×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Board Approves a $1.1B Pricetag For Tumblr

timothy posted about a year ago | from the bedrock-or-pet-rock? dept.

Businesses 142

TechCrunch reports that Yahoo's string of acquisitions may soon include Tumblr: "The Wall Street Journal is now reporting via Twitter that the rumored $1.1 billion cash acquisition deal for social blogging site Tumblr has been approved by Yahoo’s board of directors. The Tumblr acquisition was rumored last week, with a price tag reportedly north of $1 billion, which appears to be accurate if the WSJ’s sources are correct." The article notes, too, that "Yahoo had only $1.2 billion cash on hand as of its most recent quarterly earnings, which makes an all-cash offer for Tumblr a lot more of a stretch than it would be for someone like Apple, or even Facebook, which acquired Instagram for $1 billion in a mix of both cash and stock."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

142 comments

Strange (5, Funny)

XPeter (1429763) | about a year ago | (#43768555)

They could've bought YouPorn for a lot less.

Re:Strange (5, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about a year ago | (#43768611)

Not strange at all. Marissa Mayer isn't capable of doing much besides making overpriced acquisitions and hires.

Here's (yet another) social blogging platform with no clear revenue model.

Re:Strange (1, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43768665)

I don't think you know what you're talking about [addictinginfo.org]

Re:Strange (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43768829)

Current stock prices are not a predictor for the future. Well understood by anybody that cared to find out.

Re:Strange (4, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about a year ago | (#43768841)

+1

I remember laughing my ass off a while back when one of the CEOs in the long line of CEOs at HP said that the stock market is an objective measure of a company's performance. That was a little bit before the dotcom crash IIRC.

Re:Strange (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43769261)

Indeed. I think I read that also and it was one of the moments that reinforced my belief that most CEOs do not have a clue how their business works.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769387)

Indeed. I think I read that also and it was one of the moments that reinforced my belief that most CEOs do not have a clue how their business works.

Mayer has certainly provided enough evidence to support that theory. I wouldn't be surprised if she declared a policy of mandatory drug testing for software developers or something like that next.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770595)

Actually, they are. Today's stock price is usually a good guess for the price in 1 year, on average. Of course there's a lot of variance, but on average, it's pretty good.

If you think you can predict which direction stocks are going, then start a hedge fund.

Re:Strange (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43768833)

Indeed. At Google that did not matter, as they have heaps of money to throw after one bad project and acquisition after another and still be very profitable. At Yahoo, this will just kill the company, even if it may take a while.

Re:Strange (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43770339)

You know, I have heard that argument several times and i just don't think it holds up to logic, its the same one that MSFT apologists use when explaining away why all their failed acquistitions don't matter but just because they have a LOT of money does not mean they have INFINITE money, and one can only throw around a billion here and a billion there before as they say in Washington it becomes "real money".

Can Google, Apple, and MSFT piss more money away with zero ROI? Sure they can. does that mean it isn't gonna hurt them over time? That would depend on how much positive cash flow they can keep coming in and whether or not spending that money on stupid shit costs them an opportunity down the road that could have actually worked.

Re:Strange (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#43768655)

I see the strategy. This and a service like Summly mixed together. Intelligent shared content on a huge scale. That could actually be something pretty awesome. Really make Twitter totally obsolete.

Re:Strange (3, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year ago | (#43770237)

The only problem with that scenario is that it was Yahoo that bought it.

Which means Tumblr will go the way of Flickr. It will be milked and ignored until it's about as dated as black and white TV.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768785)

They could've bought YouPorn for a lot less.

One wonders if Yahoo's board even knows how much porn is on Tumblr. Have fun 'monitizing' that traffic.

Re:Strange (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768943)

I make 5-figures a month 'monetizing' porn. That's part-time work (4-8 hours/week on average).

Re:Strange (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769125)

I make 5-figures a month 'monetizing' porn. That's part-time work (4-8 hours/week on average).

