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 Buys Yammer For $1.2 Billion

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the pretty-soon-you're-talking-real-money dept.

Microsoft 72

itwbennett writes "Confirming the rumor that emerged earlier this month, Microsoft has bought enterprise social networking software maker Yammer for $1.2 billion. Yammer will become part of Microsoft's Office Division." If you're not familiar with Yammer, it's essentially a messaging system that gives more control to administrators than does using an outside company's service, like AOL's AIM. "Enterprise social networking software," as Wikipedia explains it, means that Yammer "is used for private communication within organizations or between organizational members and pre-designated groups, making it an example of enterprise social software. ... Access to a Yammer network is determined by a user's Internet domain, so only those with appropriate email addresses may join their respective networks."

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

Yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451395)

Another Skype type deal.

Yammer sent this today (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451397)

From: Yammer []
Sent: 26 June 2012 8:41 AM
To: Me
Subject: Yammer Signs Definitive Agreement to be Acquired by Microsoft

Dear Yammer Customer,
I am pleased to announce that Yammer has signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Microsoft. After the close of the deal, Microsoft will continue to invest in Yammer's freemium, stand-alone service, and the team will remain under my direction within the Microsoft Office Division. With the backing of Microsoft, our aim is to massively accelerate our vision to change the way work gets done with software that is built for the enterprise and loved by users.
As a Yammer customer, you will continue to get a secure, private social network—delivered with the same focus on simplicity, innovation, and cross-platform experiences. Over time, you’ll see more and more connections to SharePoint, Office365, Dynamics and Skype. Yammer’s expertise in empowering employees, driving adoption, and delivering rapid innovation in the cloud will not only continue to power our stand-alone service, but also anchor the communication and collaboration experiences in Office 365.
You can find more information in this press release and our blog post.
David Sacks
Yammer CEO and Founder
Don't want to receive product updates? Click here

          25% Time Savings: Download The Total Economic Impact of Yammer (April 2011), a commissioned study by Forrester Consulting on behalf of Yammer.

Re:Yammer sent this today (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451649)


They're using terms like that for a business application?

And Microsoft bought them?

I think I'm gonna short 100 billion shares of Microsoft stock.

Re:Yammer sent this today (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451977)

Didn't you get the memo? Idiotic neologisms like "freemium" are now "totes profesh!"

Re:Yammer sent this today (1, Offtopic)

Quakeulf (2650167) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451759)

"Noreply" in this day and age? Come on...

that's not an accident (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452495)

Yammer knows they have made a killing and absolutely lack the willingness or the balls to take responses to this decision. They know the obvious: they will be hammered for this with questions they don't want to have to answer.
Microsoft knows sharepoint has always been complete garbage aside from certain business functionality (which ties in to what Yammer can do), so this is just an acknowledgement of an easily 10-15 year gap/weakness in their products.

Does this acquisition fix anything? Nope. We're easily looking at 1-2 years to "integrate" Yammer properly in some fashion, let alone dealing with Windows 8 at the same time may prove to create serious issues. Does anyone think Yammer of today is necessarily what people need a minimum of 2 years from now? That's the question which will be proven in time, but you don't need to be a genius to predict an answer of "no".

I hate Microsoft (so my view is not entirely unbiased), but if they're trying to do anything *other* than fail this is not the way to proceed. A solution would be: fixing some of their existing products (focus on quality) instead of taking hardline definitions of what is "in scope" for any particular program/product. Yet they simultaneously say "bolt on more programs if you want more functionality". Fixing things would go a very long way to making their products less shitty. Security is simply not a valid reason by itself for why expansion in scope for any product is refused and simply ignored outright. Then again, that's what you get with a proprietary vendor - it's their choice to disregard *your* feedback as a customer.

Re:that's not an accident (3)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452879)

Hell I like several of MSFT's products and I'll be the first to say that anyone who doesn't think Forbes was right on the money calling Ballmer the worst CEO needs to reread TFA a few times. I mean does anyone seriously believe Yammer is worth 1.2 BILLION dollars?

