No MahooooooOOOOO! for us - Yahoo! rejects Microsoft buyout

Discussions

News: No MahooooooOOOOO! for us - Yahoo! rejects Microsoft buyout

  1. Multiple sources, including the Wall Street Journal, have reported that Yahoo has rejected Microsoft's buyout bid. Yahoo's board is "continually evaluating all of its strategic options in the context of the rapidly evolving industry environment and we remain committed to pursuing initiatives that maximize value for all stockholders." In a way, this is great: the last thing we ever need is to have a company we can call "Mahooooo," and it also means that the corporate mindsets behind the two companies survive: it's arguable that Yahoo is more open (altruistic?) than Microsoft is. (This isn't a value judgement; Microsoft has every right to make money, but free is better than nonfree for those of us who aren't made of money.) At the very least, it means we don't have to start figuring out alternatives for Yahoo Pipes or YUI yet... or if we do, Yahoo stockholders will make more money out of it. Microsoft is expected to offer more - or make negotiations easier by influencing key stakeholders at Yahoo. We'll keep watching. Message was edited by: joeo at enigmastation dot com, because someone complained that the "like, real news sources" bit was too familiar-sounding and bloggish. Sorry, folks. Blame the flu.
  2. I believe (as has been pointed out in different sources) that this is just a negotiating tactic to get MS to pay more. No one else is willing to buy Yahoo! out and they're failing to compete with Google...so probably most shareholders would be happy with this type of deal. If anything, integrating such vastly different companies will probably prove quite an expensive headache for MS.
  3. +1 for parent. It's part of the game. Various buyouts occurred this way, see the Oracle/Peoplesoft case. And please TSS, don't sink to Slashdork level! JV
  4. In a way, this is great: the last thing we ever need is to have a company we can call "Mahooooo," and it also means that the corporate mindsets behind the two companies survive: it's arguable that Yahoo is more open (altruistic?) than Microsoft is. (This isn't a value judgement; Microsoft has every right to make money, but free is better than nonfree for those of us who aren't made of money.)
    My beef against Microsoft is not about their altruism or lack of it. My real issue with their marketing department and business strategists is their tendency to obfuscate the truth or blatantly lie, and to try to force ineffective technologies into replacing something that works. Remember Hotmail? Just imagine the damage that Microsoft would make to Yahoo! if they tried to replace their infrastructure. Technology mergers can some times work out to everyone's advantage. Macrobe is a good example. Microsoft's track record with mergers has been poor ever since they adapted QDOS into MS-DOS and refused to pay full royalties or acquire Seattle Computer Products. They can't leave good technology alone, and thanks to their marketing and business guys, they can't produce true ground-breaking technology because they are slaves to "backward compatibility", which applies only to Microsoft products. We learned that Hotmail won't work with Firefox 2.0 in the last few weeks, for example. Can you imagine a world in which the whole of Yahoo! wouldn't work with Firefox or Safari which, combined, represent now around 23% of the worldwide browser market? FUD and other shenanigans have been part of Microsoft's tactics for a long time. The worst part is that their developers are very much like developers elsewhere: they are bright, they are eager to do the right thing, but they are thwarted at every turn by the impositions of a myopic business culture. They are like the Anti-King Midas, who turns everything he touches into crap instead of gold. The stock market appears to prefer the Yahoo! board decision to not merge with Microsoft. The public at large shares this sentiment. Contrast this with another mega merger of the recent past: Oracle + PeopleSoft. In that case, the stock market kept pressuring the board to consider the offer and ended up with the demise of Conway as PeopleSoft's CEO and what appears to be a successful merger. A Mahoo! merger would most likely end up with users running to other platforms, a drain of talent, and a large portion of the Internet in the hands of morons. The good news for the companies based in the Bay Area is that lots of talented folks would be looking for a new job! Cheers, E The Tesla Testament It's like the Da Vinci Code for geeks. ISBN: 1-4116-7317-4 - BISAC: FIC031000
  5. With the kind of offer that Microsoft has made, ultimately it isn't going to matter whether the Yahoo! board wants to accept it or not...Microsoft's offer is at such a premium over Yahoo!'s market valuation that economics is going to carry it. I agree with the folks who've said a buyout would not be a good thing, but can't imagine this not going through unless Microsoft changes its mind for whatever reason.
  6. My beef against Microsoft is not about their altruism or lack of it. My real issue with their marketing department and business strategists is their tendency to obfuscate the truth or blatantly lie, and to try to force ineffective technologies into replacing something that works. Remember Hotmail? Just imagine the damage that Microsoft would make to Yahoo! if they tried to replace their infrastructure.
    This is not restricted to MS only. Do you really believe in Google marketing when they tell you your data is in good hands and they won't make use of it? Also victory of the second best solution is a very common phenomenon. Examples (one may argue about some): - Windows vs. OS2 or Linux - Java vs. SmallTalk - IE vs. Firefox - Postgres vs. MySQL - iPhone vs. N70 or Qbowl - Oracle vs. Sybase - Linux vs. Solaris - JBoss vs. Glassfish - Eclipse vs. NetBeans - Bush vs. anyone else (last ones heavily biased :-) )
    Technology mergers can some times work out to everyone's advantage. Macrobe is a good example. Microsoft's track record with mergers has been poor ever since they adapted QDOS into MS-DOS and refused to pay full royalties or acquire Seattle Computer Products. They can't leave good technology alone, and thanks to their marketing and business guys, they can't produce true ground-breaking technology because they are slaves to "backward compatibility", which applies only to Microsoft products. We learned that Hotmail won't work with Firefox 2.0 in the last few weeks, for example. Can you imagine a world in which the whole of Yahoo! wouldn't work with Firefox or Safari which, combined, represent now around 23% of the worldwide browser market?
    Closed systems and vendor lock-in is also very common practice nowadays (and noone seems to care). iPhone, iTunes, iYounameit... Superb technology and yet a step backwards IMHO. Anyway, I think it's about time to have a counterpart to Google's dominant market position. It's not a good idea to have only one company control a market and be the only one to pull money from it. I can't imagine who else would be in a position to become a viable alternative to Google. The merger/aquisition seems natural in my eyes and Yahoo is probably trying to squeeze out more money. What is going to happen with Yahoo's services is another story and we can only speculate.
    E

