Microsoft Bids $44.6 Billion For Yahoo

The news is everywhere this morning about Microsoft's $44.6B offer to buy Yahoo. The offer represents $31 a share, a 62% premium over Thursday's closing price; and Yahoo's stock price has been rising in after-hours trading. Microsoft has been making overtures to Yahoo since 2006, according to the CNet article, including a buyout offer last February that was rebuffed. Mediapost.com has some perspective on the deal from the point of view of ads and eyeballs. Such an acquisition, which would be Microsoft's largest by far — it bought Aquantive last year for $6 billion — would need approval by US and EU authorities. A European Commission spokesman declined to comment.

Comments

Very odd

[l-ascorbic]

Seems so unlikely to ever be allowed by the regulators, yet they're willing to throw billions at it anyway. They must feel confident for some reason.

Re:Very odd

[crispi]

Well if you can't build a good search engine of your own, just buy one.

In fact just like about everything MS has ever done (eg SQL, IE, PowerPoint ...)

Re:Very odd

[jeroenb]

Considering that internet search and online advertising are exactly the places they don't dominate, I don't see why regulators would object.

Re:Very odd

[l-ascorbic]

This isn't like the previous anti-trust stuff either - either the US or EU can just block the deal outright. No piddling fines for them to ignore or stuff like that. A massive gamble, implying they really want this deal.

Re:Very odd

[Mr. Underbridge]

Seems so unlikely to ever be allowed by the regulators, yet they're willing to throw billions at it anyway. They must feel confident for some reason.

If they allowed Google and Doubleclick, they'll probably allow this too. This doesn't give anyone a monopoly or anything close to it, since Google's still #1 in search.

The question is, how long until MS feels compelled to screw up Yahoo like Hotmail?

Re:Very odd

[coolmoose25]

Actually, I don't think regulators would have a huge problem with this... Clearly the big guy on the block is Google at this point... Microsoft and Yahoo joining forces makes sense from a competitive point of view... Let's face it, MSN sucks, it has always sucked, and so it is a good merger from a business perspective too. The only thing I worry about here is if Yahoo just sort of "melts" under Microsoft's ownership, the same way Excite did when it got bought.

Re:Very odd

[Bert64]

And most of those products went down hill in various ways after being bought...

Re:Very odd

[Bert64]

Well Yahoo, like hotmail, run all their stuff on FreeBSD...
You can bet yahoo would go the same way, migrating to windows, spending a ridiculous amount on new hardware and suffering significant problems in the process.

Re:Very odd

[Red Flayer]

The only thing I worry about here is if Yahoo just sort of "melts" under Microsoft's ownership, the same way Excite did when it got bought.

"melts"... or "is extinguished"?

Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but I can't shake the feeling that MS is more interested in narrowing the competitive field than in acquiring Yahoo properties -- though search is something they could use Yahoo's help with.

Re:Very odd

[Ilgaz]

Well if you can't build a good search engine of your own, just buy one.

In fact just like about everything MS has ever done (eg SQL, IE, PowerPoint ...) Yahoo's power and success comes from multi platform awareness, using right tools for job without caring about what OS it runs (mostly FreeBSD), giving the same service to everyone with a recent browser regardless of OS, being open to all developers even including competitors...

I checked Live.com the day it was announced. When it bitched about not using IE (when I tried to login my passport account) , I never visited it back. That is what makes every MS attempt unsuccessful. They can't live with the fact that there is a thing called HTML standard, TCPIP standard and Internet is platform neutral from beginning. They use every opportunity to alienate other OS/Browser users.

I could never see Yahoo as a great search engine although it seems spammers/blackhats/SEO junk targets them less. For the record, Google has always been a spammer heaven for me too.

Re:Very odd

[dintech]

Google has always been a spammer heaven for me too

Everyone knows spammers don't go to heaven.

Re:Very odd

[yog]

So what's your point? Most companies start by buying some existing work; very few invent something completely new. Dell didn't invent the PC, nor did Compaq, nor did HP. Apple didn't invent the windowing GUI.

Microsoft is smart. They did not get where they are by being idiots. If they think Yahoo is worth $46B to them, I'm inclined to believe it. On the other hand, it might be that Google has been mulling an investment in Yahoo and Mr Softy just wanted to prevent that scary thing from happening.

It makes me sad that YHOO might cease to exist. To me, Yahoo represents the internet revolution. For ten years I have been using Yahoo's email, stock quotes, news, weather, sports, shopping, maps, and directories on a daily basis. I have bought and sold Yahoo stock when it was in the $300's and more recently when it was in the teens. I used to post on Yahoo's news comment boards before they shut them down, mainly to counter the many idiots I saw there. To me, Yahoo has always been a safe port in a storm.

When Microsoft takes over Yahoo, assuming the antitrust authorities let this happen (doubtful, actually), it will be a sad day for the internet. The old guard will have won out over the pure internet players. It will be Google against MS at that point. I guess I'll just spend even more time on Google from then on.

Re:Very odd

[somersault]

Of cros they do! Evey night heavn with the ladeis you can have too if you purchaise soft Cililiaolois!!! Only 49c a pill!

Re:Very odd

[rtb61]

Does M$ really want this deal, or is it simply a last ditch attempt by Ballmer to survive. Ballmer has staked his continued existence as the CEO of M$ on his own myopic focus on google. Not only does M$ have to bear the cost of buying Yahoo but also the cost of virtually writing off MSN.

M$ fails in the add market because they have single mindedly created a reputation of untrustworthiness. M$ is the last company you would want give information about future marketing campaigns, if they suddenly decide that you are a competitor they will use that information to their advantage. Reminds me of the Sony root kit debacle, the blogger who released the information about the root kit, his association with M$ and that M$ was fully aware of the root kit well before it's release and for some odd reason the release of the information about the root kit coincided with the launch of the PS3.

Dang it would suck to be a Yahoo or an MSN employee, if the buyout goes through, waiting for the axe to fall, as M$ works to reduced running costs and improve profit margins, especially as the yahoo owners would be crazy to take M$ stock rather than cash.

Of course the US Administration wont bat an eyelid they love monoplies (at least loyal ones) but the EU will most likely baulk at the idea.

The whole idea is crazy, M$ couldn't run MSN properly, so why would the same management team do any better with Yahoo, well at least the ex-Yahoo investors could always buy it back at a 75% discount in about 5 years.

Re:Very odd

[MECC]

Yahoo's power and success comes from multi platform awareness,

For the most part, yes, but the yahoo IM client differs significantly in capability and support from platform to platform.

I checked Live.com the day it was announced. When it bitched about not using IE (when I tried to login my passport account) , I never visited it back. That is what makes every MS attempt unsuccessful. They can't live with the fact that there is a thing called HTML standard, TCPIP standard and Internet is platform neutral from beginning. They use every opportunity to alienate other OS/Browser users.

If ms does get yahoo, they may find that their desktop monopoly won't help them leverage crap as it has for all the other products they've bought and downgraded. The Internet is turf foreign to their business model and corporate mindset, and buying yahoo won't change that. As if anything could. If this deal goes through, yahoo goes down.

Re:Very odd

[drachenstern]

Seeing as how AT&T and Yahoo! are so in bed together already, is this a way for Microsoft to get into the Telco/Wireless market? Ballmer may be looking to use the Yahoo! brand name to sell the MSN product, but not scrap MSN in the least.