It is THIS kind of shit, this right here, which is why he deserves worst CEO. Instead of actually hiring good people and more importantly giving them the freedom to innovate Ballmer simply blows through money like Charlie Sheen at a porn convention on a coke binge, which will take years to pay off as you point out but I would point out instead the likelihood it'll never pay off at all, ala Kin. This is the yahoo deal all over again on the WTF scale.

Seriously is there NO hope of getting rid of this clown? Frankly the longer he is CEO the more the pepsi guy at Apple just looks misunderstood. The longer Ballmer is CEO the more MSFT looks like AOL, a once giant company that is so bogged down in PHB bullshit and the desire to tie everything to their core product that they couldn't innovate or have an original thought if their lives depended on it. Gates may have been an evil bastard but at least he was an evil bastard that knew WTF he was doing, Ballmer is just a buffoon.

Re:that's not an accident (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453047)

I don't believe Yammer will be worth 1.2$B after all the customers flee. Maybe they have some patents in a portfolio that MS is really after.

Re:that's not an accident (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#40466897)

Having had to use Yammer at my former job, I don't believe Yammer to currently be worth $1.20, let alone a billion times that!

Re:that's not an accident (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453279)

Ballmer is just trying to show Zuckerberg who's boss after the Instagram acquisition.

Re:that's not an accident (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453433)

"we'll add 20% to what was paid for Instagram, because we're top dog damnit"

Yep, that logic actually sounds right on for MS.

Re:that's not an accident (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455513)

Rumor it is that Sinofsky will replace Ballmer as soon as Win8 is released.

Re:that's not an accident (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40459423)

Oh dead God no! Whereas Ballmer is a buffon old Snickerdouche is just that, an arrogant douchebag. Watch his last talks on Win 8 and see how mant times the man says "touchscreen". i swear he is so damned arrogant he thinks he can get the ENTIRE X86 MARKET to suddenly shell out premium prices for touchscreens, why? because his shit is so damned good, that's why.

if they hand the big chair over to Sinofsky you might as well hang onto every copy you can get of Win 7 and start looking at alternatives because MSFT will be going the way of AOL, Snickerdouche will NEVER admit he is wrong and instead of righting the ship he will keep on plowing it into the iceberg screaming 'touchscreens!" as the whole thing sinks to the bottom. the man is the only person I've seen even more of a PHB and more clueless than the sweaty monkey, talk about a match made in hell.

Re:Yammer sent this today (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473263)

[...]You can find more information in this press release and our blog post.
David Sacked
Yammer Founder and former CEO


The client (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451399)

Somehow, I think the next version of their client will *NOT* run on Adobe AIR.

Re:The client (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451469)

Somehow, I think the next version of their client will *NOT* run on Adobe AIR.

Then we can say that at least something good came of this after all.

Re:The client (0, Flamebait)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451689)

*dons flameproof suit and blast shield*
And what exactly is wrong with AIR?
Here are the answers I expect to get from the /. crowd:
-It's made by Adobe
-It's not C (or a C derivative, offshoot, distant cousin)
-Isn't that kinda like Flash? Flash is bad cause Steve said so!
-It's interpreted code bundled with a runtime and we don't like that kind here
-It's not my preferred language/runtime/environment/etc therefore it must be bad

Re:The client (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451949)

You idiot, you missed the most obvious reasons:
1) it isn't supported on linux anymore.
2) Its not open source.

Re:The client (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452249)

So by "we" in "we can say" you mean the 1% of PC users. Or 0.5% of Adobe AIR users.

From the original announcement about AIR:

Citing ‘flat growth’ and low-uptake of the official Linux Air runtime as contributing factors to the decision, Adobe will instead ‘focus resources’ on mobile clients – such as Android – whose market share is increasing by the day.

