Microsoft Ditches Yahoo! Bid - Vows to Do "it" Without Yahoo!

[fitbabits]

CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/03/technology/microsoft_yahoo/index.htm?cnn=yes) is reporting that Microsoft has withdrawn its bid for Yahoo! - this after upping the bid to an astronomical $46 billion.

Microsoft said the breakdown came despite having raised the bid to $33 a share, or $5 billion above what it said was the current value of the offer and a 70% premium compared to its original offer.

The offer was valued at $31 a share when it was made in January. Yahoo stock closed Friday at $28.67 a share.

"After careful consideration, we believe the economics demanded by Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) do not make sense for us," said Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) CEO Steve Ballmer.

----------

Yahoo officials indicated their pleasure with the end of the Microsoft bid.

"Our independent board and our management have been steadfast in our belief that Microsoft's offer undervalued the company and we are pleased that so many of our shareholders joined us in expressing that view," Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock said.

Yang, in the same statement, called the Microsoft bid a "distraction" and said that Yahoo will now focus "on executing the most important transition in our history so that we can maximize our potential."
So is that the end of it? I said from the beginning that this would a bad move for Microsoft, but a good move for Yahoo! I hope both companies can now move forward with whatever strategic planning they have in place without shooting barbs at each other through the media.

As an aside, I worry about the direction Steve Ballmer seems determined to take Microsoft.

[Furious Wang]

Microsoft's bid drastically overvalued a company that was already overvalued. Yahoo is always going to be playing second fiddle to Google and eventually Yahoo will just poof away like the Compuserves and Prodigys of old.

Yahoo was holding out for more cash and they thought MS would bite. They miscalculated.

Yahoo fails for not taking the offer and Microsoft fails for making the offer in the first place.

Wherever Microsoft goes from here is certain to end in failure. I think their best bet would have been to work out some kind of purchase/merger/alliance with Google instead of trying to take them head on in this fashion. MS should really count their losses and abandon the website hyper-portal game. They're just burning resources to no end at this point and it will far surpass any losses seen by the xbox division and there won't be a success story 5 years later this time.

[Darcydian]

If Yahoo today was the "name" it had 10 years ago, maybe I might see the bid as undervalued, but as it goes right now Yahoo is the "southern states" of the internet conglomerate.
It's smart on MS's part to spend their money developing internally whatever they hoped to gain from Yahoo's takeover. Honestly I don't think Yahoo had anything that MSN didn't already have, or at leasy easily implement.

[Taco]

It's not that easy. If they don't get a foothold they risk their entire business going down the drain, losses for 5 years is nothing. 10 years from now you may be buying PCs with an embedded thin client that turn on and run everything off an application server somewhere, heavily discounted by ads. They can't just turn a blind eye to that and watch their model start to tank while Google corners the market.

They've tried to do it all internally and it hasn't worked and they need to get a baseline in place to build on. I doubt buying Yahoo was meant for now as opposed to the more distant future. Yahoo still has a far larger web presence than MS does.

As far as a merger or alliance with Google, why the hell would Google do that and why would the FTC allow it?

[Taco]

10 years from now you may be buying PCs with an embedded thin client that turn on and run everything off an application server somewhere

As an addendum I already have clients doing this internally at their businesses. You can buy thin clients now that turn on and remote into a virtualized session on a server. That can be a fully functioning OS(pretty much any flavor) or just an application, either way it can be a completely autonomous virtual session isolated to that one client. The licensing model is still similar to what we've been seeing, but that will change. Google has shown what you can do with a working advertising structure.

[jeffbax]

Good, MS would have killed them anyway.

[SalaciousPuck]

Microsoft is lucky. Yahoo's shareholders got shafted. Yahoo is like AOL...people will use it till they realize there is better.

At a fair price, this would have been a win-win and the MS's offer was more than fair. Yahoo's brand could be extended on top of Microsoft's brand & sea of cash, and Microsoft would have had a solid platform for web services as a hedge against Google.

[Exodus]

Yahoo is slowly circling the toilet. Undervalued they say, overvalued and not even worth the effort. I'm sure the shareholders will be quite pleased when their shares continue to plummet. Curious as to whether anyone dumped their shares while all this artificial buzz incited by MSFT happened.

