Slashdot Mirror


Rumors Flying On $20 Billion Microsoft Offer For Yahoo

gadgetopia is one of many who wrote to tell us about the many rumors flying around that Microsoft may be aiming another deal at Yahoo, this time for $20 billion. The story was apparently originally broken by the UK-based site Times Online, and contained lots of details about the supposed deal. Since then, Ross Levinsohn, reported to be part of the new management team, has denied there is any truth to these rumors, leading to questions about where all of this supposed information came from. Yahoo has declined to comment officially.

112 comments

  1. Sounds like pump-n-dump by dsanfte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this climate I don't see Microsoft buying -anything- for a $20B outlay unless it were the next Google. And Yahoo isn't.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    1. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, Yahoo's revenue streams have been dropping and their annual profit's have not been good. MS would have to have a compelling reason to buy Yahoo as the acquisition would probably not give them a competitive advantage over Google.

      With all this talk of Windows in the cloud, and seeing what Microsoft have just done by adding Netflix to the Xbox 360, it appears like they are looking seriously to selling appliances/subscription services. If they could convert even a fraction of their OEM market into hosted services, it could be as lucrative as their Office and Server licensing streams.

    2. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      ...leading to questions about where all of this supposed information came from.

      A better question would be, why is gmail trying to suppress that information? Check your spam folder, and click on 'Display images below' (otherwise, you won't see it).

    3. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't see Microsoft buying -anything- for a $20B outlay unless it were the next Google

      Microsoft has money to spend and AAA corporate credit. Exxon-Mobil grade credit. Why shouldn't it be out shopping for bargains?

    4. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has money to spend and AAA corporate credit. Exxon-Mobil grade credit. Why shouldn't it be out shopping for bargains?

      No kidding. This is the perfect time for a shopping spree. Guys like Yahoo's shareholders will be screaming for this sort of a buyout to save them from losing their shirts.

      Microsoft has more cash than Jesus right now. They have nothing to worry about.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft doesnt want Yahoo to make money, they want Yahoo for the hits and content.

    6. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft doesn't want Yahoo. It wants Yahoo out of the way.

    7. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by jcnnghm · · Score: 2, Informative

      They'd definitely buy, this is a great buyers market after all. The trouble is that this story was pretty thoroughly debunked yesterday.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft has more cash than Jesus right now. They have nothing to worry about.

      Not likely. According to this website, in the year 2000 alone, American evangelical Christians raked in $2.66T (yes, that's trillion, no, that's not a typo.) If, according the site, 9% of these 'born-again' Christians tithed -- contributed 10% of their income -- then that should be about $23.94B in 2000 alone. If we count all 9 years between 2000 and 2008, and people are giving to Jesus at the same rates, I figure since 2000, Jesus must've raked in at least $200 billion or so, probably more. Let's be conservative and say the number is closer $300 billion.

      That makes Microsoft's $30 billion or so in current cash (according to Google Finance) seem a bit puny in comparison, huh?

    9. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by The_Beige_Volvo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Such as for the email traffic. Merging hotmail and yahoo would yield approx. 2/3 all webmail traffic routing through MS owned sites. I use webmail clients for all my email these days - could be a pretty powerful piece of market share to have (all users that is - I'm not that obsessive about checking my email). Volvo

    10. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, according the site, 9% of these 'born-again' Christians tithed -- contributed 10% of their income -- then that should be about $23.94B in 2000 alone.

      The key word is IF and that's a huge IF. You're really dreaming big if you think all those people gave 10% of their net income.

      That makes Microsoft's $30 billion or so in current cash (according to Google Finance) seem a bit puny in comparison, huh?

      No because Microsoft is a single entity with that much money. Your nonexistent fantasy dollar amount is spread around hundreds of thousands of churches. Christians can't even agree on religious doctrine much less how to spend money. I'm sure it's being put to good use though, such as helping the spread of STD's so teenagers will be afraid of sex before marriage.

    11. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Woooooooosh.

      (The single entity, is, of course, Jesus. That's why it's funny. Laugh.)

    12. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by thrillseeker · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Microsoft doesn't want Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google to not have Yahoo.

    13. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft doesn't want Google to not have Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google's cute sister.

    14. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by f0dder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft wants Yahoo patent portfolio.

    15. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Whiternoise · · Score: 2, Funny

      So why can't the church solve the credit crisis =P
      It's not like God needs it?

    16. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figure since 2000, Jesus must've raked in at least $200 billion or so, probably more. Let's be conservative and say the number is closer $300 billion.