“with Desktop Linux, we see a basically flat growth curve hovering around 1%. And since the release of AIR, we’ve seen only a 0.5% download share for desktop Linux.”

But all is not entirely lost; Adobe will be providing a “Linux porting kit” for Air for their Open Screen Project partners who can take it upon themselves create and build their own implementations of Air on Linux.

I don't get your logic, if you have any: "MS might make a crossplatform app not-so-crossplatform *coughmeaningnotcrossplatformatallcough*. This is a good thing, because Adobe doesn't develop AIR for 0.5% of Linux AIR users and loss of a single AIR app will surely bring its demise. Who cares that if MS really did this, Linux won't be getting anything out of it except for loss of Yammer's client, it's still 'something good came out of this'"

IIRC, Adobe opened the specs for quite some time already, so if you really care, go and join whichever of opensource Flash projects is still alive instead of whining here.

Re:The client (1)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456667)

Nobody wants to use some proprietary shit anyway. F/OSS continues to displace Microsoft's shitty, inferior proprietary garbage with every passing day, and that's a trend they won't be stopping anytime soon.

Re:The client (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452145)

Nothing at all - aside from the weekly security holes and poor CPU management and inefficient GC (at least based on the number of AIR desktop apps that balloon over time to 1+GB usage).

In fact, I was just taking a moment to engage in a bit of completely baseless snarkery in hopes of a quick upmod!

Re:The client (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452457)

Who chooses a technology because it doesn't suck? What are the positive qualities of AIR and how do they compare with competing technologies.

Some of the reasons you listed are valid though, especially "made by Adobe" (ie security concerns) and it's "like Flash" (ie not available on important platforms and is inefficient from a power consumption point of view).

I would also rephrase your last complaint to be "it's not a technology that I'm familiar with and I can get the job done on time with something that I already know well".

Re:The client (1)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453443)

they arent my complaints- i develop using AIR on a regular basis. i asked the question "what exactly is wrong with AIR" and those were the stock answers i expected to get from other people here on slashdot. let me address a few points though

just cause something is made by adobe doesnt mean its automatically bad. flash has security holes. that doesnt mean everything else is a terrible product.

saying that AIR isn't available on important platforms is quite incorrect. AIR compiles to Windows, OSX, Linux, IOS, and Android. Currently, it doesn't compile to Blackberry (no big loss) and Windows Phones (i consider that not a big loss). Did i miss anything?

power consumption - yep, it consumes more power than native apps. youre absolutely right. thats the nature of scripted languages with runtime environments. same problem with java, same problem with javascript (and lets not get started on all the different js engines in the browsers), same problem with php, same problem with asp, same problem with....well, every interpreted language- they all consume more resources than native.
however, as long as a developer writes good code, handles memory and event listeners properly, doesn't take shortcuts, etc, the power use difference can be negligible.

as for my last "answer", your rewrite is the correct way of looking at things. however on slashdot, there is a very vocal group that doesn't see it that way. they see only what they know, and insist that if it isn't what they know, it's no good. personally, ive written in C++, C#, Objectionable C, and Java, but I find that i can get most things done considerably quicker in AS3 and AIR. obviously its not always the right tool for the job, and i have no problems jumping to a different language if the project dictates, but when AIR is an option, it's usually the one I go to is this for organizations without Lync? (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451439)

I mean, Lync (with federations and so on) pretty much covers every "locally admistered" instant messaging + file sharing + desktop sharing + voice + video needs you have...and it works across organization boundaries. So what is Yammer for? is this for organizations without Lync (2, Interesting)

DaneM (810927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451457)

So what is Yammer for?

Maybe it's for helping bosses to feel less jealous of your Facebook account, so they don't have to demand its password?
*rimshot* is this for organizations without Lync (1, Interesting)

chrish (4714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451585)

Probably for buying out and shutting down a potential competitor?