[PrivateJohn]

As an aside, I worry about the direction Steve Ballmer seems determined to take Microsoft.
With Bill Gates gone, there isn't really any reason to keep Steve Ballmer.

He is just a corporate "celebrity" to entertain people with his monkey act.

[Claus DuBois]

I am so glad Microsoft walked on this. I just hope its a permanent walk and that they don't circle back and try again (unless its at a humongously lower price - say $10 bil max). A Microsoft/Yahoo merger at $45 bil+ had all the stinky overpriced redflags of the Time Warner /AOL merger several years ago which resulted in a massive destruction of value. Stay away Microsoft, please.

[CaptStu]

I am so glad Microsoft walked on this. I just hope its a permanent walk and that they don't circle back and try again (unless its at a humongously lower price - say $10 bil max). A Microsoft/Yahoo merger at $45 bil+ had all the stinky overpriced redflags of the Time Warner /AOL merger several years ago which resulted in a massive destruction of value. Stay away Microsoft, please.

There is talk that MS walking is a massive ploy to devalue Yahoo's stock, which could drop as much as 30-40% tomorrow during active trading. This may push Yahoo's shareholders to force Yahoo back to the bargaining table.

[TrackZero]

"maximize our potential"

Maximize it up Yahoo. I'm surprised you're still in business. I haven't used a since service of yours since the 90s.

[Taco]

Their user base and amount of services keeps them in business and at the very least enticing to people like MS. The fact they can't make it work on their own speaks to the incompetence of their senior management.

[Mr. Lake]

All I know is I'm glad I don't own Yahoo stock... what morons. Thats the point where you should sell your shares and walk home with a gigantic sack of chips.

What I wouldn't give to have Microsoft "undervalue" my company.

[bapenguin]

Yeah, I've completed migrated everything from Yahoo to Google. Their stuff is totally in the crapper now.

[vallor]

Interesting information in the Letter. I am amazed how far Yahoo was willing to go to sabatage the offer (which probably would have led to their own destruction) rather than take MS's retardedly overpriced overture.

[Yeti2005]

MS dodged a bullet. Yahoo is crap. Does anyone actually use them instead of Google for a search engine and email? Yahoo will soon go the way of AOL where only a very small minority actually care about them.

[CaptStu]

MS dodged a bullet. Yahoo is crap. Does anyone actually use them instead of Google for a search engine and email? Yahoo will soon go the way of AOL where only a very small minority actually care about them.

My primary personal e-mail account is a Yahoo address. I kept it because I have had it so long. I also use Live, and use Yahoo's pop access to forward everything to that account.

[Taco]

People on this board are vastly underestimating Yahoo's relevance. They aren't profitable, but they still have a hell of a presence.

[Serapth]

1 - As a MSFT shareholder, thank fucking god. This deal was bullshit the day it was announced and frankly Balmer should be fired for starting it, and Balmer should be fired for fucking it up. Other than that, Balmer should just be fired for being a useless tool.

2- Yeah, yahoo is seriously over priced at 31/33$ a share, but keep in mind it is still the most popular site on the web. God only knows why, but it is.

3- Yes its over priced, but remember they wouldnt just be buying Yahoo. Yahoo Japan is freaking huge... dog only knows why, but Yahoo is the most common portal/search engine in Japan. Also, they own Flikr... a site I personally dont really understand the appeal too, but its up there with Facebook/MySpace in popularity. Finally, Yahoo owns a huge chunk of a company called Alibaba, which is a multi billion dollar B2B portal in China and one of the worlds most popular websites.

4- Lastly, Yahoo has something like 10 billion in cash. That makes a 40 billion dollar purchase actually a 30 billion dollar purchase.


So yes, buying yahoo for 40-45 billion dollars was fucking stupid, but not as stupid as most of you think.

The biggest losers in this scenario are Yahoo shareholders. They got fucked out of the best offer they are going to see, probrably get to watch 30-40% of their stock value disappear tomorrow. Worse so, Yang completely fucked the company by cosying up to GOOG for text based ads. How much of a reputation hit is that going to be amongst customers looking to spend ad money?