You are not a publicly traded company with stockholders who will run away from a company that is serving up porn. Many funds, pensions and private investors are not as accepting or opened minded about porn as most /.ers

Re:Strange (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769949)

I make 5-figures a month 'monetizing' porn. That's part-time work (4-8 hours/week on average).

I had not idea cam girls pulled in that kind of cash.

That's a shame. (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43768561)

I kind of liked Tumblr. Not that I ever felt the need to sign up for an account.

Re:That's a shame. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43770019)

I never understood the appeal of it and I don't see the billion dollar value of it. There are already a thousand other popular blogging platforms - Blogger probably being the most prominent . . . except Blogger seems to be more useful since you can actually leave comments on someone's update (I've never intentionally gone to a Tumblr page, but when I wind up there, they never seem to allow any comments and are just a stream of other idiots linking to it for about five hundred lines at the bottom of the page).

Making this... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768569)

The first Yahoo owned content online I will have actually visited since 1998

Re:Making this... (1)

dingen (958134) | about a year ago | (#43768849)

You never look at pictures on Flickr then?

Re:Making this... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43770021)

Who wants to look at someone else's stupid photos?

And if you're looking for photos, in general, for some purpose -- you usually just use Google Image Search . . .

Let's see (5, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43768579)

From wiki: Tumblr made $13 million in revenue in 2012 and hopes to make $100 million in 2013. So far, Tumblr has taken $125 million in funding from its backers. Tumblr reportedly spent $25 million to fund operations last year.

So it's making a loss of $12 million a year and yahoo is willing to fork over $1.1 billion on the hope that it might actually make $100 million this year?

Interesting!

Re: Let's see (5, Funny)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43768685)

With these numbers it's worth $10 billion

You have to value it in eye balls

Re: Let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769871)

With these numbers it's worth $10 billion

You have to value it in eye balls

Is that priced in eyeballs before or after driving most of the users away?

Ya-who? (5, Funny)

tutufan (2857787) | about a year ago | (#43768825)

Yes, but on the plus side, they now have a brand that people think of as still being in business...

Re:Let's see (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43768847)

No, stupid. The decision of a CEO desperate to find something that works. Betting on the wrong horse is a time-honored tradition with inexperienced CEOs. Some get lucky, but not this time.

Re:Let's see (4, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43768859)

So, to reorder your numbers a bit,

100m in projected revenue / 40m in cost of goods this year = 60m in profits. (40m is from wiki's original source, numbers are projected, so....)
1.1b market cap / 60m profit = Price/Earnings ratio of 18.
  P/E ratio for the S&P is 14.

It looks like it has high growth, that would push the numbers up. Huge risk / numbers are projections / I am doing the numbers on the fly without all of the accoutning number - would push the numbers down.

Re:Let's see (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43768863)

numbers are projected

Indeed they are.

Re:Let's see (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#43769009)

Well, yeah.

Today's value of a stock (bond, or any finical asset) is based on all future cash flows discounted (i.e. interest rate / time value) . So the real question is: How confident are you in your projected cash flows? Sold or is just a piece of blue sky? (See security rules on “Blue Sky” companies.)

Re:Let's see (4, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43768995)

Traditional stock valuation methods kind of assume your company isn't a fad that could implode in a heartbeat. There's nothing to think Tumblr has survivability better than say, MySpace. Yes, I can see paying a billion for something that generates 100 million a year...if there's a good reason to think that asset will last more than 10 years. Free-to-use websites that generate 100 million a year for more than a decade are unicorns.

Re:Let's see (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43770407)

Bingo! Give that man a ceegar! The problem with spending any real money on these things is that the users have zero brand loyalty and can just disappear like a fart in the breeze, we have seen this time and time again, from MySpace to Flickr, you try overloading the place with ads to try to get your money back and the users bail and you are left with a ghosttown...how much did Yahoo pay for Flickr or Geocities?

