Slashdot Mirror


Carol Bartz Is Out As Yahoo's CEO

itwbennett sends word that Carol Bartz is no longer the CEO of Yahoo. Company CFO Tim Morse will take up the job's responsibilities temporarily. In an email to Yahoo staff, Bartz said she had been fired over the phone by the chairman of the board. The AllThingsD blog sums up the situation thus: "[When Bartz replaced Jerry Yang], she presented a take-no-prisoners image and was touted as someone with a reputation as a professional manager who could clean up the place. Not so, as it has turned out. While Bartz has streamlined certain areas and made some strong management hires, her performance has been decidedly bumpy and mostly downhill. The share price has settled in at about $12.50 (just about where it was when Bartz took over), Yahoo’s recent financial results have been weak, its key advertising business is struggling, its attrition rate among engineers and others is startlingly high and its product innovation cycle seems stopped up."

127 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. perhaps it's because their pages suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever I look at a yahoo page, it's invariably full of crap, almost like someone intentionally tried to make it as annoying as they possibly could.

    Simple, clean, lightweight, and maybe I'd use it for something. But at the moment, yahoo is completely useless. I'm astonished anyone goes there for any reason any more.

    1. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by tmx84 · · Score: 1

      Thats because "yahoo.com" is more then just a search engine. You want clean and simple go to search.yahoo.com

    2. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by ani23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I was looking for content their content layout isn't stellar either. its a mish mosh of colors and horrible design principles.

    3. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know...I have been using it as my home page for longer than I can remember. Sign in to my.yahoo.com and set it up the way I like it, done. Clean and simple.

      Yahoo also has my oldest mail account, at something like 14 years. That account is all over the web and if I get one spam e-mail in six months that doesn't get caught it's something I notice because it's so unusual.

      Oh yes, and Maps. Google Maps? Forget it, they still don't know my street exists and it's been here for five years. I like MapQuest, but sometimes it just flakes out and won't give me directions. Yahoo Maps is the most consistently reliable for me.

    4. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      Why does search.yahoo.com look suspiciously like google.com?

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    5. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Thats because "yahoo.com" is more then just a search engine."

      When it's that bloated, slow, and full of crap, it doesn't matter WHAT it's for. It sucks waaaay more than a page should suck for the purpose it's trying to serve.

    6. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm the exact opposite. Profile: 28, male, married, very tech literate (own a hosting/tech consultancy firm). Gmail account for everything (personal, business, local community college account even for the fine welding/fabrication classes they offer that I take), Calendar as well for personal and business, Finance for my portfolio. Hell, as I type this, I'm in Google Chrome, which syncs all my bookmarks across my Windows and Mac machines, as well as my Nexus One and my Xoom tablet. File storage? Google Docs. Contacts? Google Contacts, also synced across everything. Google Maps and Navigation for more uses than I care to type out at the moment. I emailed someone at Google my new subdivision street (with supporting info), and the data was corrected in under a month.

      My point? Yahoo was your thing, Google is mine. Yahoo may have had the lead, but they gave it up (for various reasons, mostly business/management related).
      Its all about momentum, and I think Yahoo doesn't have enough vision, management competency, nor technical talent to compete against the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Apple anymore.

      Sorry to be the Messenger (or Google Talk, if you prefer).

    7. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

      You should consider letting google know your street is missing. It took them a bit to take action on my report written by a street in the first person begging to be found, but they did wnd my street now appears in google maps....

    8. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      funny that the only replies you got were from AC's.

      They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.

      Good on you :-)

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    9. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree, I still use Yahoo and it's great. One of the best finance sections, good news parsing, the front page has interesting stuff. I don't mind ads too much because I enjoy learning about new products. And Yahoo usually has entertaining ads on the home page, not 6 words. Plus they have a lot of pretty cool API stuff like YQL, which is the coolest thing I think I have have seen in a while. Google, sure. They have a lead in search. But I always get the feeling I'm not a person when I'm there. I'm just another data point to Google. Whereas at Yahoo they appeal to all my senses, and they have a big staff of Human Editors. Google would strive as hard as possible to remove those humans. Great, if you're a nerd, but I have emotions and other needs and I like having an expert person do little sifting no matter how perfect the algorithym was that returned the results.

      Yahoo is not just going away. They have a pretty good looking balance sheet and they make money. Not hand over fist but they do make money. And they own a lot of other sites besides just Yahoo.com. And, finally, they own Associated Content which is like the AP of web content feeds. I think with something like YQL, they can really start doing this next generation of "Web 3.0" (or is it Web 4.0?) stuff where you have data and presentation separate and then some type of Human Edited aggregation service that can make up new content by summing or multiplying other sources, and then link out to the sources. If you haven't messed with YQL, check it out. No stupid SOAP or other junk required, it has a javascript console. And you can do searches with SQL type joins and stuff on almost all yahoo owned content.

      Plus the world needs diversity. I can use Google and Yahoo. Nothing makes me more irritated/sad for the future than one of these Google snobs who say things like "I use only Google stuff and there's no reason to every use anything else so there. I do this nerdy thing and this nerdy thing and don't you wish you were me." Like stop sucking Google's dick, you are their product! Now granted, we are also Yahoo's product, but it seems so less cold and calculated. I don't like the coldness of Google.

    10. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Adorable? Thats interesting. Not sure what your whole comment is about (yes, I can weld, I learned how to and was certified at my local community college, which I'm sure you'd find is close to my old employer, Fermilab, where I stayed for only a year due to the incompetence and bureaucracy of their Computing Division. Yes, I own a hosting company, its not huge but big enough for me to live a comfortable, fulfilling life, allowing me time to pickup skills like welding, scuba certification, a CFI pilots license, etc. And yes, I'm 28, turn 29 this year, and have been doing IT since 18 with no college degree and a GED).