      That's REVENUE.

      Do you have any idea how much a natural disaster costs? Let alone a MIRACLE? I mean, after operating costs, they're barely breaking even up there!

    17. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meta-whoosh!

    18. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Sunshinerat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Correct, Yahoo owns a great deal of Google stock due to the patent dispute around online marketing.

      Why Google is not taking care of this is kind of beyond me.

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    19. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

      Yahoo's market capitalization is only $14,904,080,000.00 as of today, so why would MS offer to buy Yahoo for 33% more than the market value of the company?

      I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying it's stupid.

    20. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by wdr1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. They don't give two squats about either.

      What they do want is the advertiser base for sponsored search.

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    21. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If God doesn't need money then why does he insist on sending his minnions to my front door to beg for it, is it some kind of test?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by hendridm · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why they would spend $20 billion to serve ads on Yahoo's search. What would make more sense to me to to buy everything *except* Yahoo's search (mail, flickr, etc). Yahoo has some sweet web apps, and I think that would better compete with Google. MS already has search.

    23. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by fatwilbur · · Score: 5, Informative

      Takeover offers are always, ALWAYS at a large premium to current share prices. This is what entices the shareholders to sell their shares to Microsoft (or whoever).

    24. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by jimmypw · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has a revenue stream? you mean people still use them despite their over cluttered pages and inferior services.

    25. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      history lesson: Yahoo were the previous Google, back in the mid 90s.

    26. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and yes. Hohhhh boy, are you ever out of touch.

    27. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft doesn't want Google to not have Yahoo. Microsoft wants Google's cute sister.

      Then why are they going after the pig with lipstick?

    28. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Zarf · · Score: 1

      I do believe they have a revenue stream and an "Exchange Killer" (at least a competitor) and they are definitely one of the top five search engines. I think search engine ranks right now must be... 1) Google, 2) Google, 3) Google, 4) Yahoo, and 5) Google. So a second MS acquisition attempt is very plausible.

      --
      [signature]
    29. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If God doesn't need money then why does he insist on sending his minnions to my front door to beg for it, is it some kind of test?

      And that's when the Rabbi said: I have an idea, let's take all the money and put it together then throw it into the air and what God wants he keeps!

    30. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Miracles are free, of course. Hell, Jesus' frickin' father supposedly created the flippin' Earth and everything on it in 7 days with $0!!! (Money hadn't been invented yet...) Certainly something as relatively mundane as turning water into wine must be even cheaper than free.

    31. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo is not a bargain. Their money would be better spent in other ways. I think they realize that now.

    32. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by seroph · · Score: 1

      This purchase rumor was proven false on the 30th of November The same day it was announced. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AT1AO20081130

    33. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo owns no Google stock, they sold that ages ago.

    34. Re:Sounds like pump-n-dump by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Microsoft wants Yahoo patent portfolio.

      and Zimbra.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. What the heck!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes...no...yes...no...yes? What is this? Does Ballmer run on Windows and is his system32.dll and/or user.dll corrupt?

    1. Re:What the heck!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoever mods parent Funny gets their privileges revoked.

  3. Hmmm. by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Funny

    44 billion to 20 billion.

    Are they trying to actually buy the company or do they just happen to have cameras in place at the Yahoo Shareholders Meetings. Maybe Ballmer just wants to have some footage of some other hypertensive sweaty jumping exec to replace his favorite internet memes.

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
    1. Re:Hmmm. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.

      Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.

    2. Re:Hmmm. by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.

      Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.

      If that's true then Google really is an unstoppable behemoth now. Honestly, there isn't enough room on the internet for Yahoo to make a living too? I don't get it. But, I suppose that's why I'm a geek and not a suit.

      Surely there's a way for a Yahoo to shed 50% of its mass and use its name recognition to drive some kind of revenue stream. Even if it is just selling tee-shirts or something dumb like that. It worked for /. and thinkGeek (sort of I guess).

      Going under? I don't know. I certainly agree that they are not doing well at all. I'm sure there's a rabbit in a hat lying around here somewhere though.

      --
      [signature]
    3. Re:Hmmm. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of internet left for everyone and a whole lot of others.

      What there isn't is a lot of space left for old style search engines and content aggregators like Yahoo.

      For better or worse, google has that sector pretty well locked up tight.

      That doesn't mean that yahoo can't pull a rabbit out of their hat, that's always possible. If the economy hadn't tanked I'd even say it was likely, but they, like a whole host of IT(and other) companies which have fairly good long term prospects, but serious short term difficulties, have a fairly high chance of not being able to realize those prospects before they go down.