    The Tesla Testament
    It's like the Da Vinci Code for geeks.
    Good book. Armin Wallrab (working for Sun Microsystems, but posting my personal opinion here)
  7. Again....and how is it related to Server Side Java? I would be happy if we could analyze the impact it would have on the Java community at large.. Besides, Yahoo is a PHP heaven. Are you afraid that MS will turn Yahoo in to a .Net App? Cheers!
  8. Again....and how is it related to Server Side Java?
    I would be happy if we could analyze the impact it would have on the Java community at large..
    I already asked this, so I'll paraphrase Joe's response... "Yahoo uses AJAX stuffs that impact Java stuffs" In other news, I decided to not buy the $40 pooper-scooper for my dog. I'm sure that impacts TSS in some way. How bout it Joe? ;-)
  9. OK, that is fair but, but it is unlikely that MS would ever tinker with existing Yahoo services, if they were to ever buy Yahoo..that is. I think MS would want to retain "Yahoo" brand (and it services)and use it as a cash cow. Just like the Sears and K-Mart deal) A better news for discussion is that Microsoft has agreed to acquire Danger, a maker of mobile software and services. Danger provides a JAVA based platform for networked, Web services, and community applications. Cheers!
  10. Again....and how is it related to Server Side Java?
    I would be happy if we could analyze the impact it would have on the Java community at large..


    I already asked this, so I'll paraphrase Joe's response... "Yahoo uses AJAX stuffs that impact Java stuffs"

    In other news, I decided to not buy the $40 pooper-scooper for my dog. I'm sure that impacts TSS in some way. How bout it Joe? ;-)
    It sure does, Roy. Except I thought the pooper-scooper was for you?...
  11. It sure does, Roy. Except I thought the pooper-scooper was for you?...
    ... and so ends my drive-by sniping on TSS. ;-)
  12. I agree with the relevancy snipe[ Go to top ]

    It sure does, Roy. Except I thought the pooper-scooper was for you?...


    ... and so ends my drive-by sniping on TSS. ;-)
    It's going to be hard to escaped the media coverage of a company the size of Microsoft buying a company the size of Yahoo! There's no need to echo it again in a forum that supposedly is concerned with the 'server side' of Java. Isn't something like the MS-attempts-to-buy-Yahoo news a better topic for personal blogs where writers can create any allusion they want to?
  13. Where's the Yahoo innovation?[ Go to top ]

    I'm glad to learn that Yahoo rejected the offer because it seems like to small an amount to pay for a Silicon Valley innovator. I like Yahoo because innovation seems baked-into what they do. Back in the 1990s they offered sign-in to their search and news service when Altavista was still considering it. In the past 3-5 years the only difference I see from Google is user interfaces - but how subjective is that?! And some of Yahoo's services have just come off better (I finding myself on http://shopping.yahoo.com much more than http://froogle.com) I hope Yahoo does not sell out for another year or two. They need that time to complete construction of their Ajax-based RIA applications. The YUI editor is a good example of what they have in-store. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/editor/ I'm convinced that Ajax is going to be the client for Java applications in the near future. Ajax is much more deployable and maintainable than SWING or SWT. The Yahoo work on YUI gave me good insite into what these apps will look like. -Frank Cohen http://www.pushtotest.com