      Yahoo tried to be the big data conglomerate, but lost out search to Google, social to Facebook, mobile to Google and Apple, etc. I doubt they'll be around in 3-5 years (or will be just an empty shell of their former self). Tech evolves quickly. My whole response was to say: This is me as a person, my needs, and what I use. Original poster highlighted features he thought we important for Yahoo's personalized homepage, Webmail, and Maps. I simply posted out my opinion regarding the subject, and my thoughts that Google provided superior products.

    11. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Because it's just forwarding to bing.com while keeping the yahoo.com url...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Here you have another profile: Around your age, single, also very tech literate.

      Host my own email and Jabber server, docs are in OpenOffice. No syncing of any kind. Own a smartphone but want absolutely nothing to do with any kind of integration with a provider like Google or Yahoo, I'll host my own, thanks. File storage? RAID, and Mercurial. Maps? Nokia maps on the phone, with the map files downloaded beforehand for any country I might travel to.

      I just don't find either Google nor Yahoo desirable. Web UIs still suck when compared to a proper desktop client. Needing a network connection to get things done is inconvenient. Having some third party hold my critical data isn't really my thing, especially when they're doing it for free and I have no real recourse if anything goes wrong. I always operate with the assumption that I may not have a network connection ocassionally, so I avoid needing one for anything.

    13. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by drolli · · Score: 2

      The problem is: its getting worse with each restructuring. They try to push in more "own content" to the front pages. Earlier they have been an excellent directory/new aggregator, now the only reason to go there for most people i know is the fact that they have a old email address there...

      The last 5 years they have been completely without a concept what to do long-term with their site. Various attempts of offering things beyond and more and more irrelevant directory/search have been half-assed and could not compete even with shots of small companies at the same topic.

      Yahoo had attempts and some thing going in the direction of social networks going on before others, but they they did not make it a round thing.

    14. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by klui · · Score: 1

      Well Yahoo is also my oldest email account, too. But their latest incarnation sucks. They took away the option to use the legacy interface and the new version is dog slow bringing up a message. Sometimes their JS code causes messages to not load unless I log off and start over.

    15. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's a huge ad hominem there. It's funny you think that what username something is posted on has any bearing whatsoever on the content of the message.

      Furthermore, I take quite a different view: TooMuchToDo has his life in Google's hands, more or less. Everyone replying to him does not. Which is really the smarter way? I guess it depends on how much you value your privacy. Contrary to what M. Zuckerberg has to say about it, privacy is not going away and still very much exists to a large degree. How much depends entirely on you.

    16. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by tyrione · · Score: 1

      I'll give you one obvious reason: Professional Sports.

    17. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Just reading your comments makes me go "uggggghhh". While I understand you may have the time and inclination for Mercurial, your own email and jabber servers, etc., I shiver just thinking about all the time that goes into having to manage your own personal servers for things like email and jabber. No thanks. Google can handle my entire life, with it being backed up with Backupify for $5/month. Time vs Money tradeoff and all jazz. I don't have anything so personal that I'd care if someone at Google actually saw.

    18. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Yahoo was your thing, Google is mine.

      Mmm...Yahoo isn't really "my thing". I like some of their features, I've been using it for a long time, and My Yahoo is my home page, but I'm not married to Yahoo. (I do feel nostalgic about it sometimes, for lots of reasons which I won't go into, but I also feel nostalgic about AltaVista and DEC. Doesn't mean I use them on a daily basis.)

      Google has some neat stuff, but I just don't like one company having that much data about me. And, for me, they don't have anything which is a killer. Search, sure, great, but I usually get just as good results for my needs in Yahoo, and so I use that out of convenience.

      I usually use MapQuest, not Yahoo Maps - I just go to Yahoo Maps when MapQuest's interface throws a tantrum and refuses to work for me.

      My point? Nothing is forever. I do use Yahoo, and it's the site I go to most frequently. But if they go belly-up, or close my account, I'll shrug and move on (okay, simply because that e-mail account is so old I'll sulk a bit about some of the stuff I've lost, but all the important information is backed up). I read about how much people rely on Google and how fragile some of the account veracity seems to be and it unnerves me. I don't want to be that committed to a free service that treats me like a number, and as someone else posted there's a feeling of giant corporate "you aren't our customer, you are a data point for our real customers" anonymity with Google which I don't get with Yahoo. Yeah, I know they have no clue who I am, but at least they don't make it so obvious as Google.

    19. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      It took them a bit to take action on my report written by a street in the first person begging to be found, but they did wnd my street now appears in google maps
      Your street found a beggar on it and wrote a report to Google? Smart street!

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    20. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Manage what? A good setup doesn't need to be messed with.

      I haven't really touched it since I put the current version in place somewhere around 3 years ago, and back then I don't think it took about a day to set up the entire server, most of which goes on waiting for things to install. Actual configuration time is maybe an hour. I "apt-get upgrade" once in a while to keep up with the patches and that's about it.

      Also over the long run it probably saved me time, because if I have problems with network access I have everything locally anyway, so stuff still gets done.

    21. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by richtaur · · Score: 1

      > Yahoo was your thing, Google is mine.

      Completely right. I totally understand how Yahoo! (and AOL for that matter) is still around: because people became dependent on it years and years ago and it's still got its barbs sticking in. I can relate to this because that's currently my situation with Google. The only difference being that Google still has their shit together (at least, for now).

    22. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      For the past 4 years, I've been complaining about their crappy Comment system (& spam). Such a waste, 200 to 1200 willing participants (depending on the subject matter) and Yahoo still relies on a slow-to-update, pre-Web 2.0 comment style system. It's as if those morons are unaware of how easy & fast it is to comment on Youtube videos. Is it so difficult to replicate that?

      Am glad Carol got the boot. She was completely useless at eBay and now Yahoo... i hope she never finds a job in the tech industry!!

    23. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      its all about the context.

      I thought I was pretty clear. It wasn't about what they said, it was that they couldn't back it up.

      This is in reply to someone who had put a lot of personal stuff up there including a username.

      But people like you come along and read it out of context and think I'm talking in the general sense.