      I'm not really all the optimistic about AMD's prospects either for the very same reasons.

  4. Fools and their Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing to me how much money Yahoo has cost itself due to the egos of their D&O's. And yes, if you invested in this company you are "the fool who follows the fool."

    1. Re:Fools and their Money by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      I's amazing to me how much value Yahoo's shareholders lost after the US government ("here to help") put the big kabosh on a Google/Yahoo deal.

    2. Re:Fools and their Money by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      here to help

      Which, despite your sarcasm, they did. Google's got enough eyeballs as it is, we don't need them scooping up near all of them.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  5. Hardly by nwf · · Score: 1

    That couldn't possibly be true. Surely, Yahoo is holding out for $10B, given their track record.

    Perhaps they are waiting for a government bailout?

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  6. Feds won't allow it by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They better get their sale concluded before next year.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  7. Hostile takeover by PenguinX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recall reading an article a while back that Microsoft wasn't able to pursue unless Jerry Yang was ousted.

    Well, from now to then:

    * Ichann was elected to the board
    * Yang received severe criticism from the FUD machine
    * The project management of Yahoo services just went plain crazy (like deleting all of your user information in an 'upgrade')
    * <<insert more stupid crap here>>
    * Yang "stepped down"
    * And now report are that the 44.6 billion dollar deal is a mere 20 billion.

    Say what you will, but this isn't mere chance. Yahoo was one of the companies that helped to make the internet what it is today, and I am very suspicious about most nearly everything on the list above.

    Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

    1. Re:Hostile takeover by Ron_Fitzgerald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

      How could you blame Microsoft on this? They offered the 44.6B and were turned down by Jerry Yang. Let me repeat that last part....Jerry Yang, the sane one, turned down the deal. His decisions resulted in a lesser valued company and now according to this article Microsoft is making another offer. How this leads to M$=EVIL I don't know.

      --
      ~ Ron Fitzgerald
    2. Re:Hostile takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

      what the hell are you smoking? Jerry Yang is the reason Yahoo is in the toilet, Jerry YAng is the reason shareholders did not get $30+ a share and have to look dreamily at $15 a share in the hopes that one day they may achieve that again. Yahoo was massively overvalued and Yang turned down a chance to cash in that massive overvalue, MS were not ruthless, they were stupid in offering so much, thankfully for them YAng is a moron and turned them down.

    3. Re:Hostile takeover by Daniel+Weis · · Score: 1

      The statement "M$=EVIL" is a tautology 'round these parts.

    4. Re:Hostile takeover by cyberjessy · · Score: 5, Funny

      At his sister's wedding, Michael Corleone tells his then girlfriend Kay Adams the story of how Don Corleone helped his godson Johnny Fontane. Michael explains that his father went to convince Les Halley, the bandleader, to release Johnny from a personal service contract that was holding back Johnny's singing career. Halley refused both the initial offer of $20,000 and the following offer of $10,000, completely missing the significance of that lower offer.

      You know what happened then.

      --
      Life is just a conviction.
    5. Re:Hostile takeover by enigma9 · · Score: 1

      MS is evil (or at least Ballmer is) because he can raise and crash stock prices based on small comments that get reported, and he knows this. MS was ranked third behind Google and Yahoo, and now with just rumors is able to knock Yahoo down quite a bit. I would not call Yang crazy for turning down MS; would you turn your baby over to Ballmer?

      --
      My other post is +5, Interesting
    6. Re:Hostile takeover by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jerry Yang is the reason Yahoo is in the toilet

      Uh, probably not. Over past 12 months Yahoo! is down 60%. But guess what? AMD is down 80%, the Dow is down 40%, Sun is down 85%, MSFT themselves are down 45%, even Apple is down 50%.

      Shall we blame Jerry for 12 months of decline across the board?? If you correct for the market downturn, even just the Dow index, then Yahoo! has barely dipped.

      (Actually the offer was made around 1 Feb, but the dips since then are about the same.)

      --
      you had me at #!
    7. Re:Hostile takeover by Mex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think what you will, but the only sane one in this deal was Jerry Yang from the start. Microsoft is ruthless - and this shows just how ruthless they are.

      Man I agree MS is ruthless and I respect Jerry Yang but I just can't blame Microsoft here. They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value directly because of his refusal to sell.

      You mention some mistakes that Yahoo made but how is all that not his fault?