Yang is as good as dead as CEO. Then again, Yang should have been booted 3 years ago. He is too attached to his baby and is doing bad things ( shareholderwise ) with the company.

[Disgustipated]

Good, MS would have killed them anyway.

Actually, it's the complete opposite. Yahoo is going to sink further and further without Microsoft.

[Talon-]

People on this board are vastly underestimating Yahoo's relevance. They aren't profitable, but they still have a hell of a presence.

Ain't this the truth. Just because you don't (guffaw) use Yahoo doesn't mean that your mother, your cousin, or your sister doesn't rely on their service. Not to mention those communities have been around since the dawn of the Internet (not literally).

It's a bit sad that Yahoo was ahead of the curve in fostering the community aspect of the Internet, yet they completely fumbled its evolution. Remember when people thought that Yahoo! (or AOL) was the Internet because it was the predominate web portal? On the other hand, unlike Microsoft, some of their acquisitions have actually proven to be successful over the years. Although I'm still wondering what they're going to do with all those Flickr users.

Google's success is rather overstated. They're without a doubt the monster in search, but they're very much in the backseat in the other verticals they have entered. As much as we love Gmail, Gmail's still behind the pack, 4th according to ComScore, which isn't too much of a surprise. People don't love moving e-mail addresses. That being said, Google's making strides by making deals with Universities. That growth you see probably won't stop anytime soon. Even in Maps, MapQuest still dominates the field.

Also, the newer Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Live mail are great. They've made some strides (through acquisitions of course), and basically made it a full fledged e-mail app in browser. I already use Mail for my e-mail, but I have to say that Google's e-mail interface is a bit lacking. Of course, I don't care enough to move because, like I said above, it's a hassle.

[Talon-]

I just re-read my post, and it sounds like I'm poo pooing Google, which isn't the case. They have the biggest search engine in the world by a whopping percentage (what, like 40?) plus the most popular video portal. All I'm saying is that those that use Google apps are on the more savvy side of the consumer market, which, to us, makes it seem like Google dominates everything from bread to water.

[Taco]

Google has done far more with less and Yahoo has done far less with more. Think that about sums it up? ;).

[Talon-]

Google has done far more with less and Yahoo has done far less with more. Think that about sums it up? ;).

I think that's a fair way of putting it. Yahoo had a lot up front to work with while Google went simply with just being a search engine, which was refreshing at the time.

Yahoo tried to be too many things while Google solidified itself as a search engine, which was the most important thing at the time and then moved into different markets.

[Serapth]

Remember when people thought that Yahoo! (or AOL) was the Internet because it was the predominate web portal? On the other hand, unlike Microsoft, some of their acquisitions have actually proven to be successful over the years. Although I'm still wondering what they're going to do with all those Flickr users.

That statement is woefully ignorant of reality. MS has made some of the best acquisitions of all times. For example:

Dos
Powerpoint
FoxPro
Softimage ( sold to Avid at 2.5x purchase price two years later after making NT a viable CGI platform )
Source Safe
Frontpage
Hotmail
Visio

All those products came via acquisition. More recent acquisitions by Microsoft include Danger ( as in the SideKick phone ), FAST ( Fast Search & Transfer, watch for this one ), aQuantive, TellMe Networks, Medstory, etc...

Google's success is rather overstated. They're without a doubt the monster in search, but they're very much in the backseat in the other verticals they have entered.
Amen to that. One of the most horrifically overpriced tech stocks out there ( ... and RIM 59/1 PE ratio... wtf?) with a P/E ratio of 40+ to 1 and a market valuation of 130B??? Way over valued. Frankly MS is a little overly obsessed with GOOG at the momment. That said, I prefer that to complacent.

For the record, most "name" tech stocks like Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc... have PE ratio's between 11 and 20.

To the non stock literate, P/E is the price to earnings ratio. Its the ratio of the price the share is trading at, to the yearly earnings. For example, a stock trading at 20$ that posts a profit of 1$/share has a PE ratio of 20.

[mister_slim]

Does Ballmer really have a direction he's taking Microsoft? They seem to be flailing mostly.