Now that GoogleOS for phones is out, and Google is looking toward WiMax apparently, why would it be impossible for MS to want to get into the DSL business since it's already had Windows Mobile on the market for years now. I realize the discussion about the 700MHz auction looks like Google doesn't actually want to offer WiMax on 700MHz, but rather to reap the benefits of an open network. My point is they are doing a dance where each copies the other shortly after the first does something. (or sometimes not so shortly, but follows suit).

It looks to me like two big superpowers doing what it takes for each to get into the others market.

And now for a way to get modded troll, or whatever: My prediction is that Google purchases AskJeeves! next... [ha!]

Re:Very odd

[Chris Mattern]

Because they *do* dominate the desktop, the place from which internet search and online advertising is done from. And they have a legal history of abusing that monopoly to try to gain market advantage in other areas. "Google? You don't want that. Redirecting page request to www.yahoo.com."

Re:Very odd

[Khuffie]

Either call it MS, or take your childish-ness to the next level and call it M$N. Seriously, you sound like a bitter kid living in his mom's basement when you continuously use M$. Give it up, it does nothing for you but lose whatever point you were trying to make in the first place.

Re:Very odd

[zrq]

• Yahoo! servers use Free BSD
• Flickr servers use Linux/Apache
• del.icio.us servers use Free BSD

Is this kind of merger a good argument for releasing server side software under the GNU Affero GPL ? If these services were using software licensed under something like the GNU Affero GPL, then a company like Microsoft wouldn't be able to go near them.

I know the argument against this form of license is that large players like IBM, Sun and Google would not want to use them, so the projects would find it difficult to get sponsorship. But both Flickr and del.icio.us started as small start-up teams with a cool idea, and became valuable because of the user base they attracted. When they started out they weren't looking to be bought out by a large company, they just wanted to try out their idea and share it with their friends.

If the next cool idea is started by a team who used tools licensed under the GNU Affero GPL, what happens when it gets discovered and attracts a huge user base ? It would be interesting to see which of the big players would be prepared to become involved. A potentially disruptive technology.

Re:Very odd

[rbanffy]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but:

- Dell pretty much invented the large-scale direct sales built-to-order PC business.
- Compaq did invent the PC-compatible - different enough not to get sued out of existence, similar enough it runs the same software
- HP did invent a lot of stuff in the personal computer arena
- Apple did invent lots of stuff in the GUI arena. Have you seen Smalltalk 80 and how Lisa is different from that?

Microsoft did invent a lot too. It's unfair to judge the value of all company's contributions by its current delinquent behaviour (the one you call "smart").

Re:Very odd

[dwye]

> Does M$ really want this deal, or is it simply a
> last ditch attempt by Ballmer to survive.

Ballmer survives as long as his college roommate does, barring a huge mistake.

> Not only does M$ have to bear the cost of buying
> Yahoo but also the cost of virtually writing off MSN.

How profitable has it been, anyway? Maybe this is just a recognition that it hasn't been able to compete, and Yahoo has. Besides, what else is Microsoft to do with its HUGE store of cash? Pay a dividend?

That last bit was sarcastic, if you didn't guess. MS should have been paying regular dividends from the time it went public; its cash reserves have not been used for anything else, and MS was able to grow just on its income. Theoretically, the cash can be better spent or invested by its shareholders.

Re:Very odd

[MrNemesis]

M$ fails in the add market

You've used Excel too?

Re:Very odd

[Firehed]

Not that I'm defending MS for it, but it's easy to expect as much when a software company expands into the services market. Both Google and Yahoo have been services companies from the beginning. It's in their best interest to make them available to as many people as possible, as they're effectively treating their free services as a loss leader to bring in money from their other services (which is to say that searching is free but they profit, at no cost to you, when you click on an ad).

Microsoft, OTOH, started as a software company. Their business model, like that of any other software company, relies on getting people to use that software. Not entirely unlike the services market. What they've attempted to do is use their services as a loss leader to bring in money from their SOFTWARE arm, rather than a different section of their services. In other words, they try to get the end users who are looking for free services to buy their software, which naturally goes against the whole 'free' thing.

Re:Very odd

[Wiseman1024]

The fact that, after countless facelifts and mangling, MSN is still the crap that only gets hits because Microsoft forces its poor users to through MSIE and all their crappy shortcuts and advertisements in their OS?

Re:Very odd

[Khuffie]

It's fun when you're joking around, or if you use it sparingly, but the parent was trying to make a serious point and kept on using M$ like a childish brat, which immediately makes him lose any credibility he would have had.

Re:Very odd

[recoiledsnake]

Is this kind of merger a good argument for releasing server side software under the GNU Affero GPL ? If these services were using software licensed under something like the GNU Affero GPL, then a company like Microsoft wouldn't be able to go near them. Uhh. WTF? How will the Affero GPL prevent migration from FreeBSD/PHP to Win2k3/ASP.NET ?

Re:Very odd

[MrNemesis]

I hate getting dangerously close to two Godwin's in a week, but the whole MS/Ballmer/Google thing is increasingly making me think of a certain German's obsession with a Soviet city on the Volga (but that's what you get from erading too many history books). With $45bn being almost all of MS's cash reserve, it stinks of a desperate and obsessive tactical error for the sole purpose of buying mindshare*.

The fact of the matter is, Google started out with the cards stacked against them - miniscule funding, hard drive arrays built from lego, the inability to modify their own consumer operating system monopoly to point their bundled internet browser at their own search engines/portals - and yet within a few short years google was a household name, and is now the de facto synonym for "looking something up on the internet". It's the kind of success that Ballmer can only dream of - a vastly better product than anything else that was out at the time (fast and lean, IIRC an alien concept in search engines at the time), in the right place at the right moment to catch the new "internet boom" that MS had famously underestimated. If I was the CEO of (supposedly) the worlds' leading technology firm, such upstart behaviour would piss me off too.

As it is, I suspect the deal will be approved (the shareholders will love it and I can't see the ineffectual monpoly police battin gan eyelid over this "because MS isn't a monopoly on the internet") but I don't think it's going to do MS much good in the long run. Yet another brand run into the ground.

* Yes, I'm aware that the Y! purchase would net many other gains (such as the oft-mentioned decrease in FOSS contributions from Y!), but mindshare and search hits seem to be the biggest factor here.

Re:Very odd

[hairyfeet]

And if you are wanting a short version for Microsoft, just use MSFT. Everyone knows what it is, and it doesn't stink of trolls and fanboys. Just my 2c,YMMV.

Re:Very odd

[Spazntwich]

I'm not so sure being a "childish brat" invalidates someone's points. Are ad hominems acceptable debate strategy on slashdot now?

Re:Very odd

[DarthJohn]

Not saying they can pull it off, but...

Sounds like you're saying "Well, they haven't taken over the whole world yet, might as well let them have the bits they don't have already."

Like others have said, the internet is different, Microsoft's tactics haven't worked there yet.

I would tend to agree with you, that letting them expand into a market they aren't currently that successful in, and where they will have stiff competition, might not be a bad thing. I keep going back to "they've got so much and don't behave with what they've got, why allow them to take more?"

Re:Very odd

[cayenne8]

"I think its mostly an attempt for him to show his power. Now someone send him to here [showyourpower.net] instead. However, it would create really interesting battle with Google. They're both becoming really large competitors now."

I know MS is trying to buy Yahoo to compete with Google, but, I'm wondering...can they?

I mean, back in the day, I never used Yahoo to search...it was horrible compared with what was back in the day..I'd try AltaVista or what have you..but, Yahoo just didn't see to be a real 'search engine'. And today with Google present, I don't know anyone that uses anything BUT google to search.