    8. Re:Hostile takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you really blame Yang for the change in value, at this of all times? In that same span the US stock market overall dropped 40% or so. The change in MS's offer is just due to MS being its usual opportunistic self; they aren't offering the old price anymore because they think they can get Yahoo for less now in a recession.

    9. Re:Hostile takeover by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Jerry Yang wakes up to find Susan Decker's severed head in his bed?

    10. Re:Hostile takeover by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true, you seem to be forgetting "the stampede of the stupid", more commonly known as day traders and amateur traders. When MSFT made the offer the stampede bought like crazy hoping to make a quick cashout, and when MSFT went "nah, no thanks" the stampede ran the stock in the toilet as they ran away.

      I think a lot of what is wrong in the stock market can be traced to the stampede, since you better care about nothing but the quarterly report lest the stampede run your stock into the ground. Nobody ever looks at the big picture or the long term anymore, which is running the whole thing into the ground IMHO.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:Hostile takeover by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value...

      This is interesting. What caused that drop in value?
      How does the Yahoo! before the offer differ from the Yahoo! after the offer? Did someone important leave? Did Yahoo! stop offering some critical service? If not, then what? A loss of ~50% of a company's value is kinda huge, no? Where did all that money go? Did it get lost in a sock drawer?

    12. Re:Hostile takeover by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      a) Microsoft raised stock prices based on these small comments, but I don't see how they can lower them, other than restoring them to where they were before they made these comments by denying any further interest. I don't know what makes you think MS is even behind this rumour. If you wanted to buy Yahoo, you would suppress rumours that you were about to buy them to keep the share price low. If you didn't want to buy Yahoo, you wouldn't do shit to make Yahoo's price go up anyway.

      b) Yahoo isn't a baby, it's a giant publically traded corporation. I would exchange a giant publically traded corporation to Ballmer for twice what it's worth in a HEARTBEAT.

    13. Re:Hostile takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you can't blame Jerry for the current market. But one could easily argue that they would still be on the decline even if the market didn't tank. They have less than stella profits, a shrinking growth rate and a P/E ratio that says they are worth around HALF of their current share price. These figures are nothing new, Yahoo was not worth half of what MS bid at the time and Yang turned it down. MS have woken up and realised this and won't be stupid enough to rebid for them. Yahoo has a realistic share price of maybe $6 atm and is only really barely staying above $10 as there are still some shareholders holding out hope for a buyout. So yes you can still blame Yang as he is the very reason the company has no future and the shareholder have been left holding the bill.

    14. Re:Hostile takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, probably not. Over past 12 months Yahoo! is down 60%. But guess what? AMD is down 80%, the Dow is down 40%, Sun is down 85%, MSFT themselves are down 45%, even Apple is down 50%.

      Shall we blame Jerry for 12 months of decline across the board?? If you correct for the market downturn, even just the Dow index, then Yahoo! has barely dipped.

      (Actually the offer was made around 1 Feb, but the dips since then are about the same.)

      actually what you are forgetting is Yahoo share price is currently significantly inflated as shareholders hang on to the feeble hopes that stories like this one are true, ie that someone is going to buy them. REalistically take out the market sentiment for a takeover bid and yahoo is running at over 80% decline, massively worse than the market and YES you can put that all on YANG.

    15. Re:Hostile takeover by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How could you blame Microsoft on this?

      The question is what would the stock have done if Microsoft hadn't gotten involved.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. bogus. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    ballmer is not doing it. yang can't broker it. nobody's got $20 billion in cash that isn't piled under the mattress and has some curious brown stains on top of the bag.

    not going to happen.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  9. Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gonna be 7 billion.

  10. Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by Khopesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yahoo represents the "old web" that Google is beating the pants off of. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft/MSN's own resources are as good or better. What Microsoft is trying to do is get a leg up on Google, and purchasing Yahoo just won't do that.

    Microsoft is better off buying something smaller, perhaps InterActiveCorp (IAC), owners of Ask.com and Excite, Evite, and Match.com, but even then it's only accomplishing the same thing. Whatever base they draw from, be it Yahoo, IAC, or MSN itself, they're going to have to do some radical building of new technology to go anywhere.

    They are going to have to invest in actual development firm(s), and buy some up-and-coming companies like 37signals to get some real innovation. However, Google has already been doing this, so MS is getting sloppy seconds, and when you add that to the fact that Microsoft is horrible at the this concept (it's more typical that MS buys a company, takes its most salable product and integrates it into the MS product, then shelves the rest of the company and fires the staff).

    ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support if it wants to be a contender (or is this Silverlight's aspiration? *shudder* ... Silverlight should contend with Flash. None of the big web2.0 apps use Flash). This absolutely must be key to their web services plan if they want to stay a "leader" in the PL field. Remember when Hotmail went offline because they couldn't successfully port it from BSD to Windows? They still managed to do it eventually (or does it just run though a proxy?) ... porting languages is MUCH harder.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youtube. all the music sites.

      also, Microsoft has adopted jQuery for their AJAX needs. i think it's a pretty good pick, personally.

    2. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're completely missing the point. Yes, Microsoft has better tech (for many things, not all), but it has no users. Yahoo is the old web, but it still has users. This is pretty much the whole point of the acquisition for MS.

    3. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      I think Yahoo has been slowly reinventing themselves in the past two years. To call them "the old web" is rather shortsighted.

      Maybe they're not moving as quickly as many people would like, but that's a different institutional issue. Also, consider that Yahoo has a crapload of "old web" customers and users who in many cases are simply averse to change. You can't just one day drop them in a super slick Ajax interface that ties into nine different social sites and expect them to be thankful - because they just don't care about that sort of thing. Microsoft tried that and it didn't work.

    4. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post was sounding reasonably good, until the part about "ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support...".

      Does this not count?

    5. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      ASP.NET is going to need some serious help gaining AJAX support if it wants to be a contender

      Recall that story not long ago about official jQuery support in Visual Studio?

    6. Re:Yahoo is not an end-all solution... by Khopesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, looks like I missed that one. You and two ACs pointed that out ... oops. I'm not really exposed to MS server stuff outside the Active Directory realm these days, and my social networking seems to have stagnated in the MS world; I used to have a number of friends who were in the ASP.NET camp, but most of them converted to other things (rails, j2ee, cakePHP, and non-web development with C#) and I lost track of some of them, too.

      --
      Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  11. Not a surprise by bigjarom · · Score: 1

    It has been obvious that this was going to happen ever since Icahn bought his board seat, and especially since he then got Yang fired.

    Ballmer's misspeak a few weeks ago was another big clue.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  12. Why? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, why is MS trying to get Yahoo? Yahoo is everything you would find in a dying company, a loss of public interest and a loss of revenue. Sure, MS could say that they owned a large portion of the search market, but what does that get them? Just about everyone is heading to Google and no doubt MS would manage to mess up Yahoo enough to make their few loyal searchers go elsewhere.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Why? by justinlee37 · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's something you're overlooking -- neither Youtube.com nor Google Video allow the posting of porn. Yahoo! does, making it one of the few mainstream providers who do. After that you have specialty niche sites like redtube.com and pornhub.com.

      Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn? lulz.

    2. Re:Why? by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Informative

      and a loss of revenue

      I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!

      If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Why? by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Profitable as in financial profitability currently, but might I remind you that Yahoo had to lay off 7% of their employees recently. That isn't a mark of a profitable company, or one that will be profitable a year or two into the future.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Why? by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      They're buying a big portion of the search market. Believe it or not some people still use Yahoo for search.

      Google owns around 70% of the searches on the 'net and climbing.

      Yahoo is a very distant 2nd at ~17%.

      MSN is around 8%.

      These figures are around a year old.

      If they have any hope of catching Google they'll need to combine forces, jettison some overhead and then still work like crazy to gain every percent.

      Man I still remember when Alta Vista owned Search. Those guys really blew it.

    5. Re:Why? by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

      If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.

      Which certainly doesn't make it worth even $20,000,000,000, especially if there is no indication that that profitably is increasing.

      Yahoo! is a mature company, not an up-and-coming star. Unless you've got some real synergies to realize by acquiring it, that means that its current profitability has to justify the cost of the acquisition. Even if it was making $1 billion per year in profit and showing signs of doing that indefinitely into the future, that would only be a 5% annual return on a $20 billion investment, which is decent, but not stellar; but its not doing that much, and its not showing a lot of promise of keeping up what profitability it has, either.

    6. Re:Why? by 8ball629 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn?

      Well... Bill Gates does have a lot of time on his hands now...

    7. Re:Why? by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Maybe Microsoft wants to get into cataloging porn? lulz.

      If so, i hope that the companies involved realize that Embrace, Extend, Extinguish does NOT only apply to the wacky snuff fetishists.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confusing the concepts of "Profit" with "Sustainable Growth". If you have a lemonade stand thats making you 50$ a week as a kid, do you stop because its not going to grow by 50% each quarter? Layoff's are not a metric of growth in any event as quite honestly, most companies tend to have way more people than they have.

