Yahoo Ends Talks With Microsoft, Embraces Google Instead

snydeq writes with a story from InfoWorld which says that "Yahoo has ended its talks with Microsoft and is instead nearing an agreement with Google. Yahoo's purported reason for breaking off the talks? That Microsoft was only interested in purchasing Yahoo's search business, not all of the company. 'Such a transaction would not be consistent with the company's view of the converging search and display marketplaces, would leave the company without an independent search business that it views as critical to its strategic future and would not be in the best interests of Yahoo stockholders,' the company said in a statement. The deal with Google allegedly involves Yahoo's search advertising business. The move likely will draw more ire from Icahn and may in fact remain part of the elaborate poker game between the two companies. Microsoft said this alternative transaction remains on the table and did not confirm that talks between it and Yahoo have concluded." Update: 06/12 23:58 GMT by T : CWmike writes "Just hours after saying it ended talks with Microsoft, Yahoo announced that it will start running advertising from Google alongside Yahoo search results. Yahoo expects the deal, which has a 10-year term, to generate $250 million to $450 million in operating cash flow during the first 12 months."

Comments

LULZ

[Recovering Hater]

Because that is just want Microsoft wants to hear. Yahoo is teaming with Google. Burn baby burn.

Re:LULZ

[Recovering Hater]

Oh and also, cue the chair jokes in 3,2,1...

Re:LULZ

[WilyCoder]

Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?

I'm not a MS supporter (or troll), that was an honest question...

Re:LULZ

[Prof.Phreak]

but now Microsoft only has 1 target. yahoo has just about admitted that google has won the search business.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. But a GOOHOO! monopoly... then we'd need to worry.

Re:LULZ

[UnknowingFool]

But does having one target now help MS in any way? They knew Google was their main competition. If they could beat Google, they could beat Yahoo. The problem was that they couldn't beat Google. Maybe as a consolation they could beat Yahoo but going for 2nd place is admitting defeat too.

Re:LULZ

[ady1]

Monoply: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ... Last time I checked, Microsoft does has a market share and is an alternative, although mostly crap.

Re:LULZ

[Chyeld]

If it allowed Flikr integration with the rest of Google, hell yeah.

That's about the only Yahoo! service that I still consider superior to Google's offerings.

Superficial reasoning aside, yes and no.

On one hand, a Goo-ho! would involve diluting the corporate culture of Google, risking it becoming less of a company that I look up to as an example of how to be successful and ethical. That would be bad. On the other hand, these two companies could actually mesh well when you consider WHAT they provide. The resulting conglomeration would have about the best of most of the 'big' web services that are offered out there.

A Yah-soft would just be the next interation of Microsoft Live! before it tanked yet again due to poor manaegment and a lack of any discernable goals other than "we need to be out there, doing... something!"

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Yahoo and Google are committed to the web, not some silvershite bullshit!
   
2. Both companies appear to be comfortable with the idea of competition
   
3. Neither company has ever touted anything like "The Microsoft Network", proprietary forerunner to MSN
   
4. Less risk of injury from flying chairs
   

And plenty of other reasons...

Re:LULZ

[bennomatic]

no, no, no... Yahgle!

Re:LULZ

[thetoadwarrior]

It probably would be a bit better but if the US isn't going to stop MS' monopoly then the only way to put an end to that is to counter it with other monopolies.

Re:LULZ

[prockcore]

Last time I checked, MS was convicted of abusing their "monopoly" while Linux and MacOS existed.

Re:LULZ

[DarkOx]

I don't think it was about going for second. I really think Microsoft really wanted Yahoo as a way to compete with Google. Yahoo does in fact have lots of interesting tech, like pipes, as well as an entire suite of superior web portal offerings with a decent advertizing and anyalitics business to go with it. MSN is at the bottom of the heap from a tech prespective, but at the top as far as resources its parent company could put into it; that is if they had some direction to go in. Yahoo technology and its brand could have given that to Microsoft, and they might have been real competition for Google in its core spaces had they aquired Yahoo. Yahoo on the other hand does not have the capital or market position to keep on pace with Google and will continue to faulter without something to save them. Sure it could be something amazingly inovative and market shifting; or it could be a large pool of Microsoft Money(pun entended) that would enable them to take what they have and make it substantially better.

Microsoft tried as they always do to manipulate the market place and get themselves a sweatheart deal rather then playing a more "fair game" as fair as large cap market stock deals get anyway. They ended up souring the deal. I think it was bad business on their part. They should have made a fair offer and done the deal. Sure Yahoo got hurt more then Microsoft did but thats not what it was about. Microsoft really lost an oppertunity they wanted, no matter how the outsiders and small investors see it, the Microhoo fiasco was a failure of Microsoft's.

I don't know what Google gets outa Yahoo other then sheer mass. I don't think Yahoo represents the top drawer tech when compared with Google. Yes there is some good Yahoo technology that Google can assimilate easily, but its probably not worth what Google has to pay. The brand and portal offerings are of little value to Google becase theirs are already better. To Google's credit though they have gotten quite big and demonstrated from a leadership standpoint they can manage the mass. If you are going to tangle with an 800lb gorrilla like Microsoft, being a 600lb gorilla rather then the 500lb you already are might give you that little bit of extra inertia needed to prevent Microsoft from steam rolling you by tring to take the web proprietary again with dotNet, still more activeX, and silverlight.

Re:LULZ

[Samizdata]

(to a familiar banjo tune)

YaHOOOOOOOOOgle...

Re:LULZ

[tknd]

I think you missed the main issue that deals with web marketing--a topic that most geeks on slashdot are not familiar with. The problem with Yahoo siding with Google is that it helps establish Google as the king of search and online advertising. All three services (Google, Yahoo, MSN) make a huge chunk if their revenue through online advertising and marketing services. Since Google will now have it's hands toying around with Yahoo, Google could just slowly eat away at Yahoo's margins or eventually buy them out. That would leave the last significant competitor as MSN which isn't even much of a competitor. The end result is basically a Google monopoly on web marketing until the next big disruptive marketing tech comes along.

Google's online marketing market share is already so significant that most web marketing firms won't even touch Yahoo or MSN networks because the effort is simply not worth the return. But now you say if I go through Google I'll also get a piece of Yahoo? Big win for Google.

In this situation, I think Yahoo honestly had a choice between two devils with different faces. They may have royally pissed off their shareholders with shrugging off MS, but they may keep their company alive for a little longer.

As far as my own opinion, I'm split. On one side as a consumer, I think there needs to be more web marketing competitors to compete with Google in order to maintain a healthy market. On the other hand I am a Google shareholder. I suppose in this case I win (and lose) either way.

Re:LULZ

[Captain Splendid]

Yahgle

Interesting. That's the sound I make when I wake up in the morning. I'd hate to pay a fee every day if that word gets trademarked.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now there is only one company will disclose personal information in China.

Re:LULZ

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?

Microsoft has several monopolies and regularly abuses them. Yahoo being acquired by them would give them enough share to be close to having several more, which would certainly become new monopolies soon as they abuse their other monopolies to make sure that happens.

On the other hand, even if Google and Yahoo merged, that would not necessarily give them even one monopoly. See how it makes a difference?

Re:LULZ

[Ilyakub]

Yes, it would be much, much better.

What we dislike about Microsoft is not that it is big and powerful but that it releases poor quality products and destroys its competition using monopolistic tactics.

Google, on the other hand, supports Free and open-source software, has excellent products that geeks love, is concerned about seamless co-operation and integration of all web services (even ones that they don't own) and wins by having the better product, and constantly improving it.

Re:LULZ

[BIGELLOW]

There's a difference. If Microsoft bought Yahoo!, it would be monopolistic. If Microsoft made an exclusive deal with Yahoo!, it would be monopolistic. If Microsoft made a NON-EXCLUSIVE deal with Yahoo!, it wouldn't be monopolistic.

In this case, Yahoo! made a NON-EXCLUSIVE deal with Google. This isn't monopolistic. Google also has a number of different deals with AOL. Google and Yahoo once had various deals with each other. Google also has a deal with Mozilla. Businesses do deals all the time, but yet they compete strongly.

Look at Google and eBay. There is a lot of competition going on there, when it comes to PayPal and Google Checkout. Yet, eBay continues to shovel tons of money towards Google. Why? Because it is beneficial to them. They need advertising, Google provides advertising.

Do a search on Google for the word "search"... chances are you will see an advertisement for live.com. So, Microsoft is also shoveling tons of money towards Google.