[Talon-]

That statement is woefully ignorant of reality. MS has made some of the best acquisitions of all times. For example:

Dos
Powerpoint
FoxPro
Softimage ( sold to Avid at 2.5x purchase price two years later after making NT a viable CGI platform )
Source Safe
Frontpage
Hotmail
Visio

All those products came via acquisition. More recent acquisitions by Microsoft include Danger ( as in the SideKick phone ), FAST ( Fast Search & Transfer, watch for this one ), aQuantive, TellMe Networks, Medstory, etc...

My apologies, I should have been more explicit. I was speaking specifically in terms of web acquisitions per the topic. Outside of Hotmail, which was almost a decade ago, I can't think of anything significant. Unless you count the failure of the Live application suite.

[ÜberJumper]

I'm not seeing any comments here about Microsoft's real goal in this, which was to get a bigger share of web advertising revenues, which is where google's really starting to dominate as I understand.

Microsoft, from what I got, wanted in on Ad revenue (or more in?) and Yahoo, having such a big chunk, was a good acquisition in that sense.

If you read Ballmer's letter, he just fired a huge and devastating parting shot at Yahoo... he's basically said that their advertising efforts are going the opposite direction from what Microsoft wanted to see.

I'm not a big player in the stock market (ha at all!) but it should be interesting to see what the stock does tomorrow.

[Serapth]

I'm not a big player in the stock market (ha at all!) but it should be interesting to see what the stock does tomorrow.

Here is my prediction.

YAHOO, down 6$, atleast.

MSFT up 1.45$.

GOOG, who knows, people buying GOOG don't follow common sense. Will be interesting to see how correct I am.

EDIT: FYI, that letter was actually to who it was sent. It was to yahoo shareholders, especially the part where he says he offered 33$ a share. He is inciting a shareholder riot.

[92miata]

all i know in the movie frequency it was yahoo.....

now it is google.

see ya yahoo. lay em all off i say.....:)

[ElPresidente]

So no one here actually works in the search engine marketing industry I take it? ;)

I'm not seeing any comments here about Microsoft's real goal in this, which was to get a bigger share of web advertising revenues, which is where google's really starting to dominate as I understand.

Very close.

The whole goal of all this was consolidation of competition. Whatever you think of Google's valuation the fact remains that they currently have pretty much sewn up pay per click advertising world wide and it is a huge growth market. My own clients having been increasing their spending on sponsored search engine results and placement advertising upwards of 200% over the past 12 months.

This is a big pie and Microsoft want a slice of it. Unfortunately they have no real web based advertising presence at the moment outside of their purchase of AQuantive Inc. Yahoo through their purchase of Overture about 3 years ago have that presence and Microsoft want it.

Then there are other 'side-factors' that combined with this desire to aggressively target the advertising revenue pie provided the intent to buy Yahoo.

A) MSN has not had a good search algo for years even with the launch of LiveSearch. Yahoo's is far better.

B) Yahoo has a big userbase. Not Google big but bigger than MSN

C) With the rise of social networking (my pick for biggest flash in the pan event in SEM this decade but we'll see) companies like Microsoft are strongly looking at social network properties something that Yahoo has a number of whereas MS has none.

If you are looking at the price of Google shares and the like there is no doubt their current prices are fuelled by more than a little hyperbole but from a revenue perspective Google are currently gorging themselves on what is currently the fastest growing advertising medium going around and Microsoft wants in. The only way to get in is to present a strong alternate advertising model which Yahoo Search Marketing largely is.

This is a volume game and with a set amount of traffic available to purchase Microsoft feel like thinning out the competition.

[TheFlyingOrc]

People on this board are vastly underestimating Yahoo's relevance. They aren't profitable, but they still have a hell of a presence.

Well, they're number two to google now, and google doesn't provide anywhere near as large a suite of functionality. When did Google pass Yahoo? It was on top for a VERY long time.

edit: d'oh, I was just looking at US numbers. Yahoo is still number one globally.

[ElPresidente]

Asian markets in particular LOVE Yahoo and Google has next to no presence.