      Having more employees than you need is not the sign of a profitable company either, although granted having to fire employees is stating that they either screwed up and had more people than they should have or they screwed up and have to trim to try to recover.

      You're right about one thing in all of that though, layoffs of that magnitude definitely mean that someone somewhere screwed up hard (or a committee of someones). Not a good sign for them REMAINING profitable, but until they arent making a profit they remain profitable.

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!

      If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter

      you say that as if means something revenue/profit etc are only meaningfull when you put them in perspective of their market cap/growth rate and P/E etc. Several $100.000.000/quarter sounds fantastic till you look at there market cap, revenue growth (or rather lack there of) and then you see that even at $10 a share they are significantly over valued. several hundred million a quarter is fine if all you ever want to be is a small time company with a market cap about half of what yahoo currently have, at that rate they should have there share price sink to about $6 a share then that would be sufficient to make such a crappy profit look reasonable.

    10. Re:Why? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 5, Funny

      After that you have specialty niche sites like redtube.com and pornhub.com.

      This, my friends, is why I love Slashdot. I learn something new every day!

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    11. Re:Why? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      If they are still profitable then they had too many employees,

    12. Re:Why? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      porn and blue screen....hummm you may have something there...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    13. Re:Why? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      So, we have a profitable company here that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter? After paying the employees? After taxes? You mean, pure profit?
      Why in fucking hell are they so eager to sell it then? How greedy can you even get? If this kinda attitude is the norm nowadays then I can only shake my head in disgust and say: everyone involved probably deserves what they'll get.

      On a more productive note: If you're so worried that all your products are crap and that your profit *may* decline into the two-digit millions-per-quarter range (god forbid!) then here's what you do:

      Fund startups.

      If your inhouse staff has grown so incompetent that your products are not competitive anymore then that's what you need, fresh blood.
      Most startups can go a very long way with investments as low as $100k (or heck, $1mio, as if it mattered on the yahoo scale). So if you only fund the most promising ones and keep it real overall then you'll probably hit the jackpot once or twice per year.

      To someone who's in the process of building a startup (and fighting for every penny) this whole discussion feels like a slap in the face.

    14. Re:Why? by glidermike · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft buys Yahoo I'll be one of the users that will leave for good.I've had an account at yahoo for years-my isp is partnered with them (Rogers in Canada). Microsoft will screw it up just like they did with Hotmail. Plus what about the open-source projects and developers at Yahoo? I can imagine they'll run like hell too.

    15. Re:Why? by WingedEarth · · Score: 1

      Microsoft buying Yahoo is kinda like Sears merging with K-Mart. Who cares? They're tired companies with tired, old business models. Microsoft's only good products are Word and Excel, and it has the industry chained to its Windows platform, so Microsoft will continue to make enough revenue to act like a hedge fund and buy up other companies. Yahoo is the Google that never evolved. K-Mart is Wal-Mart without the efficiency. And Sears is that great American company that is no longer really American (they import all their products) so no one really cares about them and their stores have no character and no appeal, so they might as well be another K-Mart.

    16. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's something you're overlooking -- neither Youtube.com nor Google Video allow the posting of porn. Yahoo! does, making it one of the few mainstream providers who do.

      Not to mention Yahoo Groups. If you ever wanted to read something like some hot Severus/Frodo NC-17 BDSM fanfic crossover with furry pics, that's the first place to look ;)

    17. Re:Why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You seem to be forgetting the two things that I personally believe is the real target for MSFT, and that is webmail and the patents that Yahoo holds. Yahoo still has the #1 webmail in terms of clients last I checked, and together with Hotmail would give MSFT not only a lot of eyeballs but a ton of data to mine and put them far ahead of Google in the webmail arena.

      And then there are of course the patents that Yahoo holds, sorry I can't remember the specific number offhand but there is one that will make Google REALLY nervous if it fell into MSFT's hands. I think those two together, with sites like Flickr with Yahoo Search as a bonus, could make it worth 20B to MSFT.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    18. Re:Why? by gtall · · Score: 1

      One name: Carl Icahn. The man doesn't know the meaning of the term 'innovation'.

      Gerry

    19. Re:Why? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Which certainly doesn't make it worth even $20,000,000,000, especially if there is no indication that that profitably is increasing.

      I agree. I hope you realize that in my post I did not imply that Yahoo was worth that kind of money. All I was saying is that Yahoo is a viable company. The fact that it's not appetizing to Microsoft is a good thing from my personal point of view, because I like Yahoo the way it is, and I think a Microsoft ownership would change their services to the worse.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    20. Re:Why? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I approve of the general sentiment of your post :o)

      I wish you good luck with your startup!!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And might I remind you that Google also had to lay off a huge chunk of their contractors (thus avoiding filing the exact number).

