Slashdot Mirror


The End of Yahoo: Marissa Mayer To Resign; Yahoo To Change Its Name To Altaba (arstechnica.com)

maxcelcat writes: Spotted on The Register's twitter feed: Yahoo! Submission to The SEC. Most of the board is leaving, including CEO Marissa Mayer. The company has been bought by Verizon and is changing its name to Altaba Inc. I'm old enough to remember when Yahoo was a series of directories on a University's computers, where you could browse a hierarchical list of websites by category. And here I am watching the company's demise. According to the regulatory filing, the changes will take place after the sale of its core business is completed with Verizon for roughly $4.8 billion. The Wall Street Journal notes: "Verizon officials have indicated all options remain possible, including renegotiating the terms of the deal or walking away."

64 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. How much? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to the regulatory filing, the changes will take place after the sale of its core business is completed with Verizon for roughly $4.8 billion.

    I'm genuinely surprised it's worth that much.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:How much? by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not and I hope Verizon sees that and walks away. My only hope is Flickr finds a proper owner so I can keep using it.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:How much? by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except for that last line:

      The Wall Street Journal notes: "Verizon officials have indicated all options remain possible, including renegotiating the terms of the deal or walking away."

      So it's not really final.

    3. Re: How much? by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The user data is available for _much_ cheaper than that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:How much? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the regulatory filing, the changes will take place after the sale of its core business is completed with Verizon for roughly $4.8 billion.

      I'm genuinely surprised it's worth that much.

      I'm genuinely surprised they managed to find a worse name than Verizon.

    5. Re: How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Verizon can make money from the user data but Yahoo can't, because . . . . ?

      Because Marissa Mayer isn't running Verizon.

      WTF? Investment company?

      Hmm... Taxes?

    6. Re:How much? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm confused. Is $4.8 billion how much Verizon paid for Yahoo!, or is it how much Yahoo! paid Verizon to take it over?

    7. Re: How much? by jcr · · Score: 2

      Nearly all of YHOO's residual value is their Alibaba shares. It makes sense.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:How much? by zifn4b · · Score: 2

      According to the regulatory filing, the changes will take place after the sale of its core business is completed with Verizon for roughly $4.8 billion.

      I'm genuinely surprised it's worth that much.

      Where do I sign up for that job? Go to work, collect a hefty paycheck, be completely incompetent and unaccountable then get a wind fall at the end. PROFIT!

      --
      We'll make great pets
  2. My new ringtone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
  3. Yahoo brand by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is weird they decided to ditch the Yahoo brand, which is one of the last remaining asset (along with customer data).

    1. Re:Yahoo brand by david.emery · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always thought that Yahoo was well-named, a company run by a bunch of Yahoos...

    2. Re:Yahoo brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      same thing happened to the poor guy who had "suckingdownacoolone@home.com" was changed to suckingdownacoolone@cox.net

    3. Re:Yahoo brand by javaman235 · · Score: 2

      Yep. The AliBaba similarity is strong in this brand. Also, did this news just come out after the Jack Ma meeting with Trump? This is something to watch, how this moves foward.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re:Yahoo brand by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      I always thought that Yahoo was well-named, a company run by a bunch of Yahoos...

      I know, right? (For those that don't get it, here's what the word yahoo actually means when not yelled by a cowboy.)

      To the guy in the summary who said: "I'm old enough to remember when Yahoo was a series of directories on a University's computers"... well, I'm old enough to remember when 'yahoo' was a name for a boorish idiot.

    5. Re:Yahoo brand by JDAustin · · Score: 2

      I'm old enough to remember when Yahoos were depraved, simple humans (from Gulliver's Travels).

      Of course thats probably a apt description of the board.

    6. Re:Yahoo brand by Luthair · · Score: 2

      AOL is a bit different, most of their properties don't use AOL in their name. On the other hand most of the core Yahoo properties do, with some exceptions like Flickr and Tumblr.

  4. Yabba Dabba Doo! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they paid branding consultants millions to come up with "Altaba", somebody deserves to be beaten black and blue with a briefcase, including the consultants.

