Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 7th Nov 2008 09:25 UTC, submitted by Oh! Ballmer
In the News Steve Ballmer said at an economic forum in Sydney today that any new Yahoo deal was totally of the cards, despite Yahoo's share price being less than half Microsoft's initial offer. At same time, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang said that "I believe the best thing for Microsoft to do is to buy Yahoo." Google pulled out of its deal with Yahoo! earlier this week.
Order by: Score:
by TheIdiotThatIsMe on Fri 7th Nov 2008 14:00 UTC
Member since:

Although Yahoo is struggling, I usually prefer an independent company over one owned by another with competing products (usually means something is going to be killed off in favor of the owner's products, which is not always better). I know Yahoo kind of got shot in the foot with the Google deal falling through, and now no hopes of Microsoft ever coming close to the deal they had before.

The main question I have is, what is Yahoo's plans to stay afloat? More and more people seem to be leaving in droves to competitor products and services: Yahoo Mail to GMail, Yahoo Messenger to AIM, Yahoo! Search to Google, etc. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single Yahoo product or service I *personally* use or prefer over someone else's as an average computer user.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yahoo
by Soulbender on Fri 7th Nov 2008 20:19 UTC in reply to "Yahoo"
Soulbender Member since:

Yahoo Messenger to AIM

Uh, no? Seriously, who the heck is moving to AIM.
If people are moving anywhere it is, much to my regret, MSN Messenger/Live Messenger.
If there ever was an overvalued company that's dead in the water it's AOL.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Yahoo
by Moulinneuf on Fri 7th Nov 2008 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Yahoo"
RE[3]: Yahoo
by raynevandunem on Sat 8th Nov 2008 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yahoo"
raynevandunem Member since:

Um, psychiatry isn't necessary. In the United States, AOL has long been regarded as incompetent and unworthy of serious discussion in conversation (if anything, they're the butt of many derisive jokes and puns, the kind that you'd probably give of your best friend's old has-been uncle).

AIM, on the other hand, has had a lion's share of users (mostly in North America) for the longest time, compared to YM (Africa, Asia) and MSN/WLM (Europe, Latin America). One wonders why people are willing to stick with older versions of the AIM client just to use the network rather than switch to a network that isn't a sinking ship...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Yahoo
by sbergman27 on Sat 8th Nov 2008 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yahoo"
sbergman27 Member since:

AOL has long been regarded as incompetent and unworthy of serious discussion in conversation

True. Though not for as long as AOL *users* have been considered so.

However, history will likely best remember AOL as the company which single-handedly destroyed the U.S. coaster industry via freak effect of collateral damage.

Edited 2008-11-08 22:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yahoo
by Soulbender on Mon 10th Nov 2008 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yahoo"
Soulbender Member since:

Heh. Touche.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yahoo
by Hiev on Sat 8th Nov 2008 00:25 UTC in reply to "Yahoo"
Hiev Member since:

usually prefer an independent company over one owned by another with competing products

Is not what you prefer is what the Yahoo stake holders want.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yahoo
by evangs on Sat 8th Nov 2008 18:47 UTC in reply to "Yahoo"
evangs Member since:

Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single Yahoo product or service I *personally* use or prefer over someone else's as an average computer user.


Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yahoo
by dnstest on Sat 8th Nov 2008 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Yahoo"
dnstest Member since:

Delicious also, I use it all the time.

Reply Score: 1

Yahoo has Zimbra
by tuaris on Fri 7th Nov 2008 17:47 UTC
Member since:

Anyone who's used Zimbra can see it's an amazing product. Yahoo has a great platform and should push it as much as they can. Their are a lot of people who would dump MS Exchange in favor of Zimbra, only if they knew about it.

Reply Score: 1

Yahoo is a mess
by on Fri 7th Nov 2008 17:47 UTC
Member since:

Worst place i ever worked at.

After the stellar stock price in 2000 plus several splits, many orginal employees left (retired) by 2001.

With so many new people on board there isnt any direction in the company. The place is full of
egos and politics. Not a great place to be.

Microsoft at least has some discipline and direction
in their business model. They can also provide better
technology since yahoo at its core is no more than
an internet portal.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft got what they really wanted
by mabhatter on Fri 7th Nov 2008 18:06 UTC
Member since:

Microsoft got what they really wanted, a competitor removed from the market.

They just didn't want Google to have Yahoo and started enough of a fuss with government that Google might becoming an evil monopoly (They said, trust us, we know something about evil monopolies and this is what we would do if we were Google.)

Now Google has pulled out because they don't want to be tied down into months of anti-trust litigation over a relatively trivial (dollar wise) deal. Yahoo's employees are demoralized, their CEO looks stupid, their customers are jittery... Microsoft doesn't even have to get any customers from them or release new products now, just sit back and wait for Yahoo to implode then scavenge the carcass.

Way to go DOJ & FTC... in the meantime lets allow every other ACTUAL monopoly like Satellite Radio or Cellphones to get mopped up to be bigger than ever.

Maybe Apple or AT&T might be interested? Apple doesn't really want to run websites, but having a big name would be cool.. if only to get rid of that .Mac/MobileMe junk... AT&T could just buy the thing they bundle it all the time, and again run their services from a public site rather than keeping their own. Perhaps throw in AOL as a brand and they'd be huge hosts of "little people" video, pictures, community groups, etc.

Reply Score: 1

Important Distinction
by fretinator on Fri 7th Nov 2008 18:59 UTC
Member since:

I don't think he said "read my lips"...