This isn't Yahoo! buying Google and this isn't Google buying Yahoo!. Google and Yahoo! are merely striking a deal. Yahoo! will feature Google ads in their search. Yahoo!'s search engine will still be powered by their own algorithms. They won't lose (or gain) search share as a result. They'll just make more money in advertising.

Google and Yahoo! will also be working to get their IM clients to work together. This can only benefit the web community at large.

It is also a non-exclusive deal, which basically means Yahoo! can strike similar agreements with whomever they choose, even Microsoft.

It DOES make Yahoo! less attractive as a BUYOUT option for Microsoft, because this would mean that Microsoft would be buying something which benefits Google, which probably wouldn't sit well with the way Microsoft does business. However, it does nothing to dilute Yahoo!'s role in the market, nor Google's role in the market. It simply gives Yahoo! more money to compete with.

Re:LULZ

[jhol13]

Yes.

Especially if if somehow would kill Microsoft monopoly.

Re:LULZ

[k1e0x]

Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one? I for one embrace our new Gohoo masters.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I was kind of hoping for GooHoo myself.

Re:LULZ

[Colonel Korn]

If it allowed Flikr integration with the rest of Google, hell yeah.

That's about the only Yahoo! service that I still consider superior to Google's offerings. Yahoo news, sports, and search are all still a few steps ahead of Google.

Re:LULZ

[gregbot9000]

Yahgle? Which Lovecraft monster is that?

Re:LULZ

[_KiTA_]

Last time I checked, MS was convicted of abusing their "monopoly" while Linux and MacOS existed. Last I heard, they had something like a 95% market share at that time, and used it to propel their shitty Internet browser from a 5% market share to a 90%-someodd market share.

Which is why they were, you know, found guilty?

Re:LULZ

[Grave]

Their OS dominance has NOTHING to do with a merger with Yahoo. Even combined they'd have quite a bit less than 50% of the search engine/advertising market.

I'm not entirely surprised that so many people here are willing to accept a Google monopoly on the grounds that Microsoft was once convicted of being a monopolist in the OS market. Really, what is it that keeps Google in check if they have no competition anymore? While they may presently be driving forward with innovation, what is the motivation to continue? Some day they might not see a reason to keep spending money on improving their services. I expect there will be antitrust issues raised with a Yahoo/Google partnership anyway.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Yagoohoogle myself...

Re:LULZ

[IntlHarvester]

I'm not entirely surprised that so many people here are willing to accept a Google monopoly on the grounds that Microsoft was once convicted of being a monopolist in the OS market. Plus, if Google monopolizes internet advertising, it will just provide an excuse for Microsoft to escape anti-trust regulation in the OS/desktop market.

Re:LULZ

[StarkRG]

Or combine all the major aquisitions they've made: Blogger Yahoo DoubleClick Google Writely Picasa YouTube Postini -> YahblooglasaClicklyTubestini

Re:LULZ

[porl]

no, they were punished because they used their monopoly on one thing to push another unfairly, because they wanted to kill off netscape. they aren't punished because they sell a lot of copies of windows, and they never were.

porl

Re:LULZ

[Vexorian]

This is a deal, not a merger. So, there are still three players here. Which means option-variety-wise this situation is healthier than the "clash of titans" one MS wanted to accomplish after eating yahoo.

Re:LULZ

[KGIII]

I'm really not good at this...

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Chair.
*crash crash* Come on in!
Never mind, just a Girlscout selling cookies. *chair runs off and seeks therapy*

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope everyone bought some Google stock lately while it has been low. Remember how Microsoft's stock shot up for about 10 years once it became obvious that it was a de facto monopoly.

Cha-ching!

Re:LULZ

[geoff43230]

The easy math :
1. Yahoo in talks with both Microsoft, and Google.
2. ?
3. Profit!

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not read "The Art of War" but to me it applies to your logic

Re:LULZ

[hachete]

The online search market is very fickle. Google maybe top of the heap now but in the future? I suppose we'll see if Microsoft *can* or want to compete on quality of offering.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see how you assume Google to be more ethical than yahoo! You obviously have never read their privacy agreement? I'd much rather give my personal information to Yahoo! thankyou very much.

Re:LULZ

[unity100]

Really, what is it that keeps Google in check if they have no competition anymore? personalities and ethics. past actions are proof of future actions. the same thing that makes your family, parents, kids, friends trust in you. its your personality, its not going to change even if youre struck by a lightning. we know how owners of microsoft have been throughout the years, we know how owners of google have been. thats why we are willing to accept a google monopoly over a microsoft one, if there has to be a monopoly.

Re:LULZ

[Krotos]

Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?

Well, of course. Because. . .Google is edgy and hip, or something.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you threatening me with GOOHOO!?
The Great Cornholio

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they were punished because they used their monopoly on one thing to push another unfairly, because they wanted to kill off netscape. they aren't punished because they sell a lot of copies of windows, and they never were.

porl

It's ridiculous to expect an operating system nowadays to not ship with a browser. It's also ridiculous to make people pay for a browser. It just wasn't ridiculous yet at the time.

They shouldn't be punished for pushing the status quo forward. Especially because it killed off Netscape, who actually thought everyone should pay money just to get the software required for browsing the internet.

Re:LULZ

[Lodragandraoidh]

Yes, but if they make the best OS around, why should they be punished? ...They got fined for being the best out there - which in my opinion - is wrong... I've been using Linux since 1993/94 time frame (Slackware), and it was better than MS Windows then - and is still better now. Mac OS only got usable for me when they brought in the BSD core - so Apple has only gotten better - and are still way ahead of MS Windows in the usability category. Those are the only OS's running on my home network today - Mac workstations, and Linux servers.

Just because Microsoft has the most market share doesn't mean they are 'the best' by any stretch of the imagination.

That is my perspective on the 'best' OS - YMMV.

PS - they did not get fined for being the 'best'; they got fined for abusing antitrust laws.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

>Google...successful and ethical

Tell that to the Chinese people now in jail because Google fingered them to the Chinese gov't so Google could keep doing business there.

"Do no evil" my ass...

And if you're thinking "Hey, it's only a couple of people", imagine the person in jail was YOU.

Re:LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose we'll see if Microsoft *can* or want to compete on quality of offering. Unless Microsoft grows new spots - I don't see that company competing on the quality of their offerings. They never have, and I dare say they never will.

Re:LULZ

[Chyeld]

Tell that to the Chinese people now in jail because Google fingered them to the Chinese gov't so Google could keep doing business there.

"Do no evil" my ass...

And if you're thinking "Hey, it's only a couple of people", imagine the person in jail was YOU.

I would, you know, if it had actually been Google that had done any of that. Yahoo! fingered people, thats one of the reasons why I'd be wary of mixing their corporate culture with Google's, but I have yet to see anything indicating Google has.

Do you have a link, or are you just using your AC mask to spew FUD-ish Google-hate? Ethics work two ways you know...

Re:LULZ

[rtb61]

The notion that google good establish a monopoly on internet advertising is ludicrous. All google currently can achieve is an internet advertising broker. Most of the advertising still gets placed with the major web portal, google amongst others is just acting as a middle man as the market establishes itself and matures. Eventually the major portal will take the marketing direct as the did earlier in the piece and keep the middle man's profits for themselves.

Not also the idea of Yahoo selling it's search service is really stupid. For any major portal their search service does two very important things, where possible it points back to the portals own web site so rather than being a nothing sponsored text add it actually points back to a page with a range revenue earning adds and secondly the search statistics compiled are very important to major web portals as a guide to what content that should add to their own portal.

Search analysis is intrinsic for major portals in deciding how best to manage their content, what they should produce in house, what they should contract out to be added to their site, what external content should be embedded in their site, all should balance with the searches made to ensure their content remains relevant and that it is appropriate for the search engine to point back to their own site for the first few entries.

Google cant do this as it doesn't really have a portal to point to just a collection of web utilities all built around searching and cheap entry level web advertising. Yahoo is a major portal and has to be careful about empowering google with content while search apart for M$'s and Ballmers rantings is losing it's shine, especially as the old world media players and pushing further into the web portal market and are coming to grips the reality of web searching beyond google's marketing illusion. First entry of search result should always point back to your own portal, if it doesn't then you a missing needed content, it is daft to send a user to a page full of some else's advertising when they should be looking at the advertising your meant to be selling.

Re:LULZ

[Ilgaz]

Because both have shown that they are only interested in services they offer rather than dictating their own browser and operating system. They don't force you to use their sites at all. It is all HTML and TCP/IP.

Today, I helped a friend check his mail on Hotmail, I can't believe that damned thing still suggests to download IE 6 to work when you use Safari 3.1.1 , the OS X default browser. People claim they have changed thanks to their fake "open" things and their puppets on open source land, no they didn't change.