    1. Re:Yabba Dabba Doo! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like someone is trying to typo-squat Alibaba.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Carly Fiorina 2.0 by Chas · · Score: 5, Funny

    This version actually crashed a company permanently!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Carly Fiorina 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure how many have been granted, but I have over 30 patents submitted with IBM. One really good, one ok, and 30+ other pieces of crap. I honestly don't get the point. They're so fluffy they have no teeth or they are just crap. I felt dirty submitting some of them, but the bonus cash was awesome. We would literally watch Sci-fi movies as a group and start calling stuff out for potential patents. Multiple patents are direct rip-offs of things in Minority Report, yea no prior art there. Then we would have brainstorming parties where they would have lists of words like sight, smell, hear, taste, and touch and then they would just yell out things like printer, what about a printer that prints taste, what about one that prints smells, etc, and they would write up a patent for every one. I honestly have no idea how they passed then non-obvious hurdle. They also often lacked a major component, hey we're patenting faster then light travel all I need is a faster then light engine. I'm down to one patent every 18 months, but they're solid things that unfortunately net me a lot less cash.

    2. Re:Carly Fiorina 2.0 by Junta · · Score: 2

      To be fair to Romety, Palmisano was the one who set a crash course and 'roadmap 2015', got investors pumped and then promptly bailed probably knowing full well there was no realistic plan to deliver what he promised, but now it wouldn't be his fault. A lot of us were saying that Palmisano was nuts when he made that promise, then when he bailed we decided he was being personally very smart and was just setting up the next person to be the fall guy. Rometty stood by the pledge he made longer than she should have and the company was more and more damaged as a result, so she hasn't been the best leader either, but IBM's problems started long before she was in control. Palmisano was good at fooling the shareholders causing the price to go up, but that can only go on so long before a critical mass figures out the problem.

      IBM hasn't really had a good CEO since Gerstner. Palmisano just rode the inertia, and knew when to leave to look good.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Carly Fiorina 2.0 by gosand · · Score: 3

      This is really OT, but....
      I worked at Motorola from '93 to '98, and they encouraged patent submissions. Pagers were hot, and they had just come out with their new 2-way pager. I came up with an idea for a middleware application to translate text-to-speech and speech-to-text for people to be able to bridge the gap between pagers and phones. It went to committee, but they passed on it because they didn't see the benefits and thought it wouldn't be cost-effective. I still think about that today... I wouldn't have gotten anything out of it but a few bucks, they would have retained all of the rights anyway. It would have been nice to have my name on something like that as a legacy. Instead, I held onto some stock for 20 years and took a loss on it. :|

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  6. What... WHAT? by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Yahoo" is still an powerful brand name that's decades old.

    Who the hell throws away a household brand name and comes up with a brand new one? That's one of the biggest assets they still had. Yahoo as a brand name, Yahoo News (which tons of women still use as their primary source), and Yahoo e-mail (eww.) That, and of course as the older poster mentioned, their existing customer data. (Which everyone has now, hint hint, wink wink.)

    Altaba? I mean, what is that? People are going to confuse it with "Alibaba."

    1. Re:What... WHAT? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are telegraphing their business plan.

      The Yahoo name is worth about as much as AOL's name. Fuckall. A way of painting 'I'm clueless, please abuse me' on your account.

      But Yahoo owns 20% of Alibaba. Yahoo could greatly increase their value by just becoming an Americanized version of Alibaba, competing with Amazon but with 100% chinese made knockoffs and junk (rather than 50%).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:What... WHAT? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Who the hell throws away a household brand name and comes up with a brand new one?

      Lots of people! And it's usually stupid.

      Nokia for example. They (at the time) had one of the most well recognised brands in the world, up there with Coca-Cola. For some reason they decided to rebrand a bunch of my stuff as "Ovi" like "Ovi maps". Guess how effective that was...

      Oh and then there was Consignia. Remember them if you're British? No of course not. It was an abortive attempt to rebrand the most high profile brand in the entire UK: the post office.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/bus...