      Its not that their argument was meaningless - its that it lacked weight because they weren't standing behind it...in a situation where the original poster had stood firmly by his argument.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    24. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Look you might be right about the dangers TooMuchToDo faces...but my comment had nothing to do with that. I'm not defending anything other than his guts for putting those details up there.

      Read what I posted to the other AC here...its all about the context.

      It was a specific situation where TooMuchToDo gave a fair amount of personal info to prove a point, and the only replies he got were from people too scared to show their face. Their replies were probably justified, but why hide when the original poster clearly didn't?

      I thought it was clear what I meant - that I wasn't talking generally. It was just ironic that the people replying to TooMuchToDo were not prepared to come back on equal terms.

      I also didn't deal with the content at all - because I wasn't really interested in that side of it.

      Maybe you disagree and think my point is not relevant...that's fine. But its still amusing that you guys who replied to me also did so under AC. Sure, you're allowed to...but it was actually supporting my argument...are you embarrassed about what you wrote?

      Normally, AC doesn't mean anything..but here, in this thread, now it does...because the context was about someone saying, "here's a bunch of details about me, personally, which I'm using to make a point". Its implicit that if you want to make a decent counter-argument, you also need to back it up in a similar way...

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    25. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      funny that the only replies you got were from AC's. They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.

      Did this have anything to do with what he said, or were you just looking for an excuse to argue about or debate the value of AC contributions in general?

      Whether or not what you said was true, it could have been said in response to *any* post with anonymous replies. Furthermore, can we assume that "dudpixel" is the name your Mummy and Daddy gave you when you were born? I suspect not. :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    26. Re:perhaps it's because their pages suck by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Read my replies to the other comments.

      It was purely because the original post I replied to had given a fair amount of personal info to back up the claim...whereas the replies hadn't even given any such weight to theirs.

      It wasn't meant to be taken so seriously...merely just an observation.

      So based on that specific context - no it couldn't be applied to any AC. I just felt that the use of AC had specific relevance in this case - and it turns out a few people disagree.

      You are allowed to disagree...just like I stand by what I said. :-) Have a good day.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  2. typical... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they should be concerned less about hiring "managers" and more with hiring people with actual ideas.

    1. Re:typical... by ani23 · · Score: 1

      Carol Bartz is that you?

    2. Re:typical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yahoo! has plenty of ideas. It has a problem with execution -- particularly timely execution, which is very important in a market that changes as rapidly as the one they're in.

    3. Re:typical... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Lots of people have ideas. It's the manager's job to figure out which ones are good ideas.

    4. Re:typical... by md65536 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most of the managers I know tend to think that all the good ideas come from managers.

    5. Re:typical... by Outtascope · · Score: 1

      No I am not Carol. I only wish I could be as good as her at what she does. This whole situation is crap.

      Yeah, she's the genius behind the whole "Let's re-skin Autocad every year and rape our customers over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Oh, and buy any company that might pose even the slightest potential competition. Our customers will love us! Because we will demand that they do." She's a douche-bag (and likely the only woman I have ever used that term for, so there is some accomplishment there). AutoDesk is nothing but a marketing/legal firm pretending to be a tech company now, and that was her doing. (of course, that's why Yahoo hired her in the first place, so I suppose their board is even worse than she is).

    6. Re:typical... by MattSausage · · Score: 1

      Then most of the managers you know are idiots. I've had good and bad managers, more good than bad. The good managers got the hell out of the way unless you were way off course. And all of them admitted happily they knew less about the topic than the experts they hired. Hell, most of those managers INSISTED on getting input from the team, and would bug the crap out of you until they got it.

    7. Re:typical... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Then most of the managers you know are idiots.

      Yes. Yes they are.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:typical... by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it sad how this is the plague of our tech industry? Fakers (or MBA schmucks) with no innovative ideas or passion for technology usually get the top job... *sigh*

  3. Fired over the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh poor you. I'm sure your "severance package" will more than make up for the injustice you suffered today.

  4. the reason she failed is that . . by ani23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She ran the company just to manage the day to day business than to provide thought leadership and future vision.

    1. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by rekoil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More to the point, it seemed that the biggest initiatives within Yahoo while I was there (from 2009 until early this year) were *all* centered around profit, not users - mainly, cost-cutting and ad tech. As if the goal wasn't to grow users, just grow revenue and profit per existing user. What opened my eyes was when the cost-cutting initiatives that made sense - primarily the data center consolidations, which definitely needed to get done ASAFP - started getting pushed back due to the need for quarter-to-quarter profit management. Bartz should have grown a pair, pushed forward the consolidation even if it meant missing the street for the quarter, allowing Yahoo to reap the rewards much sooner.

      I'll also never forget the quarterly all-hands meeting where the major product announcement for the quarter was...*full-page ads on the login page*.

      Sorry I didn't stick around to see Bartz go, but I couldn't risk her *not* going.

    2. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, my pet theory was that Bartz was installed by Microsoft after the 2008 buyout failed, under the premise that Yahoo would invest heavily in Microsoft's ad network and bing search engine back end. Is there any truth in this? Or did she simply take the path of least resistance and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?
       
      Particularly after the backdoor buyout of Nokia and installing a Microsoft executive as CEO there, Bartz at the time sure looked like a backdoor buyout of Yahoo.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right. Under Carol's reign they got rid of Delicious, made some awful UI tweaks to Flickr, ran some obnoxious ad campaigns. As a user, I didn't see any improvements. Quite frankly I'm at a loss to come up with anything positive Carol did... and that's just from a user's point of view.

      Of course, the board got what the board wanted: someone who wasn't as stubborn as Yang. It's kinda like HP. They've found a string of incompetent CEOs to focus on dismantling the company. But Yahoo! was Yang's baby and he didn't want to see its portfolio handed over to Microsoft for slaughter. It's a shame, really, as the whole MSFT buyout would have been good only in terms of short-term stock value.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    4. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Um, yahoo search is Bong now... After Yahoo taking M$ that's EXACTLY what she was supposed to do... Tend the shop until it sinks. Nearly every interesting project Yahoo! had steps on Microsoft's toes in some way.. Her "job" is to integrate with Microsoft's plans or can the projects... Oh, and to bring Yahoo! Stock to double it was when she started.