Reply Score: 2

About antitrust ...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 7th Nov 2008 23:48 UTC
Member since:

Microsoft corrupted some judge into the false thinking that Google as too much power. Google was not interested in wasting money on lawyers defending this case , as it was to help Yahoo a direct rival.

But Microsoft is starting to understand that they would face harsher scrutiny in the same case , there intent is to get at the advertsing part of Yahoo , where as Google is interested in much braoder and wider partnership.

I also know that illegal stock manipulation is at play here , Microsoft as done so in the past , they manipulated the public opinion , the price share drop or the company fold and they pick up the company at reduced price or the assets at liquidation.

Microsoft is scared of Google but they are even more scared of antitrust laws that they broke and where punished for.

Reply Score: 0

'big corporate blah blah..'
by jmgarciaaix on Sat 8th Nov 2008 15:01 UTC
Member since:

I always love when people talk about 'back room deals', 'someone is corrupt', 'big corporations are evil'.

The reality is that Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Yahoo, Google have been SUCCESSFUL and everyone can either RESPECT that or DEMONIZE it. Usually 'demonization' is a display of envy. I am not a Windows user but I stand in awe at the business Bill Gates built and can't care less which practices got him there. I just feel bad I didn't think of them!

Yahoo! is imploding because now is a company simply powered by 'egos' and whiny 'hipsters' that do not want to 'sell-out' and cry over their Starbucks cup and linux laptops..and 'wahhhh!, microsoft is a bad guy...wahhhh!..they want to take my office built of lego blocks because i'm cool...waahhh"

Well, Yahoo!, things change and some big boys do know how to keep companies up and build got cocky, didn't see the times and now will be the lonely crying baby who's toy was taken away. However, the toy now is worth barely cents.

Stop bashing companies that have made it while you haven't. I certainly didn't come up with any of their products and I am a user just like you are.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by BSDfan
by BSDfan on Sat 8th Nov 2008 18:22 UTC
Member since:


Reply Score: 2

Hmm... I think I smell something...
by looncraz on Sun 9th Nov 2008 06:52 UTC
Member since:

Well, I think I may have a scenario in which neither Microsoft nor Google ever intended on buying Yahoo!, but rather to help with its demise.

Remember: Both Microsoft and Google want to be #1, are arrogant in their own ways, and have big pocket books with which to play.

In this scenario:
( Please note, that I use "offer" to mean: "offer to enter negotiations for acquisition".)

Microsoft contacts Yahoo! with false offer to purchase the company, but makes certain never to finalize the deal. Investors buy up Yahoo! stock on the hopes of a profitable buyout.

Now, historically, when such a deal falls through, investors get panicky, realizing the stock price will soon fall, and they sell like the dickens to try and retain the additional value accrued - the stock price falls well below what it once was.

Microsoft abandons the deal. Google steps in and makes an offer. Microsoft comes back with a new deal.

Yahoo! stocks gain value once more, even more so now as there is twice the likelihood of a profitable buyout.

Google and Microsoft both abandon the offers, even though Yahoo!'s CEO shows interest ( and knowing share holders would most likely go for a nice profitable acquisition ). They do so in rapid succession, for maximum effect.

Yahoo! stocks tank, cheapening the company even more, making it more difficult for them to obtain funds, possibly running the company's books into the drains.

Net effect would be a cheaper Yahoo! or a Yahoo! which lacked funding to develop competing technologies - forcing it towards the back of the deck.

Now, I'm not saying that this was coordinated - and I haven't even looked at Yahoo!'s stocks -, but it was certainly a brilliant plan if so.

However, the most likely progression was as follows:

Microsoft decides the only way they can have a chance at beating Google is to buy up Yahoo! in an effort of gaining dominance. After an initial offer is made, Yahoo! is reluctant in accepting the deal as-is. Microsoft tentatively withdraws the offer while considering the merits of negotiating terms requested by Yahoo!.

In the mean-time, Google is, obviously, watching. Indeed, Google likely contacted Yahoo! and made a non-official statement of interest, with some specifics ;-) ( think two CEOs playing golf or phone-tag ). Google's offer would have been designed to throw Microsoft for a loop, which it would seem to have done.

Now, with Microsoft's offer withdrawn publicly, and no word of Google's interest, stock value declines. Then, Google's interest is made public as an official 'offer,' now that the lawyers are done with their work. In the meantime, Microsoft's withdrawal makes Yahoo! less appealing to Google, but Google will not immediately discard the possibility of a buyout until it has left no stone unturned.

Microsoft can't possibly allow Google to purchase Yahoo!, and counter-offers for more than it is really willing to offer.

Google decided that Microsoft, even with Yahoo!, would have no worthwhile gain, and neither would Google. Google withdraws offer, no longer really caring if Microsoft wants to waste their money on Yahoo!.

Microsoft, knowing already it doesn't really want Yahoo!, just that it didn't want Google to have it, comes to a quick decision to withdraw the offer, but delaying in doing so until, perhaps, some secondary damage could be done to Yahoo!.

Looks like that from here to me, how about y'all?

--The loon

BTW, I can say it short and simple:

Microsoft thought they wanted Yahoo!, but realized they didn't. Google made an offer because they didn't want Microsoft to have it. Microsoft counter-offered for the same reason. Google decided Yahoo! wouldn't help Microsoft or Google notably, and withdraws. Microsoft withdraws its second offer simply because Google is no longer interested - and even if they were, they probably wouldn't benefit much from it.

See? ;-)

Reply Score: 2