      So, lots of people since you asked :)

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:What... WHAT? by Junta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of people make the mistake of judging Chinese output by the quality of what is done there as paid for by western companies. In effect, many western companies are pretty much getting scammed by getting the worst of the worst in China, and the western company doesn't realize they are getting the bottom of the barrel because they also buy into the 'China just isn't that good' story.

      Meanwhile native Chinese companies understand the lay of the land and can be quite competitive by leaving the bottom of the barrel to the foreign companies to deal with.

      It's the biggest pitfall of offshoring to any nation that the leadership is not intimately familiar with. If the business leadership has stereotypes about a popular offshoring destinations, they can get pretty much scammed into thinking they have average work for the region when they really get the rejects that aren't employable by the good local companies.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Re:Finally! by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Carly Fiorina, it's debatable.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Yahoo brand by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think everybody's jumping the gun here. What's left of Yahoo after the sale -- which will basically just be an investment holding company -- will change its name to Altbaba. I see no reason why Verizon wouldn't continue to operate Yahoo's core web businesses under the Yahoo brand. To not do so sounds like a tremendous waste of money.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  9. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Angela Merkel.

  10. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She failed at Google, she failed Yahoo

    yeah, but her bank balance didn't though so do you think she cares?

  11. some of you really don't get it by slashdice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yahoo (including the name), is being sold off to Verizon. Altababa is the parts that are left (ie, a big pile of Alibaba stock). The yahoo name, domain, etc are not going away, they'll just have a new corporate overlord.

    Kind of like how slashdot wasn't renamed (or improved!) when bendover.net bought them, or VA Linux, or VA Research, or SourceForge, or Geek.Net or Dice.com, or BizX. Other than (fuck) beta, there have been no updates whatsoever since 1998.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  12. Re:55 million golden parachute!! by hambone142 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've seen some estimates (googling "Marissa Mayer Severance" as high as $110 million.

    That's pretty good for running a company further into the ground. I would have done it for half the price.

    "Time to spend more time with the family" as they say.

  13. Sad by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A yahoo email address was my first official email. Melissa Mayer ran the company into the ground and she is gonna get a golden parachute.

    1. Re:Sad by swillden · · Score: 2

      A yahoo email address was my first official email.

      Psst. <whisper>Dude, you don't say that out loud. It's almost as bad as admitting you had an aol.com address.</whisper>

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Sad by Monoman · · Score: 2

      In all fairness, I would say Yahoo was already entering into a death spiral when Marissa came on board. I don't see how anyone thought the company could have been saved at that point and figured her real job was to make the company look good enough to get it sold.

      She was probably doing as good as anyone else until the news of the email hacks came out.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  14. Re:55 million golden parachute!! by MouseR · · Score: 4, Funny

    I haven't seen any figures but regardless, she did manage to sell a worthless company for 4+ billions. That's worth a bonus.

  15. Re:Finally! by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fiorina? How about Elizabeth Holmes? Ellen Pao? No debate there.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  16. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She didn't fail at Google, she was widely respected both internally and externally

    Bullshit. She was known as a shitty project manager but had a relationship with Larry and later a few other higher ups so most people just let it go and she rose through the ranks.

  17. Re:55 million golden parachute!! by ark1 · · Score: 2

    Verizon acquired AOL for 4.4B the year before...

  18. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She didn't fail at Google, she was widely respected both internally and externally. Hence why the Yahoo board chose as CEO of the company.

    >

    While at Google, she was demoted and left shortly after. Yahoo hired her because "she worked at Google, she must be smart".

    This sort of shit happens all the time. Helwett-Packard, world's largest computer hardware maker hired a CEO from a software-only company, who had recently been fired after only 2 years as CEO. And then, after only 11 months at HP, fired him and replaced with him the the former CEO of Ebay.

  19. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Read these posts and you'll realize how tough Hillary had it from the get-go. Bigotry, nationalism, racism, sexism, tribalism of all sorts are not confined to truck drivers in the Deep South. Presumably almost all the folks posting here are college-educated with at least middle-class backgrounds.