    5. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by Phil06 · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has the Stocks button on the home page of every iPhone. Have they taken advantage of this prime location? I don't use it because news items are typically months old. Apple should auction this spot off to a start-up that will do something innovative with it.

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    6. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Or did she simply take the path of least resistance and lay down every time

       
      Oh boy, in all my years of being a grammar nazi here on Slashdot, this makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Now, had I written does instead, then yes, lie would have been correct due to the present tense used. But your quote is out of context and I said did; due to the fact that she no longer works there (at least, according to the summary). Sharp eye though! That sentence does read a little awkwardly, leading with "Or". I guess that's what I get before posting right before bed. :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      AutoCAD had no competitors who were the likes of Google and friends. AutoCAD had (and still has) management/operations thinking competitors. So common sense (which is not so common) worked for her there. Same goes with Carly Fiorina. She had put a halt to R&D at HP and went the operations way like Dell and friends (acquiring compaq). Now that the margins in the computer hardware business have dried up, HP is limping and vacillating with no direction in sight. Both of them, ... black swans.

    8. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has a long long history of screwing up every one of their allies to their own advantage. And some how there are companies that still tend to think... "This time it's going to be different". Unbelievable! You put your head in the lions mouth and, for once, it might be different. Not with MSFT.

    9. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      > and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?

      LIE down. This is not difficult. LIE.

      Unless he did mean lay down, if you know what I mean. ;-)

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    10. Re:the reason she failed is that . . by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      > and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?

      LIE down. This is not difficult. LIE.

      Wait, what? You take issue with (the perfectly correct) "lay/lie", but ignore the "waive/wave"?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  5. Yahoo is Irrelevant by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1

    Surprisingly enough you need to be more than an HTML based Gopher, with a 2nd rate search engine.

    1. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

      I love their fantasy football....
      But yes, other than that I avoid yahoo...
      I haven't even checked my yahoo mail in years...
      Probably have won many european lotteries by now...

      --
      Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
    2. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Surt · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, yahoo mail is now probably their single decently designed property. A lot better than gmail anyway.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surely your joking? Yahoo operates my ATT email and it takes me several clicks to get to my messages, past ads and garbage. Yet, I am stuck with Yahoo. How much of their business is of this kind? Good riddance when the day comes.

    4. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Their fantasy football is great.

      Their fantasy football app is horrible. Absolutely horrible. Honestly, upon first loading it downloads and caches a huge video. On my Android phone, it routinely is taking up 50+MB of space to *JUST SHOW TEXT*, and has limited options for how to browse and do things. This causes all types of problems particularly since I am running low on internal memory and I move iot to the SD card, and it takes no kidding 30 seconds to launch because it has to pull all that data across from the SD card, cache, load, then hit the internet, look for a new video to download, etc. But man, do it ever eat up the bandwidth downloading new videos all the time!

      They. Just. Do. Not. Get. Mobile.

      They bought out the group that does Sportstacular, which is one of the nicer sports apps out there, and I've just been waiting for that to go to shit also along with all their other mobile properties.

    5. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The primary skill for a CEO of a company like Yahoo is the ability to create an environment where skilled and creative developers want to come and work.

      You need to create an environment where someone with a good idea can work on it and turn it into a success (or at least try). Where you can work on interesting things, instead of spending all day every day figuring out how to advertise to people. Instead of focusing on cutting costs, focus on creating good products, and making them a success. Good developers like to work on things that are interesting and successful.

      All the new CEO has to do is attract good talent and get out of their way. Remove their barriers that are distracting them from day to day.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      I love Mobile Smartphones, they are starting to bring back sanity in websites. Why can't all websites function like the good ones do on my Droid? Clean, unbloated, fast loading ...

      It is sad when I hit a website on my gig Inet connection (at work) and .... buffering buffering ....

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by micheas · · Score: 1

      Lancing leaches is another skill that is very important, that and telling workers from leaches.

    8. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by schnell · · Score: 2

      You need to create an environment where someone with a good idea can work on it and turn it into a success (or at least try). Where you can work on interesting things, instead of spending all day every day figuring out how to advertise to people. ... All the new CEO has to do is attract good talent and get out of their way. Remove their barriers that are distracting them from day to day.

      No offense, but Google is just now belatedly realizing that this is not what you should do. They are shutting down "products" left and right because for years they have greenlit seemingly every neat idea that an engineer had, and basically none of them except AdWords and Android have positively impacted the bottom line. We would all like to work at companies like you describe, but it turns out that creating that type of environment doesn't help unless you do have managers who are exactly "barriers" to the bad ideas and letting the good ones through. And those are very hard to find...

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    9. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The problem Yahoo is facing right now is that a lot of its good engineers have left, primarily because it's become a miserable place to work. Do you have a better idea for attracting good talent to your company? I'd love to hear it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by r3x_mundi · · Score: 1

      I actually agree. I wasnt impressed when my local ISP outsourced their email to them. However, their recent mail upgrade is pretty awesome. It has nice web UI, and works well with desktop mail clients too e.g. archives everything you sent through SMTP.

    11. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by r3x_mundi · · Score: 2

      There is a bit in truth in both of those statements. Google may be shutting down a lot of its "experiments", but they had all served their purpose and their benefits have been incorporated into existing products. Innovation doesn't mean green lighting every "neat idea"...they should all serve a purpose, but if you don't allow your employees to spend some time to innovate and try new things, your never going to improve your products. Some of the worst places ive worked at is where they punished you for thinking outside the box or doing something different, even if they had real potential to provide a lot of benefits.

    12. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Builder · · Score: 2

      Completely irrelevant. I mean, they're just the most popular image sharing and image related social provider on the web today (flickr).