Or maybe they've got good Mac integration, since MS's Lync support on Mac is sort of half-there (it's basically just Communicator, there's no group support, etc.). is this for organizations without Lync (2)

Muramas95 (2459776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451935)

Maybe they need them to add a SPELL CHECKER TO THEIR really now. its been fracking 12 years with MSN and still no spell checker support. What confuses me even more is that they already have the spell checker library that exists for word / office and all they will need to do is link it. is this for organizations without Lync (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455725)

Yammer is not a competitor to Lync, though. I don't know what prompted GP to even make such a connection. As TFA says, it really is a "corporate social network", nothing more. is this for organizations without Lync (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456957)

Lync does not offer public offline messages.

a bit high (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451443)

I've never used Yammer but that price seems awfully high considering how simplistic it sounds. I think they could have recoded a similar but more fitting product for their company for a lot less money. It sounds like an IM program with a bit of security restrictions. I think there's a dozen or so of those on sourceforge that were made for significantly less than $1.2bil.

Re:a bit high (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451519)

I think there's a dozen or so of those on sourceforge that were made for significantly less than $1.2bil.

And how many of those have licenses that let you incorporate them into proprietary commercial software without making the code available?

Re:a bit high (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451651)

They are not buying the technology/software, they are buying the customers and market share ("three million users and 80,000 companies worldwide, including 80 percent of the Fortune 500" according to Wikipedia).

Re:a bit high (2)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452477)

Exactly. Microsoft could build something like this easily. The hard part is signing up companies.

I'm shocked that there are 80,000 companies actively using it though. That seems absurdly high to me, especially since I've never talked to anybody who has anything more flattering than "meh" to say about Yammer.

Re:a bit high (2)

flatt (513465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455787)

Meh is right. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. You could say my company uses it. Of the roughly 2200 people that work here, I believe 5 have Yammer accounts.

Re:a bit high (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452821)

Still. Is each of those users worth $4,000?

Re:a bit high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454045)

Still. Is each of those users worth $4,000?

Or 15K per company.

Re:a bit high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454069)

No, but maybe $400

Re:a bit high (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455743)

No, but some of those users - the ones that make purchasing decisions - may well be worth more than that.

Re:a bit high (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40463845)

You're off by a factor of 10, it's $400. Also remember valuation is a price to earnings calculation, so a typical P/E value of 15 means a user should provide revenue of $27 per year. Using the company figure that's $1,000 per year average which is not a ridiculous amount to expect a corporation to pay for this software.

Re:a bit high (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40458787)

they are buying the customers and market share

That is 400 USD per user or 15.000 USD per company. It shows how much I am worth and that is why I do not want to sell my privacy to companies for just free email or some other stuff.

I am not getting stuff for free. I am being robbed and they should at least give me a value of 400USD or my company a value of 15.000 USD.

Re:a bit high (0)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451815)

I'm assuming Microsoft is mostly buying an existing Yammer customer base. I didn't look at their revenue figures, but on the Yammer website they claim four million users at the end of 2011.

At this point, I think Microsoft is fighting a losing battle for users against iOS and Android. I think it will be years, maybe decades, before Microsoft software is not present in any form in most homes and businesses around the country. But it looks like the trend is in that direction. We already use tablets and phones for watching movies, reading news, sending email, posting to social networks, and gaming. How long will it be before our smart phones and tablets operating systems and hardware are so good that we just plug them into docks at the office and at home when we want a traditional desktop computing experience?

I think this is, relatively speaking, a smart move. If you can't figure out how to maintain and expand your user base with products, then use your war chest to buy a bigger user base. They grabbed a piece of Facebook and have an alliance with them, they bought Skype, now they're buying Yammer. Makes sense to me.

Re:a bit high (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451819)

It is more precise to describe Yammer as a service that lets you create private social network for your company. Just like with Facebook IM is just small part of it. Enterprises of course have different needs for their social network than regular Facebook folks. For example Sharepoint integration, SSO solution, etc.