    So no, Hillary didn't do a terrible job. She just didn't a spectacular job like Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and that's what is needed to get past this unbelievable bigoted shit.

  20. Why bother with a CEO? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like you could just as easily replace these CEOs with a magic 8 ball and get similar results.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Why bother with a CEO? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems like you could just as easily replace these CEOs with a magic 8 ball and get similar results.

      And now here you are, trying to automate away the jobs of CEOs. You evil creten! Just think of the terror their wives will have to endure -- down to only 2 summer houses. How long do you expect them to endure this punishment?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  21. Re:Finally! by sheramil · · Score: 3, Funny

    She failed at Google, she failed Yahoo...

    She'll probably be the next head of Telstra.

  22. Microsoft offered $45 Billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The stupidest move was when Yahoo refused the Microsoft offer. It was just down hill from then on.

    1. Re:Microsoft offered $45 Billion by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely. Everybody blames Marissa Mayer, and while her time at the top has hardly been stellar, she was handed a sinking ship. It's Jerry Yang whose responsible for Yahoo's decrepitude.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Microsoft offered $45 Billion by Prien715 · · Score: 2

      Marissa inherited a company with the most popular email, finance, and fantasy sports sites on the internet. Despite still being in an exclusive advertising deal with MS (who wants to use Bing ads?) prior to her arrival, she decided to turn Yahoo into a "digital magazine" (hiring Katie Couric and David Pogue). And she even decided to renew the deal.

      On the employee side, she introduced a "stack ranking" policy (shortly before even Microsoft abandoned it) that was done QUARTERLY which turned the whole company into a giant game of survivor. Even free sushi bars and smoothies aren't enough to keep many people from finding a new company (Google, Apple, Facebook) where you aren't constantly worried about being fired. Losing many of your long-time employees and focusing on short-term (quarterly) goals is a target-rich environment for anyone looking to break in and steal passwords.

      It isn't hard to imagine a future where Yahoo instead chose to focus on retaining their positions (Draft Kings is more popular now than Yahoo Fantasy Sports) and not renewing their deal with Bing search. The best thing Marissa did is probably improve the cafeteria.

      (Disclaimer: I worked for Yahoo in 2013 and have nothing but praise for the other engineers who work there.)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  23. Re:Finally! by lucm · · Score: 5, Informative

    "She failed at Google"

    Yeah. She was in charge of search, and we all know how much Google search sucks. Maybe instead of "Altaba," they should call the new company "Alta Vista."

    Wrong. She was not in charge of search at all. She had a role in the design of the search page, then she was in charge of user experience and the shopping stuff. The search stuff was (is) handled by engineers not by a PM/QA person.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  24. Re:Finally! by lucm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dude not only do you suck at being snippy, you're wrong and that "Israeli Engineering Open House" blog page is not a reference.

    She was not in charge of search - she was actually removed from that team because the real search guy (Amit Singhal) complained and they sent her to the shopping division ("Products Search") where they eventually put someone above her because she was a pain in the ass.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  25. Re:Finally! by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe instead of "Altaba," they should call the new company "Alta Vista."

    My first thought was that the name was going to be a concern. One company with major search engine roots changing its name to one that starts with the same five letters and ends on the same as another major search engine? Will HP (or whoever owns the rights to altavista these days) let that happen without unleashing the lawyers?
    What's next? Google renaming to altabeta?

  26. And This is What Mismanagement Looks Like by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this, ladies and gentlemen is what a parade of mismanagement looks like. Corporate raider CEO after corporate raider CEO trying to pump up short term valuation at the expense of long term viability.

    I have said it before, I will say it again. Every executive level and board member should be required by law to receive all compensation above 10x median employee salary as stock options that start to mature in 5 years and mature 20% per year. Thus, if they get $10M per year pay, something like $9.4M is tied up for 5 years and they don't get 100% out of their first years pay until the 10th year. Force these slash and burn CEOs who are only looking to line their pockets to ensure long term corporate viability.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:And This is What Mismanagement Looks Like by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And this, ladies and gentlemen is what a parade of mismanagement looks like. Corporate raider CEO after corporate raider CEO trying to pump up short term valuation at the expense of long term viability.