Sure I have an old yahoo email acct...that I really only use to register for things online, and let it get spammed, but, aside from some email, who the hell uses Yahoo much for searching?

How would this acquisition help MS exactly?

Re:Very odd

[HardCase]

Microsoft is smart. They did not get where they are by being idiots.

Yes, and the same can be accurately said for Dick Cheney.

There has to be a corollary to Godwin's Law here...

Re:Very odd

[lilfields]

Uhm, back in the day Yahoo used Google's search index... As much as we joke about Yahoo being nothing compared to Google they get around 2 Billion page views a month, which greatly overpowers Google...if Microsoft can monetize Yahoo properly, well it would be a steal for Microsoft. Meanwhile Google's stock is down 8% today last I checked on the back of missing their earnings and this announcement...Microsoft blew away their earnings, they must be doing something right. Yahoo isn't just a search engine, it's more like the revised AOL...there are talks that Google might look to buy AOL after this move by Microsoft.

Re:Very odd

[meadowsoft]

Microsoft buys Yahoo. Microsoft gets share of AT&T. Microsoft controls only (legal) data network for iPhone. Microsoft controls iPhone?

And this will certainly pass regulation, since even "do no evil" megacorporations like Google need competition from "do most evil" megacorporations like Microsoft.

Re:Very odd

[paving-slab]

Face it, 'M$' is immature and puerile and frankly, stupid.

I agree, they are.

Re:Very odd

[Khuffie]

It's not a personal pet peeve of mine, but of quite a few people. If the Linux community wants to be taken seriously by those not within it, they need to stop their childish behaviour. No one's going to take people claiming that Linux is better than Windows if they say things like M$ in the same sentence.

Re:Very odd

[GaryPatterson]

Yep, Microsoft is fantastically smart. At sales and marketing.

They may have *been* smart, but currently they're showing little sign of that. The marketing for Vista is non-existent and what little there has been has clearly failed to counter the perception of a buggy mass of pain and UAC pop-ups. The Zune is another case in point (squirting? seriously?), and the XB360's red ring of death is almost impossible to spin out of. Yes, all three products are pretty nice in their own right and all are perfectly usable, but the Microsoft marketing team seem either to be missing in action these days.

Contrast to Apple who really are fantastically good at marketing. Look at the hype around the iPhone compared to Windows-based phones. Microsoft managed to get Ballmer on TV to basically lie about the iPhone and that was the best they could do to counter Apple's hype. On a purely marketing level, Microsoft failed utterly to dent the bubble of their competitor's hype. Look at the perception of Apple products versus the perception of Microsoft products. Hell, look at the perception of open source products like Firefox, Linux and Apache compared to their Microsoft counterparts.

I reckon the Microsoft marketing team is dead. What skill they had has long since left and now they're down to interns and a couple of janitors.

Implications for open source

[1sockchuck]

A consolidation of the Microsoft and Yahoo networks could shift a massive amount of infrastructure from open source technologies to Microsoft platforms.Microsoft said that "eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs will improve the financial performance of the combined entity." Yahoo has been a major player in several open soruce projects. Most of Yahoo's infrastructure runs on FreeBSD, and the lead developer of PHP, Rasmus Lerdorf, works as an engineer at Yahoo. Yahoo has also been a major contributor to Hadoop, an open source technology for distributed computing. Data Center Knowledge has more on the infrastructure implications.

Re:Implications for open source

[Constantine XVI]

Don't forget they also own Zimbra, an OSS Outlook/Exchange competitor

Re:Implications for open source

[dotancohen]

Actually, I'd bet that the only reason that MS is buying Yahoo is to finally get Rasmus Lerdorf working for them. You know, since they can't exactly get Linus or RMS very easily.

Re:Implications for open source

[afidel]

According to Alexa Yahoo runs the #1 and #17 websites, MS runs the #4, #5, and #18. I would say they both have plenty of experience running large data centers.

Re:Implications for open source

[BVis]

Or, they're looking to tie him down and make him stop working on PHP... since as we all know ASP.NET is a far far superior technology... and a LOT of Yahoo! code is PHP.

Re:Implications for open source

[tclark]

Fair enough - but my understanding, based on what I've heard from people who work for MSN, is that MS is not particularly good at running large data centers. It's not one of their strengths. And I'm speculating that Yahoo may be better at it because data center ops are more central to their business.

Re:Implications for open source

[Ilgaz]

Fair enough - but my understanding, based on what I've heard from people who work for MSN, is that MS is not particularly good at running large data centers. It's not one of their strengths. And I'm speculating that Yahoo may be better at it because data center ops are more central to their business. MS can't dare to say "FreeBSD looks like the right choice for this job" and use FreeBSD. They have also got locked to Windows in a different way.

They removed a perfectly running FreeBSD from Hotmail and installed (first fake than real) Windows instead. You have seen the results.

Re:Implications for open source

[demopolis]

This is precisely why I almost threw up a little. The greatest and in many ways, superior alternative to exchange, possibly handed over to the one who would love nothing more than to kill or pervert it into oblivion.

Re:Implications for open source

[dotancohen]

A few years ago Yahoo accidentally posted their phpinfo() code for a few minutes. I've still got the page saved, but I'm certain that most of it is outdated by now.

Re:Implications for open source

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Don't forget they also own Zimbra, an OSS Outlook/Exchange competitor

Zimbra was never really an open source player to begin with. They have an open source crippleware version, partially for street cred and partially so they could help themselves to the postfix/mysql/cyrus underpinnings upon which they built their product.

Anyone who has deployed Zimbra knows that if you want the product to actually be useful you have to buy the closed-source "Network Edition." This is precisely what Microsoft would shut down. Microsoft is eager to kill Exchange competitors. They've done it before -- look at how they immediately shut down the now-defunct Hula project once they began pulling the strings at Novell.

If you want open source email and groupware, you should deploy open source email and groupware. The prime contender in this space right now is Citadel, which is 100 percent GPL. End to end. No exceptions, no tiers, no strings, no gimmicks. Similar in spirit to the Ubuntu Linux distribution, the project's very best work is made available to everyone on the same terms.

Microsoft is "innovating" again...

[rinkjustice]

Yahoo confirmed that it has received an unsolicited offer and said that its board would evaluate the proposal, "carefully and promptly in the context of Yahoo's strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders."

Judging by this blurb, I think the answer is going to be a big, fat yes.

Pirate Bay

[rdradar]

Now MS should bid for Pirate Bay aswell!

Letter from Ballmer to Yahoo! Board

[C0deJunkie]

With an astonishing 62% premium price of its current stock price, Microsoft sent this proposal to the Yahoo! Board of Directors. Here's the . Actually, part of the premium price is explainable by the recent sunk of Yahoo! stock.

January 31, 2008

Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Attention: Roy Bostock, Chairman
Attention: Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer

Dear Members of the Board:

I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Microsoft to make a proposal for a business combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. Under our proposal, Microsoft would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Yahoo! common stock for per share consideration of $31 based on Microsoft's closing share price on January 31, 2008, payable in the form of $31 in cash or 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock. Microsoft would provide each Yahoo! shareholder with the ability to choose whether to receive the consideration in cash or Microsoft common stock, subject to pro-ration so that in the aggregate one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be exchanged for shares of Microsoft common stock and one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be converted into the right to receive cash. Our proposal is not subject to any financing condition.

Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008. The implied premium for the operating assets of the company clearly is considerably greater when adjusted for the minority, non-controlled assets and cash. By whatever financial measure you use - EBITDA, free cash flow, operating cash flow, net income, or analyst target prices - this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders.

We believe that Microsoft common stock represents a very attractive investment opportunity for Yahoo!'s shareholders. Microsoft has generated revenue growth of 15%, earnings growth of 26%, and a return on equity of 35% on average for the last three years. Microsoft's share price has generated shareholder returns of 8% during the last one year period and 28% during the last three year period, significantly outperforming the S&P 500. It is our view that Microsoft has significant potential upside given the continued solid growth in our core businesses, the recent launch of Windows Vista, and other strategic initiatives.

Microsoft's consistent belief has been that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! clearly represents the best way to deliver maximum value to our respective shareholders, as well as create a more efficient and competitive company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. In late 2006 and early 2007, we jointly explored a broad range of ways in which our two companies might work together. These discussions were based on a vision that the online businesses of Microsoft and Yahoo! should be aligned in some way to create a more effective competitor in the online marketplace. We discussed a number of alternatives ranging from commercial partnerships to a merger proposal, which you rejected. While a commercial partnership may have made sense at one time, Microsoft believes that the only alternative now is the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! that we are proposing.

In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that "now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discus

Re:Letter from Ballmer to Yahoo! Board

[DaveM753]

Hey, Ballmer: I can help with your goal of making "a more efficient" company. Instead of using buzzwords like "this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders", you could say something like "this is a good deal for your shareholders."

Eliminating unnecessary, extraneous keystrokes on a corporate scale represents a compelling efficiency realization event for your shareholders.

So there. :P

Re:Letter from Ballmer to Yahoo! Board

[u38cg]

Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!'s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

In other words, Microsoft is putting them on notice that they intend to take Yahoo over, and if the board does not agree then it will be a hostile takeover. In other words, if you don't agree, your job is toast :)

No bad thing: Yahoo has been floundering badly for some time (well, ever since Google arrived, if we're honest) and needs some serious work before it has any chance of being an effective competitor to Google.

Re:Letter from Ballmer to Yahoo! Board

[Anonymous Coward]

Brief analysis of some key points:

1) Microsoft is indicating that they are challenging Google "Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. ". However, This statement should apply to Microsoft. Microsoft is the 800lb gorilla yet they are making it sound like they are a bit player and Google is the gorilla - more management doublespeak.

2) Microsoft is indicating they would replace all non-Microsoft at Yahoo with Microsoft technology with phrases like "combination enables synergies related to scale economics". This is great market speak for lay off all that oppose the Microsoft initiatives and move to a common, Microsoft-centric platform.

3) Microsoft wants their search as, I guess, MSN has not been effective: "single search index".

4) Phrases like "eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs" are management speak for layoffs, firing middle management at Yahoo, moving to Microsoft's management and benefit structure, and similar. In my experience through many corporate buyouts, all are very negative to the employees at the company being purchases - Yahoo. However, Microsoft attempts to temper this with "offer significant retention packages to your engineers, key leaders and employees", which is more corporate double-speak.

5) The "exceptional display and search advertising capabilities" sounds like a tighter integration with Microsoft's technology, i.e., Windows and MSIE. Maybe they want to have tighter integration between Vista and their ad revenue stream. Could "new advertising platform capabilities" indicate ad-supported Vista (get a free ad when you log in, when you fire up Office, etc.)?

Overall, it sounds like Microsoft is saying that Yahoo should sell to them because Yahoo didn't meet their goals, the combined company can better challenge Google, and Yahoo has tech that Microsoft needs.

Re:Letter from Ballmer to Yahoo! Board

[RevWaldo]

You left out the post-it note on the letter - "Jeffry, Roy - We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Remember - I know where you all live."

So This Means...

[flyneye]

So this means people will begin avoiding Yahoo with the same impunity they avoid MSN?
Theoretically Microsoft could buy up anything good about the internet so we can all shut our computers down and settle in w/a trip to the library and a good book.

Re:So This Means...

[Ilgaz]

So this means people will begin avoiding Yahoo with the same impunity they avoid MSN?
Theoretically Microsoft could buy up anything good about the internet so we can all shut our computers down and settle in w/a trip to the library and a good book. I am sure Yahoo already lost a lot of users just because of the rumor/bid. I actually checked if closing/purging Yahoo account is still easy and my account exists there since 1998. Guess why that account was opened first time? Hotmail got acquired by MS and I was one of first to ask if there is a way to close my account ;) Moved to Yahoo the day it was announced.

so....

[mahju]

I'm not a MS fanboy, so I have my doubts that they will pull this off well, but...

I can see how this will work (and takes fight to google a bit more). However there will be a load of sites now that will overlap (e.g. Hotmail & Yahoo Mail)... quesiton is, will this mean a lot of consolidation or will they stay diverse and unique???

Priceless quote.

[jwietelmann]

From the article:

"Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player, who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition," Microsoft said.

Sound like anyone you know?

Oh, no, Mr. Bill! Leave my Yahoo! Alone!!

[jo42]

What would this mean to Yahoo E-mail? Or Flickr? Or the great web developer toolkits Yahoo has release? Just imagine the migration of all Yahoo services over to Windows Server. Unless they leave it alone, whatever Microsoft does would be the kiss of death to what Yahoo is.

Thankyou Microsoft

[arcite]

Now I'll be able to get my Britney Spears fix from one source instead of two.

The only thing that matters: EMAIL

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I have 10 years of email in yahoo. If MS takes over, what then? Will they force everyone into hotmail accounts? I think I'm going to be spending a few hours every night downloading and saving my email off line.

Interesting that - imagine building a business using online apps, only to have your supplier go under and get bought out in some botched effort, and then lose history...

I think there are a number of serious implications in this MS/Yahoo deal. The monopoly aspect is actually the least problematic: the loss of history is a greater problem.

But then, maybe the Feds under a Democratic Admin will say "nuh uh!" and kill the deal...

RS

Re:The only thing that matters: EMAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

A good portion of the value of Yahoo! to Microsoft is in their customers. I am pretty sure that they will make all efforts to keep the customers. Throwing away Yahoo! customer's data sounds like the last thing they have in mind. They might be greedy but they're not stupid.

Re:The only thing that matters: EMAIL

[jollyreaper]

I have 10 years of email in yahoo. If MS takes over, what then? Will they force everyone into hotmail accounts? I think I'm going to be spending a few hours every night downloading and saving my email off line.

Interesting that - imagine building a business using online apps, only to have your supplier go under and get bought out in some botched effort, and then lose history... Dude, that's the first thing I thought when I heard of "application service providers." For starters, I hated the industry since they couldn't find their own fucking acronym, they had to keep getting everyone confused with the other ASP.

Here's a good example I just found out about, an asp going after doctor's offices. In the last few I've been in, they're still running apps off of ancient LAN's, some are even DOS-based. All they need is a simple client-tracking and medical billing database and there's not been much need to upgrade for the past 20 years. That's no different from the cash registers you see in a lot of stores that are still connecting to some ancient computer in the storeroom and are running dumb terminals up at the register. Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They could conceivably keep running such a system until the hardware is no longer available on the used market.

Now compare that to an asp doing the same thing and there's just loads of trouble.

1. They get bought out by Microsoft or someone and the product is borked. Well, if that happens with stand-alone 3.0 then you just don't bother upgrading to 4.0 when it comes out. If it's an asp, you get upgraded whether you like it or not.