    13. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      That's not at all an easy task. Spotting talent is really hard. You hire one bozo at the top, and soon enough than you realize, the entire place will be overflowing with bozo's. Yeah... bozo's are good for billable projects.

    14. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I think this is dead on.

      Google went through a few year phase of greenlighting every internal idea that moved, but look at where they were at as a company: all of their eggs were in the search/ad basket, and they didn't want them to be. They were flush with cash and wililng to pay a high premium to add diversity to their offerings and be a little more future safe.

      Even if they threw away 99 projects for every 1 that bore some kind of fruit to do so, I can't with confidence say that, for that company at that time, they made a bad trade there.

    15. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it works for their outsourced mail, I was referring to actual @yahoo.com email. I don't have any ads or other garbage there.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    16. Re:Yahoo is Irrelevant by Surt · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you haven't seen it since the last version came out, it is now a couple of steps ahead of gmail.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  6. Yahoo Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mildly on topic:

    Thanks for making it so every time I load Yahoo Mail my browser locks up for 5 seconds! I really appreciate that.

  7. Re:Poor Guy by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Tell it to Archie Bunker!

    But I wonder if this Tim Morse character knows how to use a mop?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  8. Re:Poor Guy by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    The summary uses the pronouns "she" and "her". Perhaps Carol Bartz is a woman?

  9. I know! by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they can hire Steve Jobs. I hear he was the CEO of a pretty large company who left recently.

    Oh damnit now I can't remember the name of that company! If only they were in the news more I'd remember them.

    1. Re:I know! by md65536 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can hire Steve Jobs. I hear he was the CEO of a pretty large company who left recently.

      Oh damnit now I can't remember the name of that company! If only they were in the news more I'd remember them.

      Steve Jobs was the CEO of Apple. He left for health reasons, so I don't think they have a good chance of hiring him.

    2. Re:I know! by ani23 · · Score: 1

      I believe he was joking.

    3. Re:I know! by Phurge · · Score: 1

      WHOOOSH!!

      --
      I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
    4. Re:I know! by auLucifer · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding he left because the devil came to claim the soul he was promised to help Apple excel? So sorry Yahoo but that soul is already spent

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    5. Re:I know! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I think the company was Pixy? Pixel? Something like that - they've not been in the news recently because Disney bought them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:I know! by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Personally I have been thinking that board of directors should be looking for external candidates from alternate sources like the start-up world for a while now.

  10. Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by drgroove · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yahoo still doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?

    Yahoo reminds me of that old SNL skit - it's a floor wax, and a desert topping. Only Microsoft comes to mind as a parallel when reviewing the absolute scattershot approach to online monetization that Yahoo has taken, but M$ has a host of other products / services (ok, just Office & Windows) that keep it's bottom line solid, allowing it to experiment w/ various approaches online until it finds a "hit". Yahoo doesn't have the luxury of online experimentation that M$ does; it needs to find a magic formula and stick with it, which it seemingly refuses to do.

    BTW, I bet dollars to donuts that in ~5 years, Yahoo, AOL, and IAC (Ask.com) merge. They could call themselves "That 90's Web Company". LOL

    1. Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      BTW, I bet dollars to donuts that in ~5 years, Yahoo, AOL, and IAC (Ask.com) merge. They could call themselves "That 90's Web Company". LOL

      Sorry, LOL.com already appears to be taken.

    2. Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      Is it a news aggregator? A search engine? An email service? An online gaming site? A social network? A web hosting company? A bookmark sharing site? A photo sharing site?

      Sorry, are we talking about Google or Yahoo?

      And, to be clear, everything you just pointed out as a negative about Yahoo is a positive for Google. Yahoo's just trying to find the same formula for success that Google did. Failing, but that's what they're trying to do.

    3. Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is a secret taught in most business schools.

      Most great companies know who they are and do not void in other areas. What is Yahoo? Yahoo was Yang's cool internet links.

      10 years ago they were the internet yellowpages with awesome links to cool sites and a huge resource for information. Back then before slashdot I used Yahoo for tech news and reading and discovering computer related things. They had stuff for auto enthusiasts and for many different subjects. You didn't need to search unless it was something very specific. It was a great resource for the undeveloped internet to get around in. A cooler version of AOL for tech grownups. Yahoo search was not too bad either if you needed to find other things. They were THEE portal.

      Today the portal SUCKS. It was crippled around 2003/2004 ish. They tried to imitate Google first with focusing users on the search page instead of the portal links and communities. Then No NO we are advertisers put HUGE AD on page. Make Yahoo default homepage!! etc

      Yahoo also had a great IM program (back then) and chat rooms and forums before porn spammers bugged you every 3 minutes with private messages and before spyware/malware was installed in the bloated Yahoo IMs of today.

      To this day they could make a comeback as no one has replaced them yet as a cool portal for communities, groups, and cool links. Google is mostly minimalistic to find something new and that is it. But like HP and and a skeleton of companies that died before them they tried to focus on the dollars and change who they are until they are a no one. Yahoo could have turned into the facebook with Yahoo 360 and into something that still is a void in the market. Mainly a cool portal for everything you need or want that is managed.

      But that is going to be very hard. Ask.com is still around believe it or not but the term Yahoo might as well mean MSN or RealPlayer. They left their roots and focused on cost accounting. They could have bought out Google if they were smart back in 2005 before the IPO. That would have saved them but still. Bad UI designers and wrong focus on ads crippling the portal was their mistake .... and a bad search engine too

    4. Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by jkmartin · · Score: 1

      To this day they could make a comeback as no one has replaced them yet as a cool portal for communities, groups, and cool links.

      Reddit and before them Digg. All I use Yahoo! for now is college football scores.

    5. Re:Yahoo! - Time to Grow Up by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      "YaWho?"

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  11. You know... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I bet that $44.6 billion dollars Microsoft wanted to give them is looking pretty good in retrospect...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:You know... by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Microsoft got out of it VERY well though.