Re:LULZ

[IntlHarvester]

What Google could do, and nobody else can (AFAICT) is provide accurate user targeting versus simply targeting sites. They know most of the search terms and they've got bugs everywhere on the internet.

While that might not give them a monopoly on the entire intenret ad market, they certainly do have a gigantic strategic advantage over any competitors.

But it really doesn't even matter to what extent Google controls this. For Microsoft's purposes, any other big players in the IT market will reduce the anti-trust regulatory pressure.

Re:LULZ

[rtb61]

There is no thing as accurate user targeting. For example, I am searching for a computer today, I buy it tomorrow, so exactly what is the point of feeding me computer adds the day after that. Targeted adds are just a marketing illusion because they are based upon historic records, what you wanted in the past not what you wanted in the future.

Matching adds to search entries of course has nothing to do with user data and of course matching adds to web content is by far the most sensible as viewing that content demonstrates a user active current interest.

Of course from my perspective it could be somewhat difficult to tell, as I have blocked all the invasive google scripts and cookies. Tell me do you go out and mindless buy everything that google targets at you? The reality is that google advertising is mostly targeting at people selling products and services rather than people buying them.

Carl Icahn

[LM741N]

One of the few losses he's ever had. But then if you are a billionaire, you can foul up once in a while. Witness Paul Allen of MS fame.

Re:Carl Icahn

[thermian]

he hasn't lost just yet.

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

The smartest thing he ever did was get out of the running of Microsoft. I was always of the opinion he was an ok bloke.

Re:Carl Icahn

[ConceptJunkie]

If there was one Microsoft gazillionaire I'd actually want to meet, it would be Paul Allen.

Re:Carl Icahn

[Otter]

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

His various dot-com and VC projects have mostly cost him money (IIRC), his sports teams have mostly sucked, his 413 foot yacht has fallen to number 8 on the World's Largest Yacht list and Jimi Hendrix was, in hindsight, wildly overrated. Without the billions in his pocket to begin with, you wouldn't say he's doing that well.

On the plus side, he's nowhere near as appalling as the seven guys with bigger yachts than his.

Re:Carl Icahn

[afabbro]

Also, in what way has Paul Allen failed? Seems to me he's doing rather well for himself.

Overall, sure, but he has certainly had his share of losers. For example, "BusinessWeek magazine calculated he had lost $US12 billion in the previous five years.".

Re:Carl Icahn

[afabbro]

...and Jimi Hendrix was, in hindsight, wildly overrated.

cough I think you mean the Experience museum in Seattle, not Jimi himself ;-)

Re:Carl Icahn

[Otter]

No, I meant Jimi himself. Talented, creative guy, turned in probably the best performance at Woodstock, but still...

Re:Carl Icahn

[Foofoobar]

Ok someone bitchslap that dumb white guy for complaining about the size of someones yacht and calling Jimmy Hendrix over rated. Man, I'm white but I still gotta call you too white.

Re:Carl Icahn

[bennomatic]

Did you not follow the Trailblazers' season last year?

Re:Carl Icahn

[prockcore]

He lost it? Did he check the couch cushions?

Oh, you mean he *spent* it.

Re:Carl Icahn

[cptdondo]

Christ, did anyone look at the names of those yachts? What a bunch of dweebs!

If I had a yacht that big, I'd give it some really hot chick name, something really sexy. Pandora, Alastrina, Ailis, Iona, Andromeda would be good. Not Octopus! Fer chissakes, they're slimy and cold and have a sharp beak!

Then again, my boat is 14' long and 40 years old.... So what do I know.

Re:Carl Icahn

[Jedi Alec]

Not Octopus! Fer chissakes, they're slimy and cold and have a sharp beak!

But think of the way you could terrorize the Japanese waters!

So...

[geekmansworld]

... Yahoogle?

Re:So...

[Em Adespoton]

Goohoo.

Re:So...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Either way it spells hilarity. Surely a company with either name would be inherently incapable of evil.

Re:So...

[mattmcm]

Yahooligans.

Re:So...

[Bieeanda]

Yahoo No Evil.

Re:So...

[Alarindris]

Gesundheit!

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yagle?

Re:So...

[ady1]

Goohoo!

Don't forget the !

I bet if there is one thing Yahoo would change in the combine name, they would make it Googlllle!

Re:So...

[gregbot9000]

Yahthugle the Un-finding One can do ONLY evil, and will rule the world from his fiery thrown of inefficient servers, wreaking madness upon the world with his Pop-ups and bad search results.

Re:So...

[H0D_G]

Or being taken seriously.

Re:So...

[ihatethetv]

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=google+yahoo&t=1000

Some of my favorites:

Ah Gooey Logo Ole Goo Hoagy Gay Ole Goo Ho

Godwins

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like Czechoslovakia turning it's back on Britain and embracing Hitler.

Re:Godwins

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Boy, I only hope you know what you are talking about... ;/

Not surprising...

[ConceptJunkie]

Given that MSN search is horrible, I can see where MS would want to vulch that one piece of Yahoo, and that probably wouldn't run afoul of anti-trust laws. In any event, as a huge fan of Flickr, I'm glad there is no longer a serious threat that my beloved photo service will succumb to Redmondian rapine.

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons.

Programming is simple. Business is complicated.

Re:Not surprising...

[sznupi]

I'll go one step further - I can't wait when my Flickr account will be integrated with my Google account ;) (oh, and del.icio.us is also sort-of nice... ;P )

Re:Not surprising...

[InlawBiker]

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons. On a deal this huge there's so much back-room strategy and PR feinting / posturing it's impossible for us normal geeks to get the real story. It's akin to planning the D-Day invasion while saying, 'yeah, we're thinking about sending a boat or two over there eventually.'

Re:Not surprising...

[cyphercell]

look beyond the tactics and for a second consider the strategy, what does yahoo really want? What does Icahn want? Ballmer? Google? Who do you think will win after putting the whole thing in perspective?

Re:Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, it's highly plausible that this whole effort from Microsoft was intended solely to serve their own interests by creating the perception they were going to acquire, and they never intended to go through with it, for whatever arcane market reasons. Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.

Re:Not surprising...

[CowboyNealOption]

I have always found it amusing that MSN returns 142,000 hits for Ubuntu while Goooogle returns 93,400,000 hits (and yahoo returns 174,000,000). Either MSN is filtering results or they just aren't indexing the web very well.

Re:Not surprising...

[VoltageX]

That's if Google don't kill Flickr in favour of their own Picasa web service.

Re:Not surprising...

[quazee]

These figures are 87.5% bullshit anyway, MSN included.
That is, until the search engines can actually display that 12011674th match.

Re:Not surprising...

[sznupi]

Well, if really discussing (unlikely?) Google-Yahoo merger...IMHO Flickr would survive, it has a different target audience than Picasaweb (which is perfect for sharing photos with your family (you know, those people easily confused by Flickr features), but not much more), and actually has a community around it.

Re:Not surprising...

[DrEldarion]

If Google were to absorb Yahoo, the more likely outcome would be that they'd keep running both of them and end up just merging infrastructure on the backend. It would be like Youtube / Google Video is now.

Re:Not surprising...

[DrEldarion]

The point is that, if that's all the pages that MSN is indexing that contain that term, you're much less likely to get the most relevant results back for that and more specific related search queries.

Re:Not surprising...

[ConceptJunkie]

Typical Slashdotter. When you don't understand the details and haven't been following the news closely, bash Microsoft.

No, I was echoing commentary I've read in the past that Microsoft never really intended to acquire Yahoo. I don't pretend to understand the details, but your comment is very ignorant.

Re:Not surprising...

[quazee]

MSN mostly doesn't index forum posts/blog comments (even Slashdot comments).
That *is* one single misfeature which makes it lose to Google, badly. A lot of useful information is hiding in random forums/blogs.

I wonder if it is related to more 'faithful' robots.txt handling - for example, Slashdot's robots.txt disallows 'comments.pl', which probably prevents MSN from ever indexing the content.

Either Google ignores this robots.txt entry, or Slashdot admins have manually configured Google per-site indexing settings to index the comments.

Re:Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll go one step further - I can't wait when my Flickr account will be integrated with my Google account ;) (oh, and del.icio.us is also sort-of nice... ;P ) OpenID is a perfect technology for that sort of integration. I love some Google services, I love del.icio.us too but the danger of a Yahoogle controlling most of my online life is not worth the convenience of some passwords less.

Re:Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, accidentally modded you offtopic

Re:Not surprising...

[cp.tar]

As far as I can see, msnbot has no restrictions, while Googlebot has several.