      That got you a +5 on /., but it is a load of crap. Mayer wasn't a raider CEO and she didn't try to pump up short term valuation. Quite the opposite, she tried to find some way to build real value in what was clearly a moribund company. I'm not saying she did a good job -- it's entirely possible that a good CEO could have found a way to preserve and grow Yahoo. But it's also entirely possible that there was just nothing there to work with, and in fact that looks most likely to me.

      Yahoo! had been coasting for a very long time when Mayer took job. Basically, the company's reason for existence ceased when Google proved in the late 90s that hand-curated directories were a dead end (up until that point, the general consensus was that search engines were doomed to failure; they were better at indexing but terrible at relevance and expected to get dramatically worse as the size of the Internet grew). But because Yahoo! had established itself as a major player it continued attracting capital, and thanks to some good deals with PC makers which got the Yahoo! search bar pre-installed on lots of machines, built considerable mindshare as a landing page and an email service. That ensured a small but decent ad revenue flow.

      But Yahoo! was never able to find a way to build a compelling product. Its ad revenues on the desktop were in decline, thanks in large part to the demise of the landing page concept and it basically completely failed to make the transition to mobile (though it did make some nice apps). What Mayer needed to do to be successful was to take the talent and the revenue and use it to create an entirely new business. Pulling all of the employees back into the office was part of her strategy for doing that, based on the theory that co-located people are more capable of generating innovative ideas (which is true, but "more capable" is not a guarantee of a result).

      But creating an entirely new line of business isn't an easy thing to do, even given a large pool of talent and plenty of money. Or, rather, it's easy to do on a small scale, but it's hard to create something that will scale rapidly up to become a multi-billion dollar business. It's actually a little easier to find a promising startup to acquire and then grow that... but even that is a crapshoot, and none of Mayer's acquisitions panned out.

      So, Yahoo!'s failure had nothing whatsoever to do with corporate raiding CEOs or pump 'n dump schemes. Mayer attempted to succeed, and failed, plain and simple.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:And This is What Mismanagement Looks Like by swb · · Score: 2

      What Mayer needed to do to be successful was to take the talent and the revenue and use it to create an entirely new business. Pulling all of the employees back into the office was part of her strategy for doing that, based on the theory that co-located people are more capable of generating innovative ideas (which is true, but "more capable" is not a guarantee of a result).

      I think the idea of creating a new business out of it makes a ton of sense, but I think where Mayer personally ran aground was alienating her employees from day 1.

      I think the evidence is pretty clear Mayer has genius level intelligence based on her education and her work at Google, but I also think she came in with a chip on her shoulder from Google you could see underneath the Superwoman cape she donned. Showing up and disrupting the work culture with an "arbeit macht frei" mindset poisoned the well from day 1.

      The "I can work harder than you" attitude she pushed ended up seeming insulting to most people. I just don't think an extremely rich person who is also extremely well compensated and who thinks 80 hour work weeks are great can sell that idea to employees. Obviously they know she has the money to automate her entire non-work lifestyle, so it's basically sacrifice-free to her.

      I also wonder if she chose the right approach to re-inventing Yahoo. I can't help but think that the old-school "curated index" might have been the basis of a new Yahoo. Google search is a technical triumph but I'm often surprised at how useless it is, especially if you goal is finding categories of web sites or knowledge that have relevance. I still find myself occasionally spending time digging into forums for their "sticky" posts that have a list of links or sites that some human has determined have coherent relevance on a topic.

      I wonder if the right path might have been a variation on Apple's walled garden, but rather than walls, maybe it's a curated garden, an search/index site focused on culling the sewage out of the modern internet and leaving behind the useful information. But if the financial structure of the company is solely focused on Google-scale advertising then they were just doomed.