      Ballmer is not very popular, but he seems to be pretty good businessman. Instead of an incredible expensive buyout, he got everything he wanted from it (push bing ads and search), with none of the bloat for next to nothing. Later he have accomplished the same thing with Nokia. I hope the man writes a book when he retires, for people to see what actually was done behind closed doors.

  12. yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? by decora · · Score: 2

    anyone remember back in the day? when this new mosaic thing was the hot product ? and some thing called 'netscape' your buddy down the hall had on his weirdo 'linux box'?

    did anyone think back then, that we would have to listen to this corporate bullshit? stock price and quarterly earnings? this is what we built the internet for? so we could listen to investment bankers yell at people about ad revenue?

    1. Re:yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? by SigmoidCurve · · Score: 2

      Well said. I look around at the endless swamp of copycat startups and wonder why I am in this ridiculous industry. At one point I thought the world was changing, instead of the same tired advertising cliches wrapped up in shiny social apps and glittering cloud storage. The fact that a stagnant stock price is used as evidence of Bartz' failure is itself part of the problem. Haven't these short term metrics already been thoroughly discredited? Then why does the financial press keep returning to them?

      FTLOG people, please innovate. The internet right now is a thick wasteland of d-baggery without a soul. Every other site serves stealth cookies and multiple MBs of javascript code all trying to figure out more ingenious ways to take your money. I miss 1995, I'd give anything to complain about someone's use of the blink tag or tables used for layout.

      --
      Dictionaries are for loosers.
    2. Re:yahoo started out as yang's bookmarks? by snookums · · Score: 2

      The Internet used to be pirate radio, a speakeasy, and the underground press rolled together.

      Now it's television.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
  13. UH OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Old Boy Network: 1

    Bartz Gals: 0.

    No chance for rematch under Yahooligans rules.

    Ergo, Old Boy Network wins.

    Tough Tittie.

    --//00

    1. Re:UH OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope. Bartz Gals == Old Boy Network.

      Women don't bring anything new to upper management. They act just like men. Kind of like the ending in "Animal Farm."

  14. Re:Women CEOs = Failure by gpmanrpi · · Score: 2

    Ooh! Ooh! Women tend not to be sociopaths, they are just insane in other ways. That must be what you mean. Or it could be that it takes more than a few generations of techincal equality to achieve actual equality.

  15. Re:Women CEOs = Failure by gpmanrpi · · Score: 2

    Point of Clarification: Ms. Bartz did not seem like the right person to fix an entity as fundamentally broken as Yahoo!

  16. Re:Women CEOs = Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Misogyny? Old school sexism? Ongoing, entrenched cultural values that discourage females from even considering certain roles, let alone creating an environment that might foster or cultivate them in such pursuits?

    Could it be that the criteria for choosing CEOs that selects for individuals that are indistinguishable from sociopaths have inherent biases? Which is working out _so_ well, by the way. Why, just look at the economy.

    Hush now, little troll. Grown-ups are talking.

  17. I liked Geocities, and 9.99 webhosting by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I still gotta migrate my 40$/yr web hosting back to something that charges $9.99. I think it is very weak for a company to go,"Yo, we're gonna charge 4x what everyone else is charging all of a sudden." It is just a hassle to change webhosting.

    Here is another question: Is there an online advertiser that does stuff like Google Ads, but instead, lets you white list the ads before they come on your site? I don't like a lot of scammer sites, and I don't want my readers stumbling into them.

  18. Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... but it's in very poor taste, and heinously unprofessional. Even worse, the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person can make it look like they were trying to hide something, and may even provide sufficient basis to warrant an investigation. They may not have done anything wrong, in which case it will blow over, of course, but it'll still be a bit of a pain in the rear for them for the time being if an investigation does end up happening

    1. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's also not the height of professionalism to e-mail the entire company to tell them you just got fired. In fact, "fired" isn't really a word associated with CEOs; they "resign" or "leave for personal reasons" with a hefty severance package.
      In fact, in Yahoo's press release they say Bartz was "removed by the Board from her role as Chief Executive Officer," which implies to me that she has a new position twiddling her thumbs, probably at her old salary.
      You have to do something pretty blatant to actually be fired (i.e. for cause), but maybe e-mailing the entire company to tell them that you were fired comes close.

    2. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by drnb · · Score: 2

      ... e-mailing the entire company to tell them that you were fired ...

      This is why you fire people in person. While they are in your office you have IT cancel all their accounts and log them out of everything so they can not access the corporate network or email when they leave your office.

    3. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "... but it's in very poor taste, and heinously unprofessional. Even worse, the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person can make it look like they were trying to hide something,"

      Yep

      I am sure a employment lawyer would be drooling over this. I do not know how CEOs are treated compared to us, but my guess is you still need to prove why they were fired. Maybe the severance package is a way to shut them up so they wont sue etc. She might get a really big one because of the way she was terminated. The fact that she is a woman could be a case if they can find a single instance of sexual harrasement or porn on someone's computer. Sleazy yes but lawyers getting paid big bucks will find anything.

      Maybe it was a bad phone argument in a heated discussion?

      I wish you nor I could get something like that other than GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE or please leave immediately.

    4. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I never suggested that it proved it... proof would be admissible evidence and basis for actual charges.

      Investigations, however, can (and often do) proceed without any real evidence, as long as there is plausible reason to suspect some shenanigans. Firing somebody over the phone could conceivably be construed that they were hiding something, and didn't want her to discover it. I'm not saying that they were doing anything wrong, of course... I'm only saying that this behavior could potentially make it *LOOK* like they did. If nothing bad is going on, any investigation blows over in a few days... but it's a bit of a hassle in the interim if they don't have everything they need in order - about on par with being subjected to a tax audit.

    5. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I do not know how CEOs are treated compared to us, but my guess is you still need to prove why they were fired.

      Your guess, as a general rule, is wrong.

      However, the CEO was also under contract, according to a news article I read, with a year to go, so I'm sure she'll have a golden parachute clause as most big CEOs do.

    6. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person can make it look like they were trying to hide something, and may even provide sufficient basis to warrant an investigation.