2. Do they really do backups the way they're supposed to? How many times do we hear of big companies who should know better royally screwing the pooch on backups and/or security.

3. What if the company goes out of business? Again, you can keep running stand-alone 3.0 for years after the parent croaks but that isn't happening with asp 3.0.

I just don't understand how nobody else is put off by these real and extraordinary risks.

And then there were two

[fictionpuss]

Considering that internet search and online advertising are exactly the places they don't dominate, I don't see why regulators would object.

Maybe, but the possibility of there only being two main search engines out there, with the next largest competitor Ask.com at a paltry 4.1%, is fairly scary.

Re:And then there were two

[Azul]

Maybe, but the possibility of there only being two main search engines out there, with the next largest competitor Ask.com at a paltry 4.1%, is fairly scary.

How is that any different from there only being two main search engines out there, with the next largest competitor MSN at a paltry 5.33%?

Re:And then there were two

[Captain Splendid]

Do people really use Windows Live Search or MSN search?

On purpose?

Yes and yes, considering it's the default on all Windows boxes. To regular people, a search box==a search box.

Re:And then there were two

[paeanblack]

Could you please explain where search isn't good enough? Google works well enough for me (and just about everyone I know). I've never really sat back and thought, "Damn, I wish there was some better search engine out there."

This is when I will be impressed...

http://pics.nerdnirvana.org/d/1406-1/myhouse_google_com.jpg

The Empire Strikes Back

[QuatermassX]

It was only a matter of time before Microsoft decided to try to get a final regulatory pass from the Bush administration before the inauguration of a less-sympathetic President in 2009.

This deal makes a lot of sense for Microsoft (sort of - I'm assuming Yahoo!'s ad business really is worth the cash), but I can't see how this is at all good for Yahoo! or the marketplace at large.

Is the plan to re-brand everything as Microsoft Live! (keeping the exclamation mark) - thus destroying pretty much the only thing Yahoo! has going for it - brand recognition?

I would be very sad to see Yahoo! and their odd collection of services get subsumed and destroyed in a merger with Microsoft. Yes, I'm assuming much of Yahoo!'s tech portfolio would be wiped away or left to die - this wouldn't be the sort of merger Adobe engineered with Macromedia by a long shot.

Re:The Empire Strikes Back

[WaZiX]

This deal makes a lot of sense for Microsoft (sort of - I'm assuming Yahoo!'s ad business really is worth the cash), but I can't see how this is at all good for Yahoo! or the marketplace at large. The question is not whether it's a good deal for Yahoo!, the question is whether it's a good deal for Yahoo! shareholders... Anyways, paying a 62% premium on the market value to just let yahoo! die out seems like a pretty bad deal to me, so I very much doubt that Microsoft will just let the Yahoo! brand die out...

flickr

[suzerain]

Shit, now this means the photos I have on flickr are going to be owned by Microsoft? Oy vey. Can we have a "good photo sharing site" thread now so I can find the alternatives?

Re:flickr

[zrq]

Picassa runs pretty well in WINE

I'm not looking for another heavy weight image handling application. Got quite a few of those already, and all available GPL or similar. Flickr was cool because they published their webservice API, allowing others to create simple image uploaders or plugins for existing applications.

But for me, Flickr's main attraction was the ability to share images using a Creative Commons license. It means I can use other peoples images as resources in my websites, which in turn encourages me to share some of my images with the community. I haven't see an alternative that promotes Creative Commons in the same way that Flickr does.

I don't use Flickr to show off my images in a web album, I use it to share (attribution, non-commercial) my images with others who have shared their images with the community.
I'm not sure if Microsoft would understand that.

Bad move that will be nixed by regulators anyway

[surfingmarmot]

Google has 77% market share in search while Yahoo has 16% and Microsoft a little under 4%. If Microsoft and Yahoo brands alone can't get any better share than that, I don;t see how a merger is going to help. Mergers make sense for this kind of deal for only major two reasons: 1) increase efficiency or capital for business model that is failing only because of lack of it or 2) to take a strong brand move it in to a new market with new technology. Neither is the case here: both brands are well-known already and in the market. So neither is bringing anything to the other they didn't already have. There is no synergy here--just a combination of two losing armies that will have too many redundant generals and soldiers and are desperate. The market will become more efficient with this "natural" consolidation but I cannot see an increase in competitive position for either of them. In any event, odds are that the EU won't let this pass muster anyway. Maybe even the DOJ will arouse from its deep slumber on this one.

Re:Zimbra

[Constantine XVI]

Just in case you just now got out of the DeLorean, Yahoo bought Zimbra back in September.

Microsoft's monopoly money...

[QuietLagoon]

... accumulated through the illegal leveraging of their desktop monopoly. Ever wonder where all the money from the over-priced MS Windows and MS Office franchises goes?

Microsoft is looking to put google out of business.

Irony?

[CheckeredFlag]

"Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player, who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition," Microsoft said. "Together, Microsoft and Yahoo can offer a credible alternative."

Am I the only one who sees the ironic humor of this statement?

Re:Is this innovation?

[everphilski]

One nice thing about Live.com, at least in my humble opinion, is that people haven't gamed the hell out of it. People have SEO'd the crap out of meaningless pages on google, so within the first five to ten results for any given search, I find crap. I haven't seen that with Live.

I try and mix it up, I still use Google a lot but unless they find a way to get people to stop gaming the system, I think Google will have some problems. Seeing pages filled with banner ads in your first ten results for an engineering or computer science topic is disheartening.

I contacted the FTC to complain

[div_2n]

I wrote to the FTC to complain because since Yahoo now owns Zimbra, this means that Microsoft will have the ability to kill the only serious competitor to their Exchange platform.

I know about the other solutions, but none are as feature complete IMHO as Zimbra. Two words: Blackberry integration.

Re:But...why?

[maxume]

They think that they can improve management at Yahoo! to the extent that, over an extended period, they will make more money than the deal is costing them.

It's tangentially about putting Google out of business; not for the emotional satisfaction or to prove they are better, but because Google makes a lot of money, and that is something Microsoft likes to do, so they tend to always be looking for ways to do it.

Re:nice to see

[Kamokazi]

Yahoo is generally quite a bit more prominent than Google in Asia, and there are quite a few people there. Microsoft has a lot of money to throw around, and if they can make Google insignificant over there, that limits the markets Google can grow in and may pose some serious problems. But it'll take some time before we see any significant marketshare changes I think, and anything can happen. Microsoft might have the big money, but you never want to underestimate Google.

Says what he means

[SgtChaireBourne]

...Instead of using buzzwords like "this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders", you could say something like "this is a good deal for your shareholders."

These MBA types may be all fat and bluster, but often let the truth slip out anyway. Don't read more into his statement than is there. Sure, if you were in charge, you'd be working on deals that would be good for your shareholders.

But that's not what he's about and that's not what this deal is about. "Value realization" is an obfuscated way of saying "extending our desktop monopoly to web searches" and "locking web users into our proprietary protocols and technologies".

I for one...

[Zarf]

I for one... welcome our new yodeling software overlords.

Hmmm.....

[8127972]

In this story:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/299523

Ballmer makes this comment:

" Signalling Microsoft doesn't intend to take no for an answer, Ballmer wrote that the company "reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo's shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.""

My question is how many chairs does that involve?

Re:Is Yahoo the #1 destination?

[afidel]

Alexa still has Yahoo as #1, but there are a ton of google sites in the top 50 so collectively they probably outrank Yahoo.com.