The sad part is this CEO is not only doing something insanely stupid, they don't even seem to realize WHY Yahoo has had that sudden growth all of a sudden, as somebody in the trenches I can tell you why....MSFT backlash. Trying to force all their users into a "MSFT Ecosystem" by killing Live Messenger and Hotmail for Skype and Outlook ran a LOT of the users off and since they don't like the "everything is chat" style of Google, guess where they went?

Yahoo is betting the farm on people actually liking the brand when in reality they just hate the other guy THAT much, but the loyalty just isn't there which they are gonna find out the hard way when they try to get a ROI on this, not to mention as others have pointed out your pension funds and the like aren't gonna want to invest in a porn company and that pretty much is what Tumblr is used for, porn clips.

Re:Let's see (4, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year ago | (#43769155)

So, to reorder your numbers a bit,

100m in projected revenue / 40m in cost of goods this year = 60m in profits. (40m is from wiki's original source, numbers are projected, so....)
1.1b market cap / 60m profit = Price/Earnings ratio of 18.

  P/E ratio for the S&P is 14.

It looks like it has high growth, that would push the numbers up. Huge risk / numbers are projections / I am doing the numbers on the fly without all of the accoutning number - would push the numbers down.

Ah yes, we should always base P/E ratios on the "hoped for" earnings over the next year, especially when they're about an order of magnitude higher than the real world numbers from right now.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768605)

They also bought GeoCities back in the day for $3.6B. They buy stuff all the time and ruin it by putting their stamp on it or shoehorning it into their existing line of crap^W products.

Re:So what? (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43768819)

Indeed. I have never, ever dealt with anybody to technologically incompetent as Yahoo. I had to remove a domain subscription from them as after talking to 14 different customer "service" reps, I still had not found anybody that understood the basics of the DNS system. Yes, I wanted to use my own servers, and while nobody else had a problem with that, Yahoo did not even understand the question.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43768999)

You're not wrong, but I had to laugh at the idea of "ruining" GeoCities. That sort of implies that at one time GeoCities was not ruinous, and then became so.

Re:So what? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43770715)

Actually you may laugh at me but geocities actually served a function which Yahoo promptly shat all over and ruined. What Geocities was in reality was the first "fan driven" web, from fanfics to fanpages it was a magnet so people that liked a particular subject could get together and discuss that subject and you'd be surprised how well it worked for that. Hell there was several times that Whedon and Mutant Enemy would go to these to not only get fan reactions but to see where the fans thought things should go and the same was true of the writers of Star Trek and several other sci-fi and horror of the time, it gave the fan community and the writers an easy way to interact and for that it worked quite well.

So yes I would say losing Geocities was a "loss" because despite all the jokes it gave people a centralized place where they could discuss their favorite works, learn of other works in a similar vein, and to discuss where they thought the works should be heading.

Re: So what? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770951)

so basically geocities was what tumblr is today.

What a scam (3)

arcite (661011) | about a year ago | (#43768617)

Must be nice to run a multi-billion dollar corporation that makes barely any profit and spend money like a drunken sailor.

Re:What a scam (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43768711)

Yeah, yell, any drunken sailor that almost double the value of my investment in one year [google.com] (you have to click on the button) is alright with me

Re:What a scam (1)

Grieviant (1598761) | about a year ago | (#43768807)

Yeah, yell, any drunken sailor that almost double the value of my investment in one year [google.com] (you have to click on the button) is alright with me

The question is why. What has Yahoo actually done in the last year to justify a near doubling of their share price? Have they put out a new product that everyone loves which is making them gobs of money? Unless you consider canceling work-from-home and paying out a shitload of money for a half-assed content summarizing app stroke of genius ...

Re:What a scam (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43768853)

Who cares why? It's a game of roulette.

Re:What a scam (4, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | about a year ago | (#43768977)

Who cares why? It's a game of roulette.

The reason our economy is fucked, distilled in one sentence.

Re: What a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770667)

Details, details, and more details. Oh, and some fucking little thing call numbers... Ya, those. Whatever, who cares. What's important is that we find and abuse all the suckers out there!