I wouldn't know how exactly Google indexes comments, but looking at robots.txt, it seems msnbot has all the advantages.

Re:Not surprising...

[wan-fu]

It's commonly known that the numbers presented in terms of the number of results by all three search engines is an estimate by those engines. In general, Google's system wildly overestimates the number of results it finds. As does Yahoo's. Try performing a search with fewer results so that you can try to reach the "end" of the results. In most cases, you'll find Google is overestimating.

Re:Not surprising...

[SharpFang]

Try Yahoo search for a less popular term or check the last pages.

Yahoo indexes a 404 as a valid search result.

Does this mean resistance is not futile?

[multi-flavor-geek]

Or does this mean that both Google and Microsoft are gathering their own Borg collectives. I am so confused. Someone get me a glass of water, something with a snazzy brand name please....

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile?

[mattmcm]

Have some Watr, courtesy of Web 2.0.

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile?

[Drakonik]

"Watr: H20 2.0"

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile?

[tm1rbrt]

Web H2.0

Re:Does this mean resistance is not futile?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a smart community like /. I'd think everyone has always known that resistance is not futile.

Resistance is V/I

What Yahoo Wants?

[denobug]

So first Yahoo doesn't want MS to buy them out. Next they don't like the fact that Microsoft only want part of the assets(instead of the entire company). Really, what does Yahoo wants? Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[pak9rabid]

So first Yahoo doesn't want MS to buy them out. Next they don't like the fact that Microsoft only want part of the assets(instead of the entire company). Really, what does Yahoo wants? Sounds like to me the CEO of Yahoo doesn't want to sell out to Microsoft, but also doesn't want to be crucified by the board for not selling out to someone. Google seems like an attractive option for him, if that's the case.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[LandDolphin]

Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick.

I go through this every day and multiple times onthe weekends. Annoying as all hell. My reply added no value to the conversation, but I needed to let it out.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[timeOday]

Microsoft and google are huge rivals with huge bank accounts, so playing them off each other to compete over you seems like a good strategy. I'm not sure what "wanting" to be bought out by one company vs. another really means to a CEO. If courting google makes Microsoft jealous enough to overbid for Yahoo, I think Yahoo would accept.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[CowboyNealOption]

Make sure to pick a restaurant she hates (and preferably one you like), and suddenly she will start to voice an opinion.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[atomic777]

Yahoo has thrown the white flag to Google, and will now effectively become a media company using Google's advertising platform. Not a good time to be an engineer at Yahoo.

While now #2 in the US market, Yahoo still sees 84% of the eyeballs on the US internet in a given month. If Google's advertising technology can leverage that tremendous reach better than Yahoo's can, then they are doing their shareholders a huge favour in doing this.

It's not unlike the problems at IBM in the early 90's, where a broken corporate culture was re-invented, the company rebranded as services company utilizing the assets it had. If the execs at Yahoo can swallow their pride, they may be able to make the company a financial success once again. It just won't be the Yahoo we all know right now.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's exactly one thing Microsoft wants in Yahoo: yahoo.com. The domain name.

Jerry Yang knows this, hence the 2 reasons why he doesn't want to sell...

First, Yahoo does very little that Microsoft does as well (and given the quality and market share of Live Search, that doesn't count). That means Ballmer wants to buy his way into a new market. He wouldn't do that, with the approbation of Gates and the rest of the board, if they didn't think it would be worth ten times that in ten years. To Yang this confirms that selling now is a bad move.

Second, it means that pretty much all of yahoo is, in case of takeover by Microsoft, destined to be shutdown or put in hibernation like Hotmail. Of course he doesn't relish the idea of the company he started being destroyed in such a way.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[Strudelkugel]

It will be interesting to see if Yang is still CEO after the next shareholder meeting. Icahn will certainly be on the rampage after seeing his profit potential evaporate, as well as those (T. Boone Pickens) who followed his trade. No doubt there are plenty of institutional shareholders who are unhappy about Yahoo! not taking the $40 offer, and now the $33 offer.

It's very hard to imagine that the Google deal will cause Yahoo stock to run back to $33 / share anytime soon. Google can't get too involved with Yahoo, or the DOJ will become interested. Yang's zealotry has cost shareholders billions of dollars. (I don't own any YHOO.) His arrogance is just stunning. My guess is the current Yahoo board will be removed and Yahoo will be sold for parts anyway.

Re:What Yahoo Wants?

[Lodragandraoidh]

Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick. HAHAHA -- that is what I do to my wife....not on purpose, you understand. She, of course does the same thing to me.

I don't know what I want, but I know I don't want THAT (whatever that may be -- usually Indian food for my wife, and usually, well, whatever she says at that moment for me).

Let me be the first to cry

[i kan reed]

antitrust. Competition made the search market healthy. If they team up and work together we lose that. It'll be just like Microsoft circa 1995 again, with googhoo(yagle?) having their fingers in everything search and ad related. No choices. I don't like this at all.

Re:Let me be the first to cry

[Maestro485]

I'd be willing to concede a search monopoly if they do, in fact, call this new company googhoo(yagle?).

Not So Fast...

[mytrip]

Yahoo has a problem with Carl Icahn trying to take the company over that it has to deal with first.

If they don't do something to appease angry shareholders like do a stock buyback, they might wind up as Microhoo anyway.

Slashnot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo in talks with Google?
This title made me think I wound up on slashnot by accident.
Gnu's for Gnerds. Stuff that mattress.

Re:Slashnot?

[setagllib]

Wow, in about 15 seconds that went from being a site I've never heard of, to the one site I have chosen as the worst I've seen in years. Sometimes you think you've learned to keep clear of horrible sites, but the lure of something Slashdotty is too strong to resist. Apparently its own maintainer agrees, as it hasn't been updated in two years.

By the way, for an actual good Slashdot side-site, http://www.seenonslash.com/

Yahoo Ends Talks With Microsoft

[Daimanta]

"Embraces Google Instead"

Next thing you know, Yahoo will be extending Google. And then, good Lord!

Together they will be unstoppable

[elrous0]

With Google and Yahoo finally working together, just IMAGINE how many Chinese dissidents they'll be able to turn it!

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[pak9rabid]

Does not DESERVE to take Yahoo!! They'd just ass-immolate it and run it into the ground, like so much else they've rubbished. Any other mouthpieces trying to slay Yahoo!'s board for not selling out to mshaft needs to STFU, however big their name. Just STFU and back off. Leave Yahoo! ALONE. Besides, mshaft has too damned big a war chest and they need to be reigned in. PERIOD. Moreover it seems that as Virtualization might have to still cope with OS-agnosticism, then maybe it's better that Google has Yahoo! than to watch mshaft take hold of Yahoo!, plain and simple. A bit bitter (and bipolar) are we?

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[maxume]

Please don't.

Here's an idea

[CrackedButter]

Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Just get a clue already and stop trying to buy everyone just to get a shortcut.

Re:Here's an idea

[ArhcAngel]

Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion?

QDOS -> MSDOS
MAC OS -> Windows
Spyglass -> IE
BSD TCPIP stack -> Spider stack -> Windows NT stack
JAVA -> J+ -> J#
Flash -> Silverlight

You must be REALLY new here!

Re:Here's an idea

[sexconker]

This story is about Google possibly buying out Yahoo.

Why doesn't Google just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Just get a clue already and stop trying to buy everyone just to get a shortcut.

Re:Here's an idea

[CrackedButter]

Not really, I'm just sick to death with how Microsoft operate and have always operated.

Re:Here's an idea

[mjwx]

QDOS -> MSDOS

Actually its:
CP/M -> QDOS (developed by MS) -> MSDOS (QDOS in a nice shrink wrapped package)

Re:Here's an idea

[jimicus]

That's no fun. Those are mostly really big ideas which seldom appear out of nowhere anyway. How about the really easy stuff? The stuff which could easily have appeared out of nowhere but, for some reason, Microsoft couldn't find anyone to code it out of nowhere?

A paint program.

ZSoft Paintbrush -> MS Paint.

A database to store system settings. After all, a modern system has a lot of settings to store and a hierarchical data structure to hold the lot would make a lot of sense. With the added bonus that such data structures are first year Computer Science stuff, so it's reasonable to expect any developer to be able to get their head around it pretty quickly.

VMS registry -> Windows registry.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of really dumb comments in this article, but you're a blubbering idiot.

Google doesn't have enough cash to buy Yahoo. It is not on the table. This is a Google/Yahoo partnership to serve Google ads on Yahoo search pages. What in the hell is wrong with you? Did you even bother to RTFA?