Re:Farewell Yahoo

[zrq]

All my bookmarks are in del.icio.us :-(

Del.icio.us was acquired by Yahoo! on December 9, 2005.

All my images are in Flickr :-(

In March 2005, Yahoo! Inc. acquired Ludicorp and Flickr

If I knew they were going to hand over all my data to Microsoft I wouldn't have signed up.
*sigh* time to start looking for alternative services.

Love vs. Hate

[ablair]

For a heavy internet user like me, this news comes as a crisis of conscience. Having been a loyal Yahoo! Mail user for over a decade (the world's largest webmail service), and having so much of my online presence on Yahoo's comprehensive services - Contacts, Flickr, online document storage, Messenger, Y!Finance, Groups, (the list is endless) - I am obvioulsy deeply loyal to an independent Yahoo! ...But one reason that I've allowed Yahoo! to gradually become such an important part of my life is that it's NOT Microsoft. The same sentiments are felt by millions: will loyalty to a very useful Yahoo! be enough to overcome our distaste for Microsoft and the inevitable changes a takeover will entail? This is not insignificant nor a "religious platform issue" - note how Hotmail has fallen from #1 spot in email users after the MS takeover, for example. Yahoo! webmail alone reportedly accounts for 255 million of the world's 543 million webmail accounts, and webmail is only one of a vast range of internet & open source items Yahoo! is involved in.

Yahoo News itself is reporting this as a hostile takeover, but seemingly with Microsoft willing to pay such a large premium, one that will be hard to resist. It's interesting that Microsoft is willing to use up almost all of it's cash reserves for this takeover, largely sacrificing it's flexibility to make strategic investments in the future. But from the perspective of Yahoo! users the more important question is whether a MS takeover will turn Yahoo! into tepid porridge? And will the long, slow decline of Microsoft now drag Yahoo! down too?

Re:Love vs. Hate

[crush]

For me the immediate worry is that Yahoo's developers will be pulled off neat projects like YUI. Yes, it's BSD licensed so it'd be possible for other people to continue it, but Yahoo! have hired some awesome people and allowed them to do good work in this area. I'd hate it if Microsoft got to kill off a good department because it competed with Silverlight or whatever .NET crap they way to push tomorrow.

Re:Love vs. Hate

[ablair]

It is incredible what the world would look like, if we applied this logic to everything else in our life. [...] How much worry, how much concern, how much of your life does it take you to think about this to a point where you make it part of your life to avoid a specific company, Microsoft in this case.

Not much. I just avoid it where I can, that's all. Just like I don't like vanilla, so I tend to avoid vanilla foods & French vanilla coffee, etc. Neither has really affected me that much, and I definitely do what I want to do. In fact I avoid them both because that's exactly what I want to do.

Re:Love vs. Hate

[cmacb]

But from the perspective of Yahoo! users the more important question is whether a MS takeover will turn Yahoo! into tepid porridge? And will the long, slow decline of Microsoft now drag Yahoo! down too?

I certainly hope (and think) so!

I was a loyal and early user of both Yahoo and Microsoft products. There is nothing like a loyal user scorned.

Microsoft's version to version bloat, buggyness, and most of all, attempts to lock one product inextricably to another, plus their habit of acquiring other companies who's products I used, only to simply discontinue them or render them unrecognizable -- all of this, finally, drove me away in disgust. I gave up my career in order to avoid having to deal with MS crap.

What puzzles me is how you (and others) cannot see that Yahoo is made in the same mold as Microsoft already.

I've been (unfortunately) involved in some Yahoo Groups for a long while and countless times have had to explain the tortured process for an outsider to sign up for Yahoo Groups, involving them not only giving up (or faking) a lot of personal information, but also agreeing to take a Yahoo e-mail address as part of the process. How many of the claimed bazzillion Yahoo e-mail addresses are (as I suspect) mostly unused? I'd guess a lot. I had one guy tell me he never could remember his Yahoo sign-on, so every time he wanted to check the messages in the group he would just sign up for Yahoo all over again. They stuff is so crappy it makes me sick to even think about it.

Do you use Flickr without paying the premium fee? I can't imagine why anyone would. They keep everything you upload, but hide all but the last 200 picture from you. This is the most retarded scheme I've ever heard of. They must have the largest collection of unaccessible information on Earth! To help them out I just continue to upload files. I keep the pictures I actually want to view on Google. Flickr has had a lot of service outages, and for me is often painfully slow. Is it any wonder?

How can you stand all the stupid animated graphics that Yahoo throws at you? Half my screen real-estate and 90 percent of my bandwidth is used up with this silly junk when I go to a Yahoo page.

I know only one or two people who use Yahoo as their primary e-mail account, and maybe not coincidentally these are the people who don't seem to have their e-mail act totally together, don't respond to important messages, can't keep their CCs and BCCs straight, and since they are universally Windows users, are often having serious computer problems anyway ("Sorry, I haven't been able to check my e-mail in three weeks, my computer keeps locking up, got any ideas?").

These two companies are a match made in heaven. I wish them the greatest of happiness, and I hope they alienate a few billion more users along the way so that the rest of us can stop playing the role of free tech support for them.

Fate of Flickr?

[MisterSquid]

If this deal goes through, expect to hear a gigantic sucking sound coming from the direction of Flickr.

Re:Fate of Flickr?

[Chabil Ha']

That was my first thought. They can have the portal, the ad business, but PLEASE! excise Flickr from the deal...I'm kinda sorta glad that I haven't based my photo collection with them, but their service has been really nice for sharing photos with other people. Guess it's time to go some other place to host my photos...

Re:Fate of Flickr?

[MrNemesis]

Are you kidding? A Silverlight-only, ActiveX-only-upload Flickr would absolutely *rock*! I can't think of a better way to gain marketshare.

Re:Fate of Flickr?

[JavaLord]

Are you kidding? A Silverlight-only, ActiveX-only-upload Flickr would absolutely *rock*! I can't think of a better way to gain marketshare.

The real key would be to make it IE 7 only. That way people would only experience Flickr with a top notch browser, thus enhancing the Flickr brand!

Re:Fate of Flickr?

[trosenbl]

Hello.

I work at Microsoft. I am interested in your business ideas. Your ideas clearly demonstrate an in-depth understanding of our marketing and branding focus.

Please swing by Microsoft HQ anytime next week and we will chat.

Re:nice to see

[SoulRider]

Microsoft may have the big money, but Google has the big brains. This ought to be interesting.

Re:nice to see

[nbharatvarma]

I cannot comment on the entirety of Asia, but I am an Indian and from a state called Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad, in case you have heard of it). We speak a language called 'Telugu' here. I doubt if more than 1 or 2 percent of the world has heard of it.
The amount of Internet penetration here is very very less, apart from Hyderabad. Google is so popular that it is part of our songs [Like Bollywood, which are Hindi films, we have our own industry of sorts with Telugu films and yes they all have songs].
When a movie song has Google in it, it is because the average movie-goer knows what it is.
Google has become a part of our language. The same with some other regional languages include the National language Hindi.

Re:Going to Hotmail Hell

[MtViewGuy]

Hotmail has been really bad in the past but the current version of Microsoft Live! Hotmail is actually pretty good. I think Microsoft--if they want good PR--should keep Yahoo! running as a separate subsidiary instead of integrating it into Microsoft itself

Perhaps

[hrieke]

the real reason to buy Yahoo is to kill it.
I can see this in a two prong attack to get to Google.
First, by buying Yahoo, they get access to all of Yahoo's users which will be migrated over to MSN. This will give MS the strength to talk to Madison Ave and have the technology that is good enough.