Re:What a scam (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43770749)

They aren't MSFT? Seriously that is it, I can tell you that I have had to set up countless yahoo accounts for my customers in the last 6 months as the switch from Live Messenger and Hotmail to Skype and Outlook (which most of their users I talked to frankly thought was inferior) ran off a LOT of customers.

Now one would argue that if that was the case why didn't they go to Google but the answer is simple, the way Google treats everything like a chat turns off a lot of the users, and with MSFT shitting all over its customer base trying to be Apple that left only Yahoo. So the fact that Yahoo suddenly got a big bounce really doesn't surprise me, you had a LOT of people that were using Hotmail and Messenger that bailed when MSFT started to force the switch and really Yahoo was the only alternative that was in any way similar to what they had.

Selling tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768623)

Check your Capitalist privilege, shitlord!

Man, Marissa loves spending money (-1, Offtopic)

hsmith (818216) | about a year ago | (#43768627)

There is a sexist joke in here somewhere. She has been on a spending binge for acquisitions...

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43768659)

There is a sexist joke in here somewhere. She has been on a spending binge for acquisitions...

It was perfectly innocent on that front until you suggested it might be otherwise. There's no shortage of men who love to throw money around. Were you going to mention shoes or something?

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768701)

No there isn't. Why are you so sexist towards women in the workplace? Please discuss.

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769037)

Why are you so sexist towards women in the workplace? Please discuss.

I'll bite:
- Victoria's Secret vs. Ferrari/Lamborghini/BMW/Mercedes/Gulfstream/ ...
- Healthy living vs. face paint (cosmetics).
- Scotch vs. "Do I look fat in this?"
- MLB/NFL/Nascar/ ... vs. Pilates.
- Any "Chick Flic" vs. any Jason Bourne.

I could go on like this for months. On the other hand, my female friends hate cosmetics, have never asked me whether they looked fat (they're not), love baseball, can code rings around me in many fields, and introduce me to neat things like Ian M. Banks.

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769967)

my female friends hate cosmetics

and operate best at about 15 psig.

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769149)

There is a sexist joke in here somewhere. She has been on a spending binge for acquisitions...

I'm waiting for her to buy Zappos to confirm your theory.

Re:Man, Marissa loves spending money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769593)

Marissa bought the toxic investment.

Tinfoil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768637)

How are these "social" companies worth that ridiculous amount of cash?

I just can't figure any rational way of that value being "true".

The paranoid part in me says this is somehow just bullshit front/facade/"fake" company to serve ammong others as a vector to inject money into the economy without creating any "real" value whatsoever.

Re:Tinfoil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768671)

That or some tax evasion scheme.

"Social" is a lose (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43768681)

Despite all the noise, almost nobody is making money in "social". Even Facebook isn't very profitable, despite its size. The business strategy in "social" seems to be to give the service away for a few years, build a following, then crank up the density of ads until the users get fed up. Worked for Myspace, right?

Facebook traffic peaked about a year ago. Twitter is now exploring the user's threshold of pain with "sponsored tweets". This is robocalling in another form.

Basic truth: ads with search results are useful to users and effective for advertisers, because they're presented when the user is actively looking for something relevant. Ads on "social" are merely annoying because the user is looking at what their friends are doing.

Re:"Social" is a lose (1, Informative)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43769019)

Also, you need replacements to sustain the user base. For a site that started for college-aged users, the demographics of facebook are aging. Teens/students don't want to be on FaceBook because their parents (and grandparents) are on FaceBook.

Re:"Social" is a lose (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769583)

I think it's a huge mistake for Facebook to have a policy of no children allowed under the age of 13 (even with COPPA forms). It really needs to become part of children's lives *before* they start wanting to hide things from mom and dad. That's EXACTLY how they're going to lose out on the next generation.

Re: "Social" is a lose (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43769513)

You forgot "get acquired for an absurd amount of money by a corporation with billions to throw around and a dunce CEO, spend the rest of your life sucking down fruity drinks on a beach".