    3. Re:And This is What Mismanagement Looks Like by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Mayer wasn't a raider CEO and she didn't try to pump up short term valuation. Quite the opposite, she tried to find some way to build real value in what was clearly a moribund company. I'm not saying she did a good job -- it's entirely possible that a good CEO could have found a way to preserve and grow Yahoo.

      I think Mayer got distracted being a member of the SI valley glitterati and doing appearances on women's talk shows.

      That said the real problem was GREED. The way to 'save' yahoo was probable to accept that there was no direct path back to the glory days. The had some good performant properties like flickr and tumblr. Things like maps and mail could still probably make enough page views to justify the operation. They should have dumped/sold off the rest and been a smaller company with a strong brand and little dry powder in the bank to ready to buy a startup property that made some sense when the saw it. Investors would never all that though. They'd demand any capital raised from sales be returned as dividends and would sell their shares at the mention of even a short term organic growth strategy. So in a real sense Mayer's hands were tied, but hubris probably would have driven her to try and play miracle worker anyway; hence Alibaba

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  27. Re:55 million golden parachute!! by Jumunquo · · Score: 2

    AOL turned themselves into a media business and actually owned a lot of high traffic websites like The Huffington Post, TechCrunch, and Engadget. Can't really see that worth $4B either, but it's not like they bought a dial-up business.

    Yahoo probably still has Alibaba shares I assume? That might be worth quite a lot, much more than Yahoo is worth.

  28. Re:Finally! by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She didn't fail at Google, she was widely respected both internally and externally. Hence why the Yahoo board chose as CEO of the company.

    The reality is Yahoo has been a zombie for years, only the investors weren't ready to admit it and put it down.

    Her reputation was for working at Google. Not for being some kind of super worker. No. Her rep was for being there and having been there early on and long enough to be somebody important without actually contributing a hell of a lot. It's really a lot like having a low /. user number. It gains some respect and whatever but it doesn't really mean much.

    The only reason Marissa's adventures at Yahoo lasted this long is that she was fairly smart and it helped obscure that she had no clue what the hell she was doing.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  29. Altabavista ? by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 2

    Sorry ... Could not resist ...

    --
    Totof
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Thinking back on the MS bid by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    I! Cannot! Help! But! Remember! The! Many! Billions! Microsoft! Was! Willing! To! Shell! Out! For! Yahoo!.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/01/21/should-microsoft-acquire-yahoo-for-53-billion/#651371e6a19e

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  32. Telecommuting by Max_W · · Score: 2

    So CEO Marissa Mayer was wrong about telecommuting. Her ban on working via network did not help Yahoo.

  33. Re:Finally! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Some time ago the new owners of Slashdot actually posted to KIA, Reddit's infamous Gamergate forum, encouraging readers there to come over here. That's why there's so much misogynist shit here at the moment.

    I don't think anyone can reasonably say Mayer killed Yahoo. She just failed to save it. I doubt most Slashdotters know how to save Yahoo, but a very loud subset does like blaming women for everything.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  34. newbies by Dareth · · Score: 2

    I consider myself a bit of a latecomer to Slashdot.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  35. Re:Finally! by slew · · Score: 2

    "She failed at Google"

    Yeah. She was in charge of search, and we all know how much Google search sucks. Maybe instead of "Altaba," they should call the new company "Alta Vista."

    Altaba - [Ahl-tah-bah]

    noun
    1. a contraction between Alta-vista (Yahoo bought AltaVista in 2003) and Alibaba (aka "RemainCo" part of Yahoo that holds $37billion of Alibaba stock). .
    2. a generic term for a used-to-be-search-company-that-still-owns-lots-of-Alibaba stock

    Example: "Altaba is a stupid but totally appropriate name for that company."

    verb
    1. to complete the process of running a business into the ground divesting all operations and turning it into a zombie company that will never die because it owns too much stock in a company that cannot/willnot buy the stock back without suffering a huge tax bill.

    Example: "Wow, that CEO totally Altaba-ed that company!"