Second, MS will then offer cut rate advertisement (or perhaps a new click model which is deeply discounted), which will force Google to react or lose market share.
Remember that Google is primarily a advertisement firm with some killer search technology, not a technology firm that also does ads- so to use a Ballmer quote from the past, to kill a company, you "cut out the air supply". Google's air is adverts.

Finally, this will cut into Yahoo's open source projects; just a little benefit for MS, but still, it's there.

To a monopolist, $40b is cheep money for killing 2 birds with one stone.

Now, will it happen?
That's another question.

Re:Perhaps

[RoadWarriorX]

Second, MS will then offer cut rate advertisement (or perhaps a new click model which is deeply discounted), which will force Google to react or lose market share. Remember that Google is primarily a advertisement firm with some killer search technology, not a technology firm that also does ads- so to use a Ballmer quote from the past, to kill a company, you "cut out the air supply". Google's air is adverts.

Bzzz. Wrong. Flawed logic. Technology brings cool applications. Cool applications bring users. Users drive advertising. Not one person I know uses Google for their see their latest "cool ads", then realize that there is some silly search engine there. Google's "air" is search technology by it's own admission. It is the consumer base using a product or service, and through clever and non-interfering advertising gives profitability. Without customers using a product, click model nets zero revenue.

If Yahoo is integrated into Microsoft as tightly as I think it would be, then I agree with you that Yahoo is dead. MSN is already be a better portal than Yahoo anyway, IMO. I don't use either on a regular basis, so take that what it is worth. However, I think that Microsoft will have sunk 44 billion into something that gives them little competitive advantage. There no technology advantage, no advantage for consumers, and little net financial advantage even with a boost in advertising.

Forget Search ...It's Services & Advertising

[ablair]

The press & people here seem to think this is no big deal because MS Search is pathetic and Yahoo Search is nowhere as popular as it used to be, at a distant #2 in the market. But who cares about Search? The real value in this deal for Microsoft is in the armada of Yahoo! services and online advertising properties. 88% of Yahoo! revenues come from marketing services; it's also the world's largest webmail service (one of may services). It is involved in a vast range or internet technologies, standards groups, open source projects, and more. The list of important internet technologies, projects and markets Yahoo! is involved in is long and attractive. For Microsoft, this is definitely a strategic acqusition and is reflected in how much they are willing to pay to get it.

Winners: Microsoft, Y!shareholders.
Losers: Yahoo!, Y!users, the internet, open source, competition.

Re:Is this innovation?

[ransom1982]

Just thought I would test your theory. Live.com search for Python Google search for Python. Google shows no bad results, Live.com has Python.com $40 signup that links to a porn site. That has been my typical experience. I don't know what tech terms you've been searching for, but Google has always had relevant links for me on the first page.

This is bad on many levels

[mlwmohawk]

OK, Yahoo isn't a small company. This isn't like other acquisitions MS has made. This is more like a Compaq buying DEC. Think about it, Yahoo is sort of losing against Google. So Microsoft is buying a faltering competitor to (a) merge income and (2) reduce the competition by one player.

That makes the game Microsoft vs Google.

Now, can Microsoft really take on Yahoo without destroying it? Will it be like when Compaq bought DEC? Or will it work? Yahoo is all FreeBSD, the engineers there HATE and laugh at Microsoft and its products. I know for a fact that moral will sink and people will leave Yahoo.

There is something different going on here. FAST, Fast Search and Transfer, previous owners of www.alltheweb.com, a search engine competitor to google in the late 1990s split from its search engine business which it sold to overture, which was bought by Yahoo. Microsoft is currently in the process of buying FAST, and next on the agenda is Yahoo. Bringing back together, the two halves of the old company.

It may be a coincidence, but it is curious. Why would Microsoft buy technology that it arguably already has or could build cheaper? What is it they are out to get? Are there patents or other "intellectual property" owned collectively by the two parts of FAST that they can use to sue Google?

Also, Yahoo is a HUGE open source user/contributor. A purchase by Microsoft will almost certainly reduce the number and amount of contribution to the open source environment.

Lastlt, isn't this *exactly* what the Sherman act was designed to prevent?

Re:Zimbra - Did they screw themselves

[andydread]

The Zimbra faux open source license (ZPL) now the (YPL) a perversion of the Apache license prohibits the removal of their logo from the source in the form of an "Attribution Clause" This logo is trademarked. Yahoo now owns the trademarks and now perhaps Microsoft will on a successful purchase of Yahoo. This begs the question. Can Zimbra be forked? I think the answer is no. Because you cannot remove the logo as the license states and MS will presumably now own the trademarks and all rights to that code. If this is the case then it would seem as if the Zimbra people are out on their ears. without their code or trademarks.

True open source aka free software preserves the right to fork. With badgeware you are prohibited from removing the trademarks and logos from the source. Hence you cannot fork it. This is BAD. If they remove the logo requirement from their license and leave the attribution requirement then that would be no problem because customers could still fork and maintain attribution to the originators which is what the GPL allows anyway. Zimbra chose to screw the customer by using an true open source license (Apache License) and corrupting it by forcing you not to remove the trademarked logo. So as to prevent forking and therefore prevent free market competition that open source fosters. This is why true OPEN source software like Debian and Linux and any GPL sw cannot be bought away from freedom and the free market.

As one that has deployed it in a few sites this is really disturbing to me. A tough lesson to learn and this will be the last time I get bitten by faux open source licenses.

Knee Jerk Reaction

[Guanine]

1. Can anyone imagine how this purchase could possibly work? I can only see the finances of the two companies united... not the brands themselves.
2. There are probably a bunch of boardroom guys drooling over "synergistic cross-brand opportunities" right now. Bleugh.
3. At least this story wasn't submitted by "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property". If he's so great, bring him on as an editor already.

I'm confused...

[Crazyscottie]

Reminds me of the Sony root kit debacle, the blogger who released the information about the root kit, his association with M$ and that M$ was fully aware of the root kit well before it's release and for some odd reason the release of the information about the root kit coincided with the launch of the PS3.

The Sony rootkit debacle began in October 2005. The PS3 was released in November 2006. How, exactly, did these two events coincide?

Re:I'm confused...

[MooseTick]

"The Sony rootkit debacle began in October 2005. The PS3 was released in November 2006. How, exactly, did these two events coincide?"

On a scale spanning all of time, 13 months is but a whisper.

Omens bad, they are

[Wylfing]

When you scramble up the letters in Microsoft and Yahoo it spells Hot Roomy Fiasco. That can't be good.

Wait, it can also spell Ciao, Frosty Homo. That's not so good either.

slashdot runs on MS Vista

[hostyle]

Slashdot has detected an incoming news submission.

If you started this action, continue.

        [Continue] [Cancel]

User Account Control helps stop unauthorized changes to your news stories.

Question - Why is EU approval needed?

[thirty-seven]

Why do EU regulators get any say over whether Microsoft can purchase Yahoo? Does, say, Canada also have the right to block Microsoft from purchasing Yahoo? Could the US block BMW from purchasing Daimler?

This is based on the assumption that Microsoft and Yahoo are both incorporated in the United States.

Note: I am not a U.S. person, nor do I have a US-rocks, EU-sucks attitude.

Re:Question - Why is EU approval needed?

[jas79]

because they do business in the EU and they have subsidiaries in the EU.