Re:"Social" is a lose (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43770045)

I still don't understand how Tumblr is "social". The few times I've (unintentionally) landed on someone's pages on Tumblr, I see absolutely no interaction going on. I don't even fucking know if Tumblr has the capacity/features for interaction (it just always looks like streams of updates or photos with no comments or other input whatsoever). I thought Tumblr was a poor-man's blogging service without any features and am absolutely baffled to find out that it either makes a dime or is worth a billion dollars. I am not, however, baffled at the stupidity of people or committees.

Re:"Social" is a lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770491)

Tumblr seems strangely featureless to me as well. Near as I can tell, it's a lot like Twitter without the length/content limits but with even worse support for conversations. Specifically, a major part of Tumblr is the reblogging feature which is like Twitter's retweet which allows for a built-in support for signal boosting. Tumblr seems to be full of likes and reblogs and very few comments.

Who cares about tumblr? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43768801)

Guess that is the beginning of a series of fatal decisions that will seal Yahoo's fate. None of those making these bad decisions will suffer for it though.

Re:Who cares about tumblr? (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year ago | (#43769395)

the beginning?

Re:Who cares about tumblr? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43770989)

The key word being "fatal", as in "starting the end-game". You are quite right though that there were a lot of bad decisions before, and it looks likely that the worst decision was actually not tumblr, when I think about it, but hiring the new CEO. So, yes, I stand corrected.

Something stinks here (4, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | about a year ago | (#43768809)

A company that has $13 million [wikipedia.org] in revenue in 2012 and hopes to only make $100 million in 2013 is purchased for 1.1 billion? This smells of a multi-level pump and dump scheme.

I will bet what will happen in the next 18 months is: Yahoo buy's out Tumblr. Tumblr's CEO sells all his stock Monday morning and get insanely rich. The new tYahoo company goes bankrupt by the end of the year. Microsoft or Bill Gates himself will swoop in and FINALLY by buy Yahoo making the current CEO insanely rich. If gates himself buys it sells Yahoo back to MS and adds to his insane fortune. Microsoft and integrates all of tYahoo's tech into MS and starts a second round of war against Google search and Google products.

Re:Something stinks here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770607)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. A 10x multiple is totally reasonable. A lot of companies sell for way more than that!

Re:Something stinks here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770683)

Wealth accumulation 101 for executives:

Enrich your executive networking cronies by grossly overpaying for a privately held company they own. No skin off your back, just the shareholders'. You'll still get your golden parachute. But someday those cronies will probably remember the favor.

This seems like complete insanity... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43768907)

Hey, Yahoo, remember that other photo-sharing site you already fucking own? [flickr.com]

Please, do, tell me what 1.1 billion dollars worth of tumblr brings to the table that a mild reskin(to put the pictures with captions in columns, rather than in 'galleries') of flickr could have ready to demo inside a week and roll out in short order?

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (2)

sehryan (412731) | about a year ago | (#43768975)

Tumblr isn't a photo sharing site, it is a micro blogging platform. Flickr has photos and I think video (upload). Tumblr has photos, video, audio, and finally text, which further breaks down in to posts, quotes, and links.

So please, tell me how a five day sprint to reskin Flickr is going to add all of those additional features.

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769027)

> it is a micro blogging platform

Most people don't know that nor do they care about the distinction. How is it that technophiles miss this important bit?

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year ago | (#43769169)

Tumblr isn't a photo sharing site, it is a micro blogging platform. Flickr has photos and I think video (upload). Tumblr has photos, video, audio, and finally text, which further breaks down in to posts, quotes, and links.

So please, tell me how a five day sprint to reskin Flickr is going to add all of those additional features.

No, Tumblr is a crappy niche site used almost exclusively for photo sharing and operating at a significant loss.

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770423)

I winder what Marissa is going to do once she finds out how much porn there is on Tumblr.

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43769249)

Look, you guys don't get it, do you? You never get this sort of thing.

Of course Flikr and Tumblr will mix well. They both end in a contracted 'r'.

It's pretty clear why you all aren't in business.