And Google designed their own ads and search system. They've bought bits and pieces to add on to these systems, certainly, but they built them. It's Yahoo who needs this deal, dumbass. Yahoo's ad system can't generate any cash and everyone knows this.

Just a bunch of illiterate morons around here...

Re:Here's an idea

[ArhcAngel]

QDOS -> MSDOS - out of commission
Your kidding right? I still regularly work on dedicated systems which still rely on MSDOS.

Spyglass -> IE - there's no Spyglass code remaining
It doesn't matter if any code remains. The original IE was just a rebranded Spyglass.

BSD TCPIP stack -> Spider stack -> Windows NT stack - from XP onwards, MSFT uses their own TCP/IP stack.
They always "said" they were using their own stack but we know that wasn't true.

JAVA -> J+ -> J# - There are superficial syntax similarities, but runtimes could not be more different. Microsoft has a superior runtime.
Flash -> Silverlight - Again, there are conceptual similarities, but silverlight app is more similar to, say a Java applet or an ActiveX control than Flash.

Umm....J++ (or Microsoft Virtual Machine) was "supposed" to be Microsoft's JAVA client for Windows. It was "supposed" to work exactly like JAVA worked on other platforms. Microsoft was found guilty of trying to use its monopoly influence on the desktop to subvert the JAVA spec the way it had done with ActiveX and IE against Netscape. They were forced to discontinue their client and license a client from Sun IIRC. For years they have tried to get a foothold back into the JAVA world and now that Flash is gaining in popularity Silverlight appears to be more of the same. Not needed in the industry but crucial for Microsoft to regain market dominance on the web.

You missed the point of the entire post anyway. Of course many of the items I listed are no longer based on the code they were derived from but I suspect if the original program is still around it doesn't contain a whole lot of the code it did back then either.

Re:Here's an idea

[SpiritOfGrandeur]

Flash -> Silverlight

I think you have something wrong there... Let me fix that...

(M$) Silverlight -> (Adobe) AIR

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. I think that Google, MS, Yahoo etc. take a look at salesforce.com and see the future of business applications. That is why they all realize that yahoo is worth a lot of money, if they can only get their act together. Most of the stockholders have no idea of where the technology is going. Give MS and Yahoo credit. They know.

Re:Here's an idea

[Lodragandraoidh]

Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Because just about every large corporation gets to a particular size where actually getting anything done is almost impossible - at which point they buy or contract out the actual work, and the CORE of the company becomes a bunch of project managers who talk on the phone all day...

Re:Here's an idea

[melted]

#2 - The original IE also sucked major ass. It's become marginally useful around IE4 timeframe, right when the last bits of Spyglass were thrown out.

#3 - That's BS. Even the CLI tools included the mandatory BSD license notification.

J++ doesn't even exist anymore. I was talking about J#. It's funny how you didn't mention that NT3.51 had a lot of VAX influence, and early versions of SQL were pretty much Sybase.

Oh, god, no...

[argent]

Please, Google, don't incorporate anything from Yahoo. Please. I'm beggin' you.

Re:Oh, god, no...

[rts008]

Hear! Hear!
Just the thought of that makes my lunch want to escape forcefully!

Re:Oh, god, no...

[boarder8925]

Please, Google, don't incorporate anything from Yahoo. Please. I'm beggin' you.

Flickr? Del.icio.us?

Re:Oh, god, no...

[Omestes]

Except Flickr and Del.icio.us, of course. I can see some nice possibilities with those two services integrating with Google.

All of the search bits though... Ugh. I hated Yahoo when it was the only big player in the search/portal market, I tried to avoid using it like the plague sticking to the crappy DMOZ, Hotbot, and Webcrawler alternatives. Though getting listed on Yahoo in the mid-90's was shades of awesome.

Re:Oh, god, no...

[argent]

Oh yes, Microsoft is welcome to Yahoo Search.

Re:Oh, god, no...

[DerekLyons]

Please, Google, don't incorporate anything from Yahoo. Please. I'm beggin' you.

Flickr? Del.icio.us?

A web based email reader that lets you sort your mail? Or that lets you see just your unread messages?

Re:Oh, god, no...

[argent]

Those haven't been digested by the Beast yet, they haven't truly become part of the Yahoo collective and can still be rescued.

Konfabulator, too, please.

My guess: No one.

[Futurepower(R)]

"Who do you think will win after putting the whole thing in perspective?"

I'm guessing that no one will win. Apparently no one has done even a little bit of creative thinking.

I sense a disturbance in the force...

[Spy der Mann]

...as if millions of chairs cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[i.of.the.storm]

Don't you mean, suddenly throne? (misspelling intended)

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[fuzzix]

Don't you mean, suddenly throne? (misspelling intended) Intended? Oh, and there's me ready to get all nazi on your ass and I discover it's a quip? Well, thank you very much for ruining my fun, mister man.

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[i.of.the.storm]

Hah, I preempted a spelling nazi attack! I mostly did that because often it's me being the spelling/grammar/semantics nazi.

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[pete_norm]

Is there some thing as a preemptive Godwin's low??

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[orasio]

Those grammar nazis are too easy to plan for. They have a lot lo learn from the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:I sense a disturbance in the force...

[JoCat]

And people still complain that Microsoft isn't a chairitable business!

Go Get It, Lycos!

[Tumbleweed]

Goohoo.

Sounds like a drink. "Enjoy the chocolatey goodness of Goohoo!"

If these were any other two companies...

[Thai-Pan]

...would we be seeing the same reaction on Slashdot?

Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta, (purely hypothetical) and offering a 45%+ premium. And Transmeta in response turned it down and set up internal policies to make generous severence payments to employees who chose to leave after the acquisition.

What do you call that? I call it gross breach of fiduciary duty to your stockholders. I am fortunately not a Yahoo stockholder, but if I was, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[setagllib]

I agree that you can't have it both ways - go public to get investors, then make private decisions to screw those investors. But for us Average Joe Dualcore consumers, Microsoft failing to become less powerful is the best we could ask for. Google becoming more powerful is questionable, but so far they've used their power for far greater good than Microsoft.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[daemonburrito]

What is this "gross breach of fiduciary duty" you speak of? Is that a legal thing?

Yang boarding a flight to the Caribbean with suitcases stuffed with cash would be one thing, thinking beyond a one time buyout deal is quite another.

From almost exactly a year ago: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9388783?f=related

Suing a corporation for not selling their grandmothers for a nickel is an abuse of the legal system.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[myowntrueself]

I think that stockholders are only interested in one thing; making great steaming gobs of cash as fast as possible.

They take no pride in the company in which they have stock.
They don't care about employees or customers.
They have huge great dollar signs in their eyes and cannot see past them.

They would gladly fuck it to death for all the money they can and then dispose of the corpse.

That, my friend, is 'fiduciary duty'. Fuck 'em to death, wring the cash out then wash your hands and move to the next target to suck the life out of.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If these were any other two companies ... would we be seeing the same reaction on Slashdot?

Well, if they were companies as heavily invested in the computing industry and with as much influence, and one of them was an abuse monopoly single-handedly responsible for holding back progress in multiple areas of the computer industry for decades, well then probably.

Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta...

Not many people would care because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, hasn't been abusing it, and will likely not result in any market stagnating and resulting detrimental effects for those of us here.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[Epistax]

I don't really buy into the "owning stock means controlling company" philosophy that our laws currently support. When I look at my portfolio, I view my shares as educated bets. I am betting that the company will do better. If it doesn't, it's MY FAULT for investing in it.

No matter how much money I invest in a company, it won't automatically make me wiser about the industry, or more familiar with the internal culture. My opinion doesn't somehow become valid, and weighted by how much money I've put on dog #4. It's one thing to try to make money. It's another to blame someone else when YOU mess up.

Is there some kind of special listing when a company wants to be publicly traded to raise capital, but abstain from somehow being responsible for paying damages if things go wrong?

/wants to sue dog #4 for abandoning its fiduciary responsibility

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Investors aren't interested in making great steaming gobs of cash as fast as possible. Stockholders are interested in WINNING. Often, winning involves making great steaming gobs of cash as fast as possible, but that isn't the sole criteria to determine if you won.