Flickr deletes anti-Microsoft threads

[quinnanya]

As of a half hour ago, there were multiple anti-Microsoft threads in the help forum and elsewhere. Now they're nowhere to be found...

Really?

[ergo98]

I think some moderators are confused about the scoring -- you are supposed to apply a -1 for every instance of "M$". Given that the above has a full NINE (9) of them (we get the point - you're caught in a 1998 time warp where you think M$ is at all humorous/insightful/interesting), clearly it should be testing Slashdot's minimum karma.

Reminds me of the Sony root kit debacle, the blogger who released the information about the root kit, his association with M$ and that M$ was fully aware of the root kit well before it's release and for some odd reason the release of the information about the root kit coincided with the launch of the PS3.

This just blows me away. Yes, Microsoft, in concert with some nefarious blogger, is to blame for "$ony" taking over people's PC with a rootkit.

And that's ignoring that your conspiratorial "$ony the victim" timeline is just completely wrong.

Yahoo will fit in nicely

[huckamania]

or maybe I should say 'not so nicely'. Yahoo has stolen as much as any company out there. I remember the ladder system they used for Yahoo games that they decided to replace lock, stock and barrel with their own, eerily similar, ladder system. There are plenty of other examples of Yahoo partnering with a third party all the way until they have their own in place. I'm not saying they're evil, just that they are not without their own moral grey areas.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black.

[Khuffie]

The M$ moniker is perfectly legitimate and weakens nobody's position in the slightest.

Arguments are weakened by false or inaccurate premises, writing M$ gives a perfect idea of the bias of the poster

Durr. Those two statements contradict each other. Yes, writing M$ DOES give a perfect idea of the bias of the poster...that is, a blind Microsoft hater that takes any opportunity to criticize them.

How will this affect GOOG stock?

[PRR]

Anyone watching GOOG? (Ironically on Yahoo Finance)

As of hign noon EST it's down about 8.5%

WHY stick with Flickr?

[SethJohnson]

Guess it's time to go some other place to host my photos...

It was time to go some place other than flickr when they instituted the 200 photo limit on free accounts. They also don't advertise that limit up front- you find out about it only after you've got an investment in using their site.

Seth

Will MS buy #2 and make it #3 like them?

[JoeCommodore]

Years ago Microsoft said they would be the #1 search engine and set up Microsoft Network using their best and brightest tech staff and the cutting edge of Microsoft technology innovation, they released many new features bought up some services and integrated them and the best they have achieved is #3 and they seem to be stuck there.

Before MS buys something more successful than they are - I think they should do some serious introspection as to why exactly they were not able to achieve such a lofty goal on their own given how much more value they are (in their words) to the customer. If they just buy #2 there's probably a good chance they will sink back to #3 again as they integrate their #3 ideas on a business operating at #2.

I would think if they really wanted to be #2 they should pay Yahoo to 'buy MSN' and let Yahoo figure out what is wrong with their #3 problem and overlay the staff, technology and features that could make MSN #2.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black.

[Blakey Rat]

In what way is "M$" perfectly legitimate?

Look, you have a few choices:
1) You can type Microsoft like a normal non-cretin
2) You can type the stock-ticker abbreviation, MSFT
3) You can type the accepted acronym, MS

All three of those options work. M$ isn't any of them.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black.

[vhogemann]

When you're talking about the Microsft's evil twin from the mirror universe... See, an $ is just a S with a goatee.

The only problem is that M$ actually makes money on OpenSource software and services, and it's founder is a bald and well shaved Robert Stalman, AKA M$ Bob. ;-)

Implications of 2008 US Presidential Race

[Golgafrinchan]

Remember when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered that Microsoft be broken up into 3 separate companies back in 1999? Microsoft appealed the verdict, Bush won the 2000 election, and suddenly the Department of Justice had a strong Republican (i.e., pro-big business) bent. The result is that the original judgment on Microsoft was thrown out, and they instead were served with a comparative slap on the wrist.

I expect something similar to happen here. Right now, the Department of Justice is unlikely to enforce antitrust law too strictly, and so at this point in time I don't expect the DoJ would have a problem with this acquisition. However, if Clinton or Obama wins the presdiency 10 months from now and this acquisition still isn't completed, don't be surprised if the DoJ starts looking at this much more closely and blocks the acquisition.

Re:Implications of 2008 US Presidential Race

[Jack9]

Why would anyone utter the term, anti-trust when talking about an MS/Yahoo merger. Neither come close to control of a market ANYWHERE. Combined, they equal nothing special.

The FreeBSD / MySQL migration will be fun...

[Builder]

...to watch from a great distance!

I remember how many goes it took to get hotmail off of FreeBSD, and I expect Yahoo! to be even harder.

For the sake of innovation...

[ikarous]

I hope this deal will not go through. I use Google's products over Yahoo's as a matter of taste; I find Yahoo's pages too cluttered to be aesthetically pleasing. Be that as it may, the last thing I want to see is Yahoo going under; which, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this deal would amount to in the long run. Microsoft has a long history of buying out innovative companies and products and subsequently turning them into Passport/Live/insert-buzzword-here clones with vastly inferior functionality than their previous iterations. If Microsoft buys Yahoo! and slowly runs it into the ground, slowly replacing Yahoo's key engineers with Microsoft people, what major competitor will be left to offer (real) innovative competition to Google? I respect all the good that Google has done the Internet as a whole, but I am not blind to the fact that the corporation is now a publicly traded company, and thus subject to the whims of shareholders. If Google's most threatening competitor becomes stagnant, or even regressive, how will Google justify research and development costs to its shareholders? Maybe I'm wrong and Microsoft will retain Yahoo!'s management and employees more or less as they are, but I doubt it. I see this deal as injurious to innovation in OS-independent web technologies.

Competition

[PPH]

I hope the Commerce Dept. considers the following:

Most of the conversation has been about reducing the number of search engines from three to two. But for some businesses seeking on-line advertising, this merger will reduce the number of choices from two to one. If you are a business in competition with either Microsoft, one of its 'Channel Partners', lackeys, or other minions, MSN is simply not a viable option. I seriously doubt Microsoft will allow Yahoo to escape its 'One World, One Program' marketing vision.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black. Or not.

[mysticgoat]

In what way is "M$" perfectly legitimate?

Look, you have a few choices:

1. You can type Microsoft like a normal non-cretin
2. You can type the stock-ticker abbreviation, MSFT
3. You can type the accepted acronym, MS

All three of those options work. M$ isn't any of them

No. "M$" is a perfectly cromulent disambiguation. Otherwise, we would have trouble distinguishing between
MS==Metric System
MS==Multiple Sclerosis
MS==Mississippi (the state)
MS==Manuscript
MS==Master of Science
And the list goes on and on...

But in contemporary global society, there is only one M$.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black.

[webweave]

...or you can call them Micro Soft as they used to call themselves. ...or you can use the Chinese symbols for tiny and flaccid as they used to use in China.

Just don't call them an innovator.

Re:Pot, kettle, very black.

[greenbird]

Yes, writing M$ DOES give a perfect idea of the bias of the poster...that is, a blind Microsoft hater that takes any opportunity to criticize them.

Why does it mean he's a blind Microsoft hater? He could very well be a knowledgeable Microsoft hater like the rest of us who have to suffer through the nightmare of Microsoft because they managed to get control of the market despite there being much better alternatives out there that the knowledgeable Microsoft haters have been using for years. The bias is likely for very good, supportable reasons.