Re:a bit high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452263)

It's more like Facebook than twitter. You work for a company where Yammer creates fear as you put it. That is not the case for all companies. I was skeptical about Yammer at first but then realized it is a great way for people from different departments to interact. You get a good feel for people's personalities that way and it makes for a better team. Who would've thought?

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451453)

As someone forced to use MS products, anything is better than OCS

Yammer Dammer Doooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451501)

Yammer Dammer Doooo!

Dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451625)

I don't use social networks in my personal life; I'm not going to use them in my business. I work for a very large tech company with employees in the 100,000+ range. We have our own internal "twitter" and some sort of "social network" stuff and NOBODY USES THEM. They're dumb. They serve no purpose. You need a phone, email, and IM. That's it. And you don't need "an outside service like AOL Instant Messenger". Fucking setup your own Jabber/XMMP servers. That's what we did many years ago, after we moved off of internal IRC.

1,200 MILLION!? (3, Informative)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451731)

Seriously? What is with the overpayment of these companies.

Is this like sports, and high priced overpaid players. Where stupid GM's pay ridiculous prices because they know other stupid GM's will also pay ridiculous prices?

i.e. we better shell out 1.2 Billion for these guys before Apple, Google, Facebook, etc... do!

Re:1,200 MILLION!? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452497)

It's $30 per user, right? That doesn't seem that crazy to me. How would you evaluate the value of something like Yammer?

Re:1,200 MILLION!? (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453175)

$30/user for what? A few lame tweets (yamms?), real name, work email, work phone number, and a rough org chart?

Yeah, that seems very high to me, especially considering how many of those users are probably in the same "log in once or twice a month to see if anything is going on" category as I am.

Re:1,200 MILLION!? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453501)

Yammer isn't entirely free. It isn't hard to see how the business might be worth considerably more than $30 / user. If their revenues are in the hundred million ballpark, I think it might be a solid buy.

Why Yammer is Lame (5, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451755)

It is basically an internal Twitter for a company. At least for larger companies, you have upper management giving out tweets (or yams or whatever they want to call them) until they get bored with it. Low-level employees are afraid to write anything interesting out of a fear of accidentally writing something management will get upset about. So you get to see a few boring posting from upper management and that's about it.

Take away the fear and it would be a good internal tool for a company. However, there is no barrier to entry for competitors.

And that was my experience with Yammer.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452181)

(Posting anon because I'm a coward.)

My company began using Yammer (more heavily) several months ago. I signed up during the initial "light usage" period and found it was just crap... I don't know that there's a way to unsubscribe from the company-wide feed, and I'd be seeing all kinds of garbage about things I didn't care about from people I didn't know. We've now got many sub-groups to which I'm subscribed, but even then it's annoying. The main driver for using Yammer was that we had (and are still having) massive problems with our Exchange servers delivering mail (which is a symptom of a much larger and more expensive security problem). It became the next-best way to communicate with Infrastructure people when shit was hitting the fan when our own infrastructure simply couldn't stand on its own.

The difference between Yammer and others is that it's "strongly encouraged" by my employer. I avoid using the desktop app, don't visit the website, but instead have selected group messages get forwarded to Google Chat. Otherwise the S/N ratio is just too much to bear. I don't want to be "friends" with these people -- they're co-workers, many of whom I can't stand. I don't want to be social. I don't want it to be a Facebook for Work. I'd avoid it altogether, if I could. Contrast that with FB where I (for the most part) enjoy reading things from people with whom I'm good friends, family, etc. People visit Facebook and Twitter (and others) because they want to and they like to. Employees go to Yammer because they HAVE to. Bleh.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476909)

"People visit Facebook and Twitter (and others) because they want to and they like to. Employees go to Yammer because they HAVE to. Bleh."