In this particular case, Yahoo is losing and they have no credible plan to "win". The acquisition offer from Microsoft represented a way to win (being eaten whole by a large rival is considered winning), which made investors happy. Yahoo, in turn, decided it would rather continue losing than team up with someone they didn't like. This, of course, made investors unhappy, because they don't like to lose. Today, Yahoo basically conceeded defeat by teaming up with the current leader, dooming themselves to be an also-ran.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[SuperMog2002]

Sure, you can do what Google did: Don't put "turning a profit" into your mission statement. Google's stated goal is to organize the world's information, and when you buy Google stock (assuming you've done your homework), you know that's what you're buying in to. Plus, their official stated motto is "Don't be evil." When you buy in to them, you accept that they may pass on a very lucrative deal if they perceive it as evil. On top of all that, Page and Brin together hold a majority of the stock, so anything they agree on IS the majority will of the stockholders.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[DerekLyons]

What do you call that? I call it gross breach of fiduciary duty to your stockholders. I am fortunately not a Yahoo stockholder, but if I was, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

I am a Yahoo! stockholder - and I'm pretty pleased because I don't want to be a Microsoft stockholder.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[mr_matticus]

I don't really buy into the "owning stock means controlling company" philosophy that our laws currently support. And I don't buy into the "stock market is a money machine" philosophy that our investors currently support. It has produced far more problems than benefits.

Owning a (voting) share of a company means you should take some responsibility for the operation of that company. The abuses and excesses of the modern "corporate" system all trace back to the domination of stock markets with profiteers and the propagation of non-voting shares sold in arms-length transactions. Yes, they always existed, but in the "good old days" they stood as the exception, not the rule.

If people were less concerned with squeezing money out of companies, products and services would be better, corporations would engage in more responsible practices with regard to labor and the environment, and accountability would improve. The functions of the shareholder should not be profit-motivated (instead, it should be viewed as an asset). The investor should not have any power over the corporation's day to day operations.

Fines and court-ordered judgments should be even distributed on the shareholder-owners, incentivizing good "corporate citizenship", while the PR fallout acts independently on investors through the market.

Re:If these were any other two companies...

[john_uy]

wouldn't investors be wanting to get their money back? what's the point if you are going to put money in a company only at the end for them to gobble it up. i'll put it somewhere.

if good things would want to be given without profit, then i suggest a foundation instead and ask for donations.

Look on the bright side

[Joce640k]

At least there'll only be one toolbar to remove from people's browsers...

Re:Look on the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll 2nd that!

We have to deal with that crap on a regular basis. BHO's suck!

Re:Look on the bright side

[Samah]

Oh dude, I wish I had mod points and could mod this +5 awesome. Nice call ;)

Re:Look on the bright side

[asylumx]

Same here. I wonder if they'll combine them both and go for the world record most-god-damn-annoying-toolbar-ever.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[cyphercell]

wait. google was there from the beginning of the msft talks and if the board can keep their company the way they want it, make more money in the long run and avoid being butchered by Icahn or Ballmer, then what is wrong with calling it the way it is? Some business people actually hold themselves mildly accountable for their actions. Not saying google isn't evil too, they're a corporation, but they don't act nearly as evil as the Ballmers and Icahns of the world.

imagine this ...

[rs232]

Seriously, imagine if Apple were trying to acquire, for instance Transmeta, (purely hypothetical) and offering a 45%+ premium. And Transmeta in response turned it down and set up internal policies to make generous severence payments to employees who chose to leave after the acquisition.

Imagine that Apple made a 100% offer on $40 offer for the die making division of Transmeta and then after the refusal Apple got some corporate raider to quietly buy up the stock and then sell it off causing it to tank at which Apple stepped in at 60% of of $20

What do you call that? I call that shady dealings

Re:imagine this ...

[Thai-Pan]

Except Yahoo's stock was at $19 before the Microsoft bid and now it's $23.50. How does causing its stock to rise by 24% qualify as 'tanking'?

Re:imagine this ...

[rs232]

"Except Yahoo's stock was at $19 before the Microsoft bid and now it's $23.50. How does causing its stock to rise by 24% qualify as 'tanking'?"

That is immediately before the offer and yea just who bought/sold the Yahoo stock in the preceding months? I'm talking about the secret offer made in 2007 at $40 a share ..

Vonage gets in on this and...

[Anonymous Coward]

(cue annoying dancing guy)
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo
Goohoo Goohoo
Goohoo Goohoohoo

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't the mafia allowed to buy legitimate businesses with money it has made through racketeering, prostitution, theft, extortion, and kidnapping? This is suppose to be a free-market

depends on who you are...

[someone1234]

For example, if you are a chair in Redmond, i wouldn't be in your place.
If you are a Yahoo stockholder, it M$ would give you an one time cash, but then Yahoo would be left to rot. With Google, they might have a good business, and eventually merge wholly with Google.
If you are a M$ stockholder, you should probably buy Yahoogle stock, it is safer (better for you), believe me.
If you are Icahn, you suck.

look out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thar be chairs a flyin today maties!!!

This sucks! Google sees too much already...

[Anonymous Coward]

I changed from using Google search to Yahoo, simply because Google is almost omnipresent on the web already. They are tracking me across all the sites with any Google ads in it already, so no need for them to see my search queries as well.

Sigh. With this kind of deal, I guess I have to look for a new search engine. But since I don't 'do' Microsoft, what's the alternative?

Re:This sucks! Google sees too much already...

[Krotos]

There are a lot of other search engines out there. I use clusty.com myself. While it has Google-style ads, it doesn't have any connection to Google, AFAIK. It also doesn't censor its results just to do business in non-democratic countries -- the major reason I abandoned Google.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[stubear]

You sound like the whiney "DON'T PICK ON BRITNEY, LEAVE HER ALONE!!!!!" bitch. Perhaps you should make a YouTube video and give us all a good laugh. Otherwise, STFU yourself.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[Drakonik]

Leave Yahoo! ALONE. "Yahoo! is a person too! Just LEAVE YAHOO! ALONE!"

No, 'Hoogle'

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Fewer syllables

Suppoesed poker game

[daemonburrito]

The "elaborate poker game" is pure speculation (no pun intended). It is entirely possible that Yahoo mgmt and executives actually think ownership by Microsoft is bad for the future of the company.

This "Yahoo is bluffing" meme assumes that it is illogical for Yahoo to think that they are better off without Microsoft. Why is it so hard to accept? From where I'm sitting, a Microsoft deal would be bad for Yahoo.

Re:Suppoesed poker game

[sexconker]

But good for investors.
Legally, Yahoo! must act in accordance with what is best for investors.

It almost brings a tear to my eye...

[sultanoslack]

...thinking of those poor, unfortunate billionaires.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[davidsyes]

"You sound like the whiney "DON'T PICK ON BRITNEY, LEAVE HER ALONE!!!!!" bitch. Perhaps you should make a YouTube video and give us all a good laugh. Otherwise, STFU yourself."

Double-bitch on YOU!

I don't even HAVE nor LISTEN to any Britney, and rarely knowingly dance to her. SO, quaDRUPAL DOUBLE-BITCH on you, you spent nuclear rod.

It's like cyphercell said:

"wait. google was there from the beginning of the msft talks and if the board can keep their company the way they want it, make more money in the long run and avoid being butchered by Icahn or Ballmer, then what is wrong with calling it the way it is?"

You must be a ballmer or icaan kiss-up. If you're a nerd who cares about software freedom, you would pull your head out and voice up for Yahoo! not being butchered. You see, I've NEVER been and NEVER WILL be an mshaft-fan-boy. Don't know that you ARE, but your attitude would probably let them off the hook.

Google's not perfect, but they're a damned welcome sight better than msoft. Haven't you stopped to consider that if corporate negative Karma exists that microsoft would have a HELL of a lot to answer for? Open your damned mind!

People like YOU are the insecure among us who slam-dunk me with - scores hoping to dissuade others from reading our rants and opinions. Yeh, much of what I write here is way off-beat humor, expression of outrage, and the occasional informative URL, but you, you are not making a convincing argument for why microsoft DESERVES to get its grubby mitts on Yahoo!

If mshaft is sooooooo innovative, the fuckers would never NEED to bid to buy Yahoo! Obviously, whether or NOT Google "won", Yahoo! is mshaft's admission that it sucks very much at trying to do what Google and Yahoo and MySpace, Facebook, and others DO do. So, mshaft needs to stick with core business and stop being omni-bit-vacious.

Besides, if mshaft gets a hold of Yahoo!, there will be some more thousands added to the rolls of the unemployed (even tho they stand to get generous anti-take-over severance packages...)...

Microsoft Search Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Microsoft is trying to take on Google. With their recent acquisition of FAST they now have a good search product. All they need now is the Internet presence - Yahoo.