      And might I remind you eBay had to do the same.

      And might I remind you...

      Its all relative.

  13. Why waste time with rumors? by gsgriffin · · Score: 0, Troll

    This doesn't belong on /. Come on.

    Rumors with many details coming from the UK? That's all they have. You want to know where the details come from? Duh! A writer that was about to get canned unless he/she came up with something big to sell their publication.

    I could sit down and write up a rumor in 5 minutes with tons of details and hide behind the annonymous source shield forever. For that matter, if this is worth /.ers time, lets start a whole rumor blog. Everyone! Start a rumors here. Put all the details you like to make it sound reliable, but quote nobody.

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  14. Go away, leave us alone by onescomplement · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is Microsoft's board goodbye to Ballmer. He could not exist outside of Microsoft so giving him half of their cash to watch him go down in a self-involved ball of flames is reasonable. The bleeding will stop far short of that. His ego will not let him do something else. After all, he never dated. He married an employee. He is a weak thinker and undisciplined, at best. I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me. At that point I came to realize the poor quality of many people in our business and Ballmer in particular. My butt still hurts. It is time for you to go, Ballmer. You are not interesting, you were never interesting, you are a clown that makes development at Microsoft incredibly difficult if for no other reason than you are an incompetent developer.

    1. Re:Go away, leave us alone by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative
      The bleeding will stop far short of that

      Microsoft isn't bleeding. It saw a modest growth in profits in its first quarter of FY 2009. If holiday sales are poor this season. it is far better positioned than most to weather the storm.

    2. Re:Go away, leave us alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me. At that point I came to realize the poor quality of many people in our business and Ballmer in particular.

      Huh? Bootloader? Ballmer asked you for a Bootloader? Why? What exactly did you contribute? How did you get fucked(sic) by him?

      [[Citation Needed]]

    3. Re:Go away, leave us alone by gtall · · Score: 1

      How do you confuse the man Ballmer with the term 'developer'?

      Gerry

    4. Re:Go away, leave us alone by Mex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " I keep remembering the desparate "I need a boot loader" email I got from his sorry ass via UUCP. I contributed one out of common grace. And in that he fucked me."

      Wow, care to share that story?

  15. Yahoo is closer to Google than you think by weston · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yahoo is one of the few companies that's positioned anywhere near a place where they could grab a share of what Google's doing.

    They have some of the web's most trafficked destinations -- I think they're still #1 in traffic even with the rise of the social networking sites. Part of it's mindshare and brand recognition, part of it is the sheer variety the apps in their portal portfolio (flickr, delicious, groups...).

    Microsoft right now is in a position where they are losing control of the web as a platform. Even with some huge advantages leftover from their desktop dominance, they don't seem to be able to do all that great at creating compelling destinations, and what's more, there's an increasing number of destinations that don't require any of their technology at all.

    Frankly, if I were betting on which company were more likely to be relevant in 10-15 years, I'd bet on Yahoo.... assuming it survives investors who've forgotten there's such a thing as a decade, and suits and others who can't get their heads around Yahoo's assets, much less put together the engineering culture and talent the company does need to make its bid for resurgence.

    Be sure that Microsoft understands this. Getting their hands on these web properties could do wonders for their efforts to shoehorn their proprietary tech back into popular usage. They may not be able to execute, but it's quite probably worth even more than a $20 billion shot.

    I don't like the idea so much, because I think their product "management" of IE from 2001-2006 shows that rather than deserving any kind of trust, they're all too happy to leave their products in a state that should constitute criminal theft for sheer number of hours of productivity it stole from web developers, if they can get away with it, which, even in the current environment where their grip is looser than it used to be, they more or less can. But it's a very real possibility if MS acquires Yahoo.

  16. I've got a stone to sell you by gsgriffin · · Score: 1

    ..since you have an axe to grind...

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  17. IANAL by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    but could one explain to me how a convicted monopolist would be allowed to do this? Or maybe I'm way off base here

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:IANAL by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work that way. Microsoft are not a "convicted monopolist". They were found guilty of ceertain anti-competetive practices in regards specifically to using their position as the market leader in Operating Systems to push Internet Explorer(along with some other things.)

      That conviction was mostly fluff because even the people who brought the suit in the first place don't have any actual resolution to the underlying problem short of "make Microsoft stop making Operating Systems so we can be a monopoly instead".