Sounds like the perfect Microsoft acquisition.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452569)

That seems more like a problem with your company's politics than the tool. I work for a pretty large company (120,000+ employees) in which Yammer use is strongly encouraged for communication between disciplines, business units and regions and it's used extensively for sharing technical information, voicing opinions and sometimes just chatting about industry news or just plain nonsense. People use it to ask for solutions to problems, talk about their new phone or ask for the company's official line/catalogue for communication to customers and it, while it's not perfect, it does work very well.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40453371)

This is the exact experience I had with Yammer at my company. I don't know anyone who still uses it other than upper management to send out wank-fest posts about how awesome we are.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455759)

I disagree. Don't know about Yammer itself but as a Socialcast user (similar product acquired by VMware), it changed the way we communicate internally in my company. It not only cut down the email chatter but I was able to obtain almost instantaneous answers for things that it would have took me weeks to get the right person to answer via email. The updates are very dynamic, useful and I get to find out about all sort of things I'd never had otherwise.

I think it's a tool like everything else. The company culture will ultimately determine if this is something useful to your organization or not.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456631)

I wholeheartedly agree.

Re:Why Yammer is Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40458255)

Reminds me of sharepoint in our corporate environment. Management expect us to read the latest dross generated about them by marketing drones, and make like we give a crap. What a waste of money. If the browser homepage wasn't set to our sharepoint server they'd get zero hits.

Yammer is renamed!! (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40451807)

Office 2013 Communicator for Windows (Premium|Business|Home) Edition 1.0 for Windows 7/8.

Re:Yammer is renamed!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451909)

requires one or more of the following words: active, direct, explorer, X, or live.

(Office 2013 Active Communicator for Windows)

Re:Yammer is renamed!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40451917)

If the Linux community had got their hands on it, then it would have been renamed to RTXMS (Krazy Kangaroo)12.06

Re:Yammer is renamed!! (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452421)

Well, at least that would be better than "Gimp".

Re:Yammer is renamed!! (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452861)

Re:Yammer is renamed!! (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453715)

Hey at least I came up with my own twist on it. No joke is truly original

My new term for mindless blathering noise (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452117)


yammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452133)

As much as I like yammer, I think startups that use stronger freemium model ( comes to mind immediately, but there are others), will byte a good chunk out of their market share.

Major add-on to SharePoint (4, Informative)

bazorg (911295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40452147)

I have experimented a bit with Yammer, to find that its user interface is as simple to use as Facebook and similar websites. Adding photos or any kind of document to a Yammer "repository" seems to me like it will make it easier to search and find it later on.

In comparison, my (also limited) experience with SharePoint is that if internal communications in a company were handled there rather than via email, stuff would be easier to find and actual knowledge bases for products and client projects would become easier to create and maintain.

The problem with SP (IMHO) is that it's not as easy to use as email or any common website. It is very easy to feel discouraged from using it and just keep sending email attachments all the time. I suspect that the existing developments that bridge Yammer and SP will be very useful to help the adoption of SharePoint in those 80K companies already using Yammer.

Re:Major add-on to SharePoint (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40453345)

Actually, SP2 was a pretty danged intuitive package. I'm a PHP developer, and am very unimpressed with most web things I see, but SP2 blew me away. Its main virtue was ease of use. Along comes SP3, and MS finally realized that they had created a usable interface and needed to fix it immediately. All versions of SP after 2 have gotten heavier, kludgier, slower, and more confusing to use. In short, they show the same innovative thinking that the Office ribbon does. If you like the ribbon, you're probably impressed with what SP has become and will scold me.

MS in one year: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452799)

"I've made a huge mistake"

Thats $240 per registered user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40452857)

Oh microsoft, stick to badly debugged device drivers.

This looks more like MS protecting Sharepoint (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#40458463)

Than anything else, reminds me of the Facebook Instagram acquisition.

Re:This looks more like MS protecting Sharepoint (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 2 years ago | (#40458485)

And as usual Microsoft moving to where the ball is instead of where it's going to be.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?