Re:This seems like complete insanity... (1)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#43770591)

A reskin of Flickr isn't going to bring a hundred million young, fashionable, advertising friendly viewers to Flickr.

Tumblr already has that 100 million viewers. Yahoo is buying that audience.

Flickr will remain a back-end tech for Yahoo. It has terrible branding. Flickr's (and Yahoo's) audience is older, male, and undesirable for advertiser.

Uh-Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43768933)

So we can Kiss Tumblr good bye....

Dangerous Games (3, Interesting)

Whatchamacallit (21721) | about a year ago | (#43769069)

Tumblr is worth exactly squat if Yahoo screws with it too much. A social platform is only as good as it's users. If the users abandon the platform in protest to Yahoo's new direction it will spell the doom of Yahoo! Instagram's transition was initially painful and they lost a good deal of users. Yahoo has to be very careful, best to keep things the same for a long time and then slowly introduce improvements that will excite and encourage the customer base and not annoy them. A major misstep and it can all come crashing down very quickly... Social media is a high stakes game. To pay that much for Tumblr is an extreme gamble.

Anyone else going to short YHOO stock tomorrow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769199)

I will be looking to short any pop in the stock.

Don't write code! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43769209)

Yahoo is trying to buy the pieces they need to create an integrated end-to-end platform that combines Google and Facebook. They don't want to develop a code base, because they're too late to the game. Google and Facebook have been doing it for a decade or more. Yahoo can't afford to catch up. They're buying all the pieces they need, and ... well, they'll integrate it. That's going to be the hard part. Anyhow, Yahoo is paying a premium to gobble up all the pieces they need to be more mobile-device oriented than Facebook, more social than Google, and bring Bing to the masses in a way Win8 won't.

If this works, I'll be shocked. This is going to die a horrible, flaming death in the stage when they try to integrate all this code together. That is not going to be easy.

By then, I'm sure Mayer will have given herself plenty of bonuses and will be out the door - someone else can clean up the mess. That's how business works these days. Mayer seems to be channeling her inner Carly Fiorina!

Re:Don't write code! (2)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#43770521)

No, Yahoo is trying to buy sexy brands. All the technology in the world won't get you attention if you don't have a recognizable brand. Bing works pretty well, maybe as well as Google Search, but since so many people hate Microsoft they just can't dethrone Google for search. Facebook could have built their own Instagram in a month, Mark Zuckerberg didn't buy it for the technology, he wanted to own the Instagram name.

Yahoo's biggest problem is that everyone considers it old news. Mayer is trying to fix that by getting some recognizable brands into Yahoo.

Do none of you fight for the users? (4, Insightful)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | about a year ago | (#43769311)

No, I'm not talking about the irritating tween idiots. I'm talking about the artists. For every groupthink mob of self-entitled screaming idiots shouting their misinformed opinions at the top of their tiny little lungs, there's an artist taking advantage of the dead simple microblogging platform.

Tumblr is the home of the Drawblog (contains art), the Ask (ask a character questions, receive drawn responses) blog, and the art compilation blog. To my knowledge, none of these things substantially exist outside of tumblr. Sure, I could follow an "art appreciation" group on facebook, but because facebook doesn't deliver stuff to me in anything resembling chronological order it's largely useless to me.

I am worried. Legitimately worried that Yahoo is gonna screw up Tumblr.

Re:Do none of you fight for the users? (2)

dingen (958134) | about a year ago | (#43769517)

So they'll just move to Wordpress or Blogger or use some other random blogging platform. What's the problem?

Re:Do none of you fight for the users? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43770067)

Bothering to make your own website seems to sadly be a lost art and something even a twelve year old child was capable of doing. Now, if it isn't a click away and shoved in our face, we can't be bothered to do it.

Ideally, Yahoo! buys Tumblr. Fucks it up. Tumblr goes away. Maybe they can do the same with eHow and the other festering crap of the internet that plagues Google's search results.

Re:Do none of you fight for the users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43770695)

people have been doing this stuff anonymously for years, it's hardly new.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...