of the contract.

I talked to an Analyst yesterday and he says that MS are getting Yahoo on the cheal. Like $1B cheap. The rest of the money is coming from Microsoft's usual investment partners, Silverlake Capital and a Canadian company(forgot the name at the moment).

I think the model for this is the MS/Nokia deal. From my pals at Nokia, it seems that MS rules in everything but name. Many of the very scandinavian working practices are slated for being consigned to the history books.

Re:Already a done deal (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163926)

Your friend is a douche idiot.

Poison Pill Re:Already a done deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164024)

I feel the same way... and I'm not even looking to work at Yahoo.. I just need to move my mail away. I'm pissed that Microsoft will have access to my archived mail and know more about me than I do.
Doesn't Yahoo delete your mail a few months after you do it?

Re:Already a done deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164100)

A co-worker of mine is leaving to join Yahoo on Monday. He was told yesterday that within three months he will be a Microsoft Employee. He is not best pleased as he is an Open Source devotee. He is talking with a lawyer today to see if he can walk out of the contract.

LO-fucking-L.

Re:Already a done deal (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164928)

It was a done deal the last time too. It ended up not to be that well done.

On the feet of your co-worker, I'd be concerned too. As a user of Yahoo, I'm also concerned, and living before the boat sinks. But as an expectator, I still expect the deal to not go on.

Buy now....lol. (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163754)

Yahoo is interesting because it offers up categories of things, no? I just Google, so I have no clue. Google has more than enough to absorb my time and world.

Watch Google bid it up..lol.

Microsoft is poison (2)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163938)

Partnering with Microsoft is a poisoned chalice. Look what they did to Novell.

Re:Microsoft is poison (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164864)

how could you poison yahoo?
seriously.

the only yahoo service worth shit (for users) is flickr.

and to the ac's.. his friend is an idiot, didn't he check at all where he was going to work(open source devotee, has problems for working for ms but not for yahoo? wtf, I hope he's trolling) and wtf, he could walk out on the contract if he is just starting there. provided he has another job to go to.
"I think the model for this is the MS/Nokia deal. From my pals at Nokia, it seems that MS rules in everything but name. Many of the very scandinavian working practices are slated for being consigned to the history books." isn't as bad as it sounds(it isn't true though). the scandinavian working practices circa '97 to to '10 were just "oh I hope I'll get a good severance out of this" mixed with "oh I hope I can douchebag enough money from here into some contractor so they'll hire me out of here" - every level of management doing that so the end result was a disaster, of course.

Is title a brokeback mountain reference? (2)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164258)

If the reference is that Microsoft wants to sodomize Yahoo ala Jake Gyllenhaal's gay cowboy character then sir I offer you a hearty golf clap indeed.

Is MS threatened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164336)

If a competitor picks up Yahoo, can they hurt MS by killing certain partnerships that MS has built with Yahoo? I see links not only with search, but also with IM clients and services such as Match.com.

Makes sense (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164790)

Every time Microsoft tries to buy Yahoo and then changes it's mind, Yahoo's stock value plunges. Do this enough times and eventually they can pick up Yahoo for pocket change.

Dead horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38165056)

If they want to buy a dead horse so much, I can produce one at a much more reasonable price.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?