      I don't follow your logic. How does over the phone imply they were trying to cover up something? What would have happened differently if it were in person?

    7. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by adsl · · Score: 2

      If they fire their ceo by telephone, just how do and will they treat the rank and file employees? Does the Chairman know what damage he has just done to Yahoo as a 'place to work"' by acting in this manner? By all means replace a senior exec, if that's necessary, but do it in a formal and respectful manner, or suffer the widespread consequences amongst your employees.

    8. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The reasoning is as follows:

      Firing her in person would mean that they were unafraid to confront her on it. There is no reason reason to be afraid to confront her for such a thing unless they weren't intending to be entirely honest with them... it is much easier to lie to somebody over the phone or via email than it is to their face, for instance. If they weren't being honest, then it is possible that they are hiding something they didn't want others to know.

      It's not proof by any stretch... only arguably sufficient basis to conclude that there may have been a less than honest reason behind their actions, which has the potential to trigger an investigation.

    9. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it is a message that your former employer is cowardly and gauche.

    10. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That's really weak.

      Alternatively, firing people is uncomfortable no matter what the reason, and given the company's performance there is all the reason in the world to fire her.

      I'd say Occam's Razor applies here, and there's no need to go imagining conspiracy theories.

    11. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As proof? Yes... it's weak. Even at best, circumstantial.

      But it *distinctly* creates an impression of dishonesty... more of a "lying by omission" sort of dishonesty, but dishonesty nonetheless.

    12. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      But it *distinctly* creates an impression of dishonesty... more of a "lying by omission" sort of dishonesty, but dishonesty nonetheless.

      Maybe for you, but I find it absurd and conspiracy-prone. People break up over the phone or online, or whatever, not because they are being dishonest, but because it's uncomfortable. Outside of some sense of courtesy or honesty, there really isn't any practical reason for a firing to happen in person.

    13. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If firing somebody is uncomfortable for someone, there's no reason that this someone should have been hiring in the first place. To compare it to breakups is a rather moot point - breakups are personal... hirings and firings are professional matters.

      And of course, people don't generally get fired over the phone anyways. By itself, it represents sufficient deviation from normal behaviour to warrant some suspicion, albeit far from anything that would be actually incriminating.

      Besides, cops investigate mildly suspicious behaviour all the time on account of the behaviour simply being atypical. I remember one night I was standing on a residential sidewalk at about 2AM (waiting for a friend of mine), and a police car pulled up near me and they wanted to ask me some questions about what I was doing there. Once I told them who I was and what I was doing (I had to show them some ID to prove who I was), I was free to go, and they politely apologized for bothering me. If I hadn't had ID on me at the time, I don't know for sure, of course, but I suspect that could have turned into a really big headache.

      Just sayin'.

    14. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If firing somebody is uncomfortable for someone, there's no reason that this someone should have been hiring in the first place. To compare it to breakups is a rather moot point - breakups are personal... hirings and firings are professional matters.

      Managers are people, and you'd have to be a cold-hearted and sadistic bastard to enjoy firing somebody. Not that some people in management aren't, but to say that you can't be comfortable with firing somebody to be a hiring manager is ridiculous. Firing people is just a necessary, but ugly part of the job.

      And besides all that, there was plenty of reason to fire her. She was hired to turn around the company and didn't.

    15. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should rephrase...

      If firing somebody in person is too uncomfortable to do, then the person should not be hiring anybody in the first place. It's not that firing somebody should be particularly comfortable, but it's a professional matter - you put your own feelings aside to deal with it in a professional manner. If you can't do that, then you aren't being professional - by definition.

      And besides... I'm not saying there wasn't plenty of reason to fire her... only that the fact that they weren't willing to do it in person suggests something is at play that's not being openly talked about, which in turn could be taken to mean that somebody was up to some shenanigans.

    16. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I just don't think it was a big deal that somebody was fired over the phone. As evidence for some kind of coverup, it's something I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow over.

      Obviously we're never going to agree on these particulars.

    17. Re:Firing by phone isn't illegal... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No... not evidence. Not *REMOTELY* evidence... only an arguably possible cause to raise some suspicion which, in turn, might be followed up on by further investigation.

  19. Re:Women CEOs = Failure by PPH · · Score: 2

    Because tech guys equate female leadership with their mom yelling down the cellar stairs at them. And they resent it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re:Poor Guy by JDAustin · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Frylock, Shake and Meatwads neighbor.

  21. difference between Google and Yahoo by SethJohnson · · Score: 1
    Sure, Google's offerings are diverse and far from consistently successful. But the distinction is that most of them are home-grown efforts. Sure, there were huge acquisitions like YouTube, Picassa, and SketchUp. But all of these pale in comparison to the gargantuan squandering of resources Yahoo is guilty of in a single purchase: Broadcast.com.

    What can $2 billion dollars accomplish? As was demonstrated by an idiot savant, $2 billion will buy you an NBA championship ring. Management of the $2 billion Yahoo spent acquiring Broadcast.com was handled by Marc Cuban, who used the money to buy one of the shittiest teams in the NBA, then slowly stock it with talent until the Mavericks won a title. Meanwhile, Yahoo figured out that Broadcast.com was little more than a clever pitch that played well in the boardroom, but failed to ever turn any kind of profit. Now it doesn't much exist as even a URL.

    And who was the mental giant that hoodwinked yahoo? The same guy who:

    Don't measure Yahoo by the wisdom of its own ideas. Measure it by the ideas of those who have successfully tricked Yahoo in the past. To clarify, Yahoo bought Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion, of which Cuban ran off with about $2 billion. As far as Yahoo is concerned, it literally vaporized $5.7 billion in wealth through this transaction.

    Seth

    1. Re:difference between Google and Yahoo by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Predicted video rental would evolve to use a portable hard drive cartridge system for transferring content between Blockbuster and home. Never saw Blu-Ray coming.

      Did you actually read the article? It's not quite as ridiculous as you are implying, given when it was written.