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[davidsyes]

Yahoo shares slip on reports of search deal with Google

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/yahoo-reaches-search-deal-google/story.aspx?guid=%7B4FA6F062-5DB7-4705-8AD7-E179C777FA84%7D&dist=morenews

Wall Street may scramble to unwind bad bet on Yahoo

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/wall-street-may-scramble-unwind/story.aspx?guid=%7BA9AD455E-239C-4809-8E60-E1B004A91A10%7D&dist=hplatest

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[davidsyes]

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/apheadline_detail.php?story_id=D918P08G2&group=ap.online.headlines.business

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu_anheuser-busch-inbevjun12,0,2035555.story

Yahoogle or Goohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Google, don;t go near Yahoo. But I think that the lessening of competition, the combination of two large players in internets is a bad thing. Funnily enough I think Microsoft and Yahoo together is less to worry about than Google and Yahoo. Surely one corporation 'owning' that much internet real estate would be a bad thing, however much 'do no evil' they preach.

Of course I appreciate that Google was only talking about using its advertising on yahoo's sites...

Evil is as Evil does...

[TheNetAvenger]

Google is by nature of progression being too big and no matter how 'good' the leaders want the company to be, the competitive nature is shoving them to the very dark side. (Especially when Google is essentially a marketing company that makes money off of ads and market manipulation.)

It is like taking the the industry's two biggest's evils and putting them in one company model.

Take Apple's (less than truthful and borderline brainwashing) marketing team, and combine this with a company out growing its footprint with so many internal groups and people working with 'competitive' emerging technologies (like Microsoft of the early 90s) and you will get one of the biggest and evil company models in history.

Google digging through GMail years ago should of been the first 'heads-up', but their recent 'embrace, extend, use for the gain, not the consumers' mentaility has taken over tons of OSS projects that originally had no 'questionable' back doors, like Firefox does now with its search monitoring and Google ties that it easily hands the data to at any request.

As for Yahoo, they took a phone book model, moved to a real search engine (finally) and then was able to survive with gaming and IM (online gaming communities being the key for them). Yahoo has market share, not technology that anyone wants. Yahoo doesn't have internal development that is more advanced than Google or Microsoft when it comes to community, development, or search technologies. It would be more of a win for Google, as Google would get a solid IM technology, where MS doesn't need IM or any of the other services.

So I think it is good that Google will eat up Yahoo, so it will go away, but the warning on the label, it is giving more power to ONE company, and sadly this company (Google) is no longer by nature alone a 'do no evil' company, any more than Microsoft of the 90s was.

People act like Microsoft tried to use Windows around 1995 to kill off other companies, but people forget during this whole timeframe and Internet movement, Microsoft was heavily investing in MSN and online technologies, but the Win95 and Win98 OS CDs installed icons and installatino software for everything from AOL to Compuserve, as well as Java and other crap that Microsoft did not produce, most of which being competitive software outside the Windows division.

Google needs a big reign in, or a self check, if not as they doing now, will be bigger and far more evil than Microsoft... And be manipulating the online media with their ad control, like they have already done with their anti-MS shoves to tech journalists.

And in the fragile online world, all it sometimes takes is a mild threat or offering a free venue and some hardware...

Chris P. and his free Macs, just all of sudden deciding he hates Vista because HP wouldn't update their driver for his ancient scanner/printer, and this leading him to love Macs based on usage and 'technical' reasons. And the printer/scanner didn't work any better under OS X, but he failed to admit this part of 'his' story.

However having some contact with him, he admitted he really didn't understand the technology and his defense was that he was not a journalist or a tech person and was just in the entertainment business.

Yet he did 'technical' videos and blogs about OS X and Vista during this time that was information he 'obtained' from both Apple and anti-MS companies of interest, and was using their material because it was easier for him. And yet he made news off all this, and mislead a lot of people in the process for a couple of free computers and guaranteed venues for his 'show'.

Anyone that doens't keep one eye open on Google will find history repeating itself. Even the firefox ties should be enough to scare the crap out of users. Add in Yahoo IM, and their moving 'mobile' presence with a bit of 'borderline' Apple type marketing, and everyone will be racing to screw themselves when Google says, boo, let alone the amount of IT information they already control in the onlin

Re:Evil is as Evil does...

[biscuitlover]

I think you're right about the monopolistic potential of this deal being quite worrying, but I don't think a comparison to a mid-90s Microsoft totally stands up. For me, the biggest difference here (and I imagine for a lot of people) is that with Microsoft we've historically had little choice but to use and BUY their software, no matter how much we disliked it, because that was what our friends and work colleagues were using. I'm in a similar predicament now because I'm getting sent docx files all the time and having to convert them each time is a pain in the ass. With Google, you can't argue that for the most part their software is good, and it works. And, more to the point, I'm not being forced to buy the stuff. Google has got to the position it's in by providing better tools for people, doing it right and doing it for free. Compare this to Microsoft's lock-in business model... Is Google becoming a monopoly? Yes, and you could argue that it already is. But as far as I'm concerned it doesn't bother me half as much as MS because their business ethos seems to be centred around delivering software that people actually want to use. Their ongoing commitment to open source can only help too. If there really has to be another monopoly, sorry but I'd much prefer Google to MS.

Re:Evil is as Evil does...

[biscuitlover]

Sorry, it's my first post; didn't realise you had to HTML format, which is why it reads like a 10 year old wrote it. Next time, gadget, next time...

Re:Evil is as Evil does...

[TheNetAvenger]

Their ongoing commitment to open source can only help too. If there really has to be another monopoly, sorry but I'd much prefer Google to MS

I prefer neither, and if I had to pick one, it wouldn't be Google, as they have too many fingers in your email, searches, and every ad you have clicked on. They know more about you than you do, and far more than the average user realizes. (Even using Firefox kicks extra user information to Google because of their deal. Microsoft don't even allow MSN or Live to obtain information from IE uers like this.)

Microosft also doesn't allow hotmail or live mail to be data mined and paired up with MSN or Live search, or the end user's PCs. (They are very strict about this type of stuff, having worked with the MSN data centers, you would be surprised how much of a no no this type of crap is.)

Yet it is something Google does, admits to doing, and users don't find concern with it, but will scream about Windows update asking for driver information based on what hardware you have installed that isn't used or stored outside your computer.

Google's online advertising is the evil that needs to be feared, as it has become their big monster, and revenue giant. So it will demand feeding from every portion of Google and google technologies.

Even Google Earth reports places you look at to the Google advertising monster.

They claim the email data mining, search monitoring, firefox monitoring, and every other freaking feature that reports back ot the Google advertising monster is so their ads are more accurate, but wtf business is it of theirs if you are looking at Paris? Do you really need better ads with 'Trips to Paris' on the sites you vist?

1) This is really none of their business, and is invasive. (Especailly since it is very fine print or hidden for most users.)

2) Aquiring massive user data is never a good thing, especailly when we have seen ATT & Verizon hand over information like this to governments without legal standing.

3) It is an under-handed form of censorship based on the ads you see from them alone, in addition to how it restricts your usage of their services.

4) From adversting influence alone, Google is becoming the voice of the internet. If Google doesn't like A, B, or C, sites that depend on Google advertising revenue can't say anything good about A, B, or C. (And this is happening in limited forms already, what if the Google advertising Monster wants even more?) I have already seen strong IT based publications and sites pull and 'REDO' stories based on pressure from Google.

If Microsoft was doing what Google does, they would have been yanked into court by now and beat like a dirty rug for doing this stuff to users. Yet Google pretends they are the 'do no evil' company and everyone belives them. Oh well, Apple has called Macs the first 64bit computer, and still calls OS X and Mac's 64bit to this day, and yet OS X is still 32bit. So maybe marketing is reality...

This is scary

[greymond]

I like Google and the products/services it offers mainly because of their clean interfaces. Yahoo is everything I hate about the web, everything of theirs is about ADS ADS ADS, log into their mail - HERE ARE SOME ADS - use their chat program HERE ARE SOME ADS...sure Google has ads..but they are not in the chat window as well as they are usually text based and not popping up in my face like some purple ape trying to get me to click on him.

Re:This is scary

[Loibisch]

First I thought with ADS you meant Attention Deficiency Syndrome...which would be quite fitting as well since their pages are so overloaded with crap...

Heh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for Yahgle. No, seriously: I'm happy for them. Or something.

I would agree with you if you were right

[daemonburrito]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/21/business/suit.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/15/business/fraud.php

As I stated somewhere else on this story, embezzlement and fraud are the kind of things that would give shareholders the right to damages.

And think about it. Where did you develop this opinion? This is the very definition of a meme.

"What is best for shareholders" is subjective. I'd say the very survival of the company is in shareholders' long-term interest.

Re:I would agree with you if you were right

[sexconker]

I'm not saying the shareholders have a right to sue based on this deal alone.

None of us are on the board and in the meetings. We don't know how batshit insane certain Yahoo top cats might be.