      This does not make them a convicted monopolist because there is no such thing. Nor does even being found guilty of anti-competetive practices in a certain arena have anything to do with another arena where they are not a monopoly. Being told you can't do something in one area does not mean "they can't purchase any companies whatsoever"

      Microsoft do not have a monopoly on web search, or on any of the other services that Yahoo might provide them. Even Yahoo and Microsoft combined would yield a distant second to Google. Google would not be allowed to make this purchase(and in fact an advertising deal between google and yahoo was struck down for this very reason).

      I know everyone on slashdot would just love it if Microsoft were just shut down and put out of business, but that's not how this works. They did some things that were illegal, they got caught, ended up with a slap on the wrist because there was no feasible solution and moved on. They certainly get some pretty intense scrutiny when they try to buy things, but only where they might create a vertical or horizontal monopoly. So long as google exists, Microsoft buying Yahoo isn't going to do that.

  18. All of Yahoo! or just search? by acb · · Score: 1

    Aren't they just asset-stripping Yahoo!'s search business and throwing the rest back to die like a finless shark?

    (Though does anyone use Yahoo! Search? Come to think of it, does anyone use any Yahoo! properties other than Flickr and del.icio.us these days?)

    Still, at least then, Flickr won't be "upgraded" to an all-Silverlight/Windows Media service that integrates tightly with the Windows 7 desktop or something.

    1. Re:All of Yahoo! or just search? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "(Though does anyone use Yahoo! Search? Come to think of it, does anyone use any Yahoo! properties other than Flickr and del.icio.us these days?)"

      I think a lot of people still use Yahoo! Mail, and finance.yahoo.com (their financial info website; the finance site is really well done, as far as I can tell, and I don't think Google has anything that quite compares to finance.yahoo.com).

      I mostly stopped using Yahoo search a long time ago, though occasionally I'll try it to see if it gives me different results than Google does. But I still think the finance site is an excellent informational resource.

    2. Re:All of Yahoo! or just search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Though does anyone use Yahoo! Search? Come to think of it, does anyone use any Yahoo! properties other than Flickr and del.icio.us these days?)

      I do, albeit thought Twingine.
      You'll be as suprise as me to find that the number of times where yahoo has the result you're looking for and google didn't is higher than you (and I)'d imagine. The proportion is as follow (Note: I almost look only at the first page of results):
      ~60% both return almost the same results
      ~20% Google has the result I was looking for, while Yahoo doesn't
      ~20% Yahoo has the relevant results (to me), while google doesn't.
      And this last 20% is often about the most difficult queries, where there are several keywords or a combination of words that have individually a huge number of hits.

      On the other side, yahoo search result page shows up later than google's and the opening of the page associated to a result is slower because is first redirected trough yahoo's servers (rds.yahoo.com).
      Yahoo also performs worse than google when querying on a particular domain (the google's site: keyword), but that's because I haven't figured out the corresponding keyword yet

      AC

  19. Other way around by Akzo · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is glad they didn't buy Yahoo.

    --
    Sig is for Signature, so you don't have to manually sign every post.
  20. If he knows what he's doing ... by toby · · Score: 1

    He runs OS X.

    But we all know the real answer. :) Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm this dogfood tastes greaaaat.

    --
    you had me at #!
  21. All companies are lying off people. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You sell less you need less people, you do so to keep the company profitable.

    Honestly, in which planet are you living?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  22. when too large to move by nimbius · · Score: 1

    as microsoft is, your only method of competition is cash and discomfort. The internet has always, and will always be something just out of reach for them.
    for the love of god, dont develop additions to something youve ignored and tried to buy for the last 10 years, it will only fail. Silverlight will never have the dominance flash has, Live search will always suck by comparison to google, and for gods sake MSNs page does everything newscorps fox.com does short of hurl dickpills and ab workouts at me (but the sensationalist fluff prevails the same.) the only thing microsoft has managed to do with regard to the internet is screw up java just enough so that it wont run right on icedtea, offer the ActiveX backdoor into my PC, and piss me off by taking the 'when all else fails, mandate the browser and the technology to allow the user to continue' mentality. tabs in your browser arent an innovation or new feature if you're competitor offers them free of charge in their faster, more secure browser.

    for christsake, it failed twice. stop pushing money on a company thats been with the internet for all intents and purposes since day one, and doesnt need a multibillion dollar conglomerate to run it into the 'embrace extend extinguish' obscurity so many other decent corporations, projects, and technologies have seen.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.