      Cuban: See above. I don't hate DVDs. I just like the flexibility, portability and choice of hard drives. You tell me which is easier to take on a plane: a 4-gigabyte flash drive with four movies in DVD quality, or four DVDs in their cases?

      He's essentially describing a rental version of "rip the movies to your drive", that lots of people here on slashdot say they do.

  22. Oh! No! by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    Not! Carol! Bartz!

  23. Grandmothers by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm convinced this is the core demographic for Yahoo: older women who believe Yahoo = Internet. Both my sisters have Yahoo set as their home page.

  24. I wouldn't take the job by concealment · · Score: 1

    Yahoo has been without direction since 1997 or so. They could have been Google, but thanks to their confused choice of direction, they were not. They have never recovered. That Bartz managed to keep the stock from sliding further suggests she did the best anyone can do with Yahoo, "a company in search of a plan."

  25. Unrealistic expectations by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    No, maybe the US should drop its system of corporate governance.

    Americans seem to have forgotten that they had a war to get rid of a king because monarchic government is arbitrary, over-centralised and attracts sycophants. So they have corporations, many bigger than medieval kingdoms, which are run dysfunctionally by a monarchical system of government.

    The pattern isn't that Fiorina, Apotheker, Bartz and so on are incompetent. It is that the system amplifies the errors and prejudices of single individuals. The special training for the job is basically to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, you are superhuman. A normal person with average humility would perceive that the job is impossible. Once someone is sufficiently deluded to believe that they are capable of being a CEO, who knows what demons lie in their personality?

    Jobs and Ellison on their own prove nothing; it is possible that both would have failed in a different environment (Jobs could have been the worst CEO of HP or Microsoft ever, but we have no way of knowing.)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  26. ^^Parent by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    And I ran out of mod points. Yes. I once worked with a guy, a brilliant EE, who had worked at Tektronix, Philips and universities doing research. None of the major projects he had been involved with had ever resulted in a finished product, but the ideas and concepts he developed were all over the place. This is why bean counters are the last people to let near an engineering department.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  27. Yahoo is such a disaster... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    that I doubt anyone can save it. This isn't a Carly Fiona situation where the new manager took a good company and turned it into shit for her own personal benefit. It's already shit. Bartz simply discovered that she was incapable of miracles. That's all. What can you do with a company that can't even keep a comics page updated? If you or I couldn't even do that, how long would we last at our jobs?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  28. Dear Bedouin, by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Congratulations. You just did an epic failure at understanding of evolutionary biology, anthropology and sociology. And you think that every culture is like the most redneck bits of the US.

    This "evolved to focus on a trade" bit. Do tell us more. In particular, I'd love to see your lecture to an audience of women fighter pilots.

    The reason women haven't filled professional jobs is because knuckle draggers like you have made darn sure that they didn't get the chance, since that way the competition was reduced.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Dear Bedouin, by bedouin · · Score: 1

      So your alternative narrative is that for 5 million years women have been too weak to overcome the big mean men who oppress them? Your idea is more degrading than anything I suggested.

  29. Shocked, I tell you! by edraven · · Score: 1

    A CEO, or indeed any executive for that matter, fired for something as absurd as not doing their job very well? What is this world coming to? Well, I certainly hope she at the very least has the comfort of a multi-million-dollar severance package.

  30. I too miss the Yahoo of old... by NickFortune · · Score: 2

    I've been using it for a long time, and My Yahoo is my home page, but I'm not married to Yahoo. (I do feel nostalgic about it sometimes, for lots of reasons which I won't go into

    I feel nostalgic for Yahoo, I must admit. I remember them around 1995 or so when I was on the web using Mosaic and with a monochrome monitor. Yahoo search was the best thing in the world back then, and their home page had lots of cool stuff, like hot sites that were genuinely interesting.

    And then it changed. They crammed more and more junk on the front page. Horoscopes. Puff photo-coverage for minor celebs. The search bar, (my principle reason for visiting) got shoved out the way somewhere to make room for links to paying customers, and suddenly it was no longer a joy to use. That was also about the time they started polluting the search results with paid-for links. Admittedly, they were doing this along with every other search engine on the planet, but by this stage the only reason I still went there was because they were marginally better than the alternatives.

    And then Google showed up. Nothing on the first page but a logo, a search box and two buttons. And search results where the first half dozen hits didn't instantly take me to someone selling marginally related goods. What a breath of fresh air that was...

    I loved Yahoo mail as well. I had an account for years - still do in fact. But then they started pressuring me to buy more space, and refusing to let me even report spam without paying extra. And they kept moving the mail button on the homepage, in what seemed like an ongoing attempt to obfuscate the services that I found useful.

    I stopped using Yahoo mail long before Google got in on the act. The account's still active, so I guess they didn't mean all those threatening sounding alerts demanding more money from me.

    And the pattern repeated, time and again. I was a big fan of yahoo groups. And then they started inserting adverts into the message threads. Not just a discrete banner on the message window, but a full page message with some sniffy text from Yahoo saying how because it was a free service you had to read the following advert. And then the next message would be the advert. After which, now that you'd thoroughly lost your train of thought, they'd return you the thread proper.

    They do seem to have got better recently. I don't go there much, but when I do it looks cleaner and less deliberately annoying than it used to be. And if those impressions are accurate, then there are probably a lot of people who'd find Yahoo useful.

    But I think they've got their work cut out for them. I think they burned too many bridges, back in the day.

    I just hope the moral of the tale isn't lost on Google.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  31. Re:Poor Guy by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

    Guess you haven't met him^H^Her :-)

    --
    Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
  32. Bartz had a good record at Autodesk by Animats · · Score: 2

    Bartz did well at Autodesk. While she was in charge there, Autodesk essentially took over the entire computer animation software industry. They got into solid modeling CAD, where they'd been behind, and are now the leader in that area. She managed to avoid getting Autodesk into anything dumb during the Internet boom, and picked up some good technology in the following bust.

    Autodesk is about the size of Facebook, but doesn't get much press attention.