It's obvious from what we have heard that pride and stubbornness were pretty big factors in the refusal of the MS deal.

The deal, as presented, should have been taken.
What is best for shareholders is not subjective. What is best for shareholders is money. Always has been, always will be. Once you go public you put aside all aspirations of being unique, true to your roots, nice, etc.

If Yahoo ends up losing value significantly, I fully expect to see some ramifications (probably a few people "retiring" from upper management) based on the threat of legal action.

We'd be unlikely to hear of any legal threats. It'll be shareholders Bob and Jim showing up at the office one day (with their buckets and buckets of shares) and having one of them big boy meetings.

And I do think Yahoo will lose value fairly quickly in a month or so. I don't think Google will buy them out, and once that door is closed, Yahoo is screwed.

This issue alone isn't enough for serious litigation. But the attitudes behind this issue, and Yahoo's countless missed opportunities, imply that there are plenty of things to bitch about in court if some angry shareholders really got motivated to do so.

Re:I would agree with you if you were right

[daemonburrito]

I'm not saying the shareholders have a right to sue based on this deal alone.

No, you actually implied that it was illegal to resist a buyout.

It's obvious from what we have heard that pride and stubbornness were pretty big factors in the refusal of the MS deal.

No, it isn't. That's just what Carl Icahn has said. And that is his "batshit crazy" opinion.

What is best for shareholders is not subjective. What is best for shareholders is money. Always has been, always will be. Once you go public you put aside all aspirations of being unique, true to your roots, nice, etc.

You should think really carefully about this opinion. It is uninformed. Yes, people invest to make money, but deciding against a one-time payout in favor of growing the company is a valid position. You can't possibly be saying that accepting a buyout is always the only option for a board of directors of a publicly traded company. That's absurd.

And about this "always has been, always will be" stuff: Public corporations as we know them have been around since 1934. There have been some pretty drastic changes in the philosophy of investing since that time.

This might seem pretty obvious: Yes, it is subjective. Everyone likes money, and people invest to make money, but over what term? There is nothing to back up your claim that companies must destroy themselves if it results in a moderate-sized payday for some investors.

We'd be unlikely to hear of any legal threats. It'll be shareholders Bob and Jim showing up at the office one day (with their buckets and buckets of shares) and having one of them big boy meetings.

Eww. I don't want to know what a "big boy meeting" is.

And I do think Yahoo will lose value fairly quickly in a month or so. I don't think Google will buy them out, and once that door is closed, Yahoo is screwed.

Why are they screwed if they are not owned by somebody else?

Also, speaking of legal matters, I think that the SEC is probably (if there is any justice) looking into manipulation of Yahoo's price.

This issue alone isn't enough for serious litigation. But the attitudes behind this issue, and Yahoo's countless missed opportunities, imply that there are plenty of things to bitch about in court if some angry shareholders really got motivated to do so.

Man... Quit watching so much CNBC. Google is your friend (hah!).

Recent Pro-Defendant Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation
Standford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Some great links to research.

And as for the kind of lawyer who would take up the kind of litigation you advocate:

Mel Weiss

Re:I would agree with you if you were right

[sexconker]

Quote wars?

Since Google is your friend, you'll be happy to look up the first publicly corporation, the definitions of implied and inferred, and the history of money.
(Hint: People want it.)

It's obvious you hate MS and want the refusal of the deal to be declared clean and just. You also want Google to buy Yahoo out because you think both companies will benefit and Google will be blessing mankind with another generous gift.

Yahoo shareholders will benefit from a buyout by either company in one way. $$$. Immediate $$$. If they want to trade in that payout for stock in the buying company they can. There's your long-term investment. If they think Yahoo alone would be a better investment than selling out to a larger company, they wouldn't vote for the buyout.

Regardless of what YOU think, the decision is up to the share holders. They do this little thing called voting. It never got to this point (publicly) in the Yahoo & MS case, and MS has not started a hostile takeover.

Google, on the other hand, is colluding with their number 1 competitor in order to help prevent an MS buyout. Yahoo's CEO basically ran off to Google and begged for a way out - he had NO justifiable reason for turning down the MS deal before Google decided to buy tons and tons of adspace from Yahoo.

Are you seriously accusing people of manipulating Yahoo's price? The jump from February 1st tapered over very quickly. If people were trading illegally in any amount that matters, the SEC will pursue them.

Google bought adspace on yahoo.com. Lots of it. I guess you're happy. More ads for everyone. All hail Google.

Re:I would agree with you if you were right

[daemonburrito]

No more quotes.

Also, if you adjust your position any more, you're going to be arguing my point.

Sorry I made you mad, but you're just plain wrong about Mgmt and Board liability. Mel Weiss and everyone else who believed in this doctrine were bad for capitalism.

Re:I would agree with you if you were right

[sexconker]

You're bad for capitalism, and an idiot.

I don't think there would have been a single major shareholder at Yahoo who would have been disappointed with a buyout by MS. Well, maybe just one...

But this is slashdot, MS is bad, Google is good, the plainly obvious is rampant speculation, the ludicrous and misleading is gospel, as long as you can find something about it on wikipedia.

Nerd 2.0s.

oh yeah

[gwendolonian]

epical proportions

Re:What Yahoo Wants? IN ANY case, msoft

[cp.tar]

Free market?
Splendid! I'll have two!

Hendrix had potential to be more

[Gazzonyx]

I just happen to be wearing my Hexdrix shirt today. He had potential to mature into an even better musician had he not died at such a young age, IMHO. He knew the things that couldn't be 'taught'.

I have several years of traditional music education under my belt and I'm a simply lousy (and then some) musician. No natural rhythm, and I could never improv. at all. I'm also slightly tone deaf to certain ranges of the register. However, programming is my natural talent. I 'learned' more about it from messing around and gut instinct than I really do in class. Then there's system/network administration; I can learn it and do it with a bit of effort, but I'm neither simply lousy or gifted at it.

I think this is how most people are. You either are gifted and only get much better with time, manage to be sufficient, or are lousy regardless of effort. It seems that musicians who are naturally gifted are relatively rare and (if they don't get in to jazz, where talent goes on to play and never get recognition) stand out amongst the rest quickly.

Probably

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Would a Yahoogle monopoly be any better than an MS one?

The largest problem with the Microsoft monopoly is on the desktop OS is that they have systematically used it illegally to expand into similar status in other areas.

It is not clear that a dominating status on search will have similar power, it is a lot easier to switch search engine that to switch operating status.

It's not gonna be LULZ for everybody

[hdparm]

There's a great chance that one of these days we see a chair filled with a fat ass and bold head flying out the window in Redmond. Everything has limits, so does patience of the Microsoft board and shareholders.

Worth noting...

[toxygen01]

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:YHOO

MSFTGOOGYHOO

[zeromorph]

I'm not entirely surprised that so many people here are willing to accept a Google monopoly on the grounds that Microsoft was once convicted of being a monopolist in the OS market. Plus, if Google monopolizes internet advertising, it will just provide an excuse for Microsoft to escape anti-trust regulation in the OS/desktop market.

I second that, but I think it is time for many paople to realize that although it was fun to see another big player (Google) going after MS, there is little advantage for us in it in the end. It is not the case that Google has any particular interest in achieving a "just" situation. It's not a simple good (Google) against bad (MS). It is only two companies having to make profit for their stockholders. And whatever they do, they are not concerned about us or the market or technology or whatever, but about their profit.

Re:MSFTGOOGYHOO

[IntlHarvester]

The historical example I was thinking of was how IBM escaped the Justice department by pointing at the burgeoning PC market. PCs were a great advancement, but IBM still monopolizes the mainframe segment to this day.

Re:MSFTGOOGYHOO

[randyleepublic]

Maybe for once something good will happen. How about a new proprietary OS? Google does BSD like Mac only much, much better.

Flickr vs Picasaweb

[jetxee]

I use both (F & PW), but pay for Flickr only. Because it is just much better from social point of view. I use PW for family photos because of its album organization (it is good to represent events or visited places). P.S. tags in picasaweb suck.

what about the filth that is Icahn ?

[unity100]

what about the jerk who has attempted one of the filthiest, dirtiest, most disrespectful hostile takeover bids of the history ? has the dirt been ousted yet ?

Microsoft Will be Back

[MurrayRothbard]

The company could try to strike a deal of its own with Time Warner or News Corp., or perhaps even with the trendy Facebook.com. Other analysts suspect Microsoft may be beckoned back to Yahooâ(TM)s rescue if the company fails to right its course by yearâ(TM)s end. http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/yahoo-yhoo-shares-plummet-10-as-microsoft-walks/2991