[Isamura]

I use the "my.yahoo.om" page as my homepage, as well as their yellow pages service. I got so tired of msn.com not being very customizable (as well as stealing my "focus" from my google search bar to their shitty search bar). The yellow pages offered by yahoo are also far more updated and accurate than anything else I've seen.

Also, when is google going to hire a graphic designer? ;)

[Chameleo]

Asian markets in particular LOVE Yahoo and Google has next to no presence.

and asia is where most of the people are.

isnt yahoo's presence quite strong in europe as well?

[Vandenh]

So is that the end of it?

Probably the end of Yahoo. Can't believe they did not take this offer, Google is slaughtering Y!. Good for MS that they didn't buy this IMHO. It is a sinking bubble.

[drakkarim]

i've hated yahoo for years, have no particular love/hate for microsoft, but would never have wanted to touch yahoo with a 10 foot pole.

i agree that sooner or later yahoo will go the way of the aol/compuserve/etc.

[DEM0NWOLF]

i can't wait for yahoo to go extinct, just like the dinosaurs.

[ElPresidente]

and asia is where most of the people are.

isnt yahoo's presence quite strong in europe as well?

Yes but Google does significantly better there than in Asia. Not that it has any bearing on this conversation but just thought I'd throw in some extra info. :D

Probably the end of Yahoo. Can't believe they did not take this offer, Google is slaughtering Y!. Good for MS that they didn't buy this IMHO. It is a sinking bubble.

They weren't buying it to make money off Yahoo. It was a resource aquisition and a competition consoludation tactic. Yahoo has better tech in this area than Microsoft so there is little difference between investing in inventing the tech themselves (something they have been doing to date with little success) and buying out those who have already made it.

Google has used this approach for years, even buying out AI developers with the intention of using their learning algorithms to produce better search results.

Also, when is google going to hire a graphic designer? ;)

I assume you are asking when they will spruce up the look of their site? Won't happen. The nigh on instantaneous loading of Google has always been seen as its big strength for years. The only stuff Google will ever ad (pun intended) to the search layout is going to be more space for paid positions as the company increases the monetising of its main business.

[Arnold Darkshner]

Also, when is google going to hire a graphic designer? ;)

The day it stops being Google. Seriously, the 'no-design' design of Google is part of its brand.

[WaltJay]

Here is my prediction.

YAHOO, down 6$, atleast.

MSFT up 1.45$.

You sire are a prophet!

Yahoo shares fall 19.7 pct as Microsoft withdraws $44B bid
SAN FRANCISCO - Investors are trashing Yahoo shares, sending them down 19.7 percent in early trading.

In the opening minutes of trading, shares are down $5.64 at $23.03.

[Furious Wang]

There is talk that MS walking is a massive ploy to devalue Yahoo's stock, which could drop as much as 30-40% tomorrow during active trading. This may push Yahoo's shareholders to force Yahoo back to the bargaining table.

Yeah. The stock is taking a dive today. If Microsoft goes through with what you're saying, Yahoo shareholders are going to wind up getting a lot less than Microsoft's original offer. Too bad for them.

[Talon-]

The whole goal of all this was consolidation of competition. Whatever you think of Google's valuation the fact remains that they currently have pretty much sewn up pay per click advertising world wide and it is a huge growth market. My own clients having been increasing their spending on sponsored search engine results and placement advertising upwards of 200% over the past 12 months.

This is a big pie and Microsoft want a slice of it. Unfortunately they have no real web based advertising presence at the moment outside of their purchase of AQuantive Inc. Yahoo through their purchase of Overture about 3 years ago have that presence and Microsoft want it.

Then there are other 'side-factors' that combined with this desire to aggressively target the advertising revenue pie provided the intent to buy Yahoo.

A) MSN has not had a good search algo for years even with the launch of LiveSearch. Yahoo's is far better.

B) Yahoo has a big userbase. Not Google big but bigger than MSN

C) With the rise of social networking (my pick for biggest flash in the pan event in SEM this decade but we'll see) companies like Microsoft are strongly looking at social network properties something that Yahoo has a number of whereas MS has none.

If you are looking at the price of Google shares and the like there is no doubt their current prices are fueled by more than a little hyperbole but from a revenue perspective Google are currently gorging themselves on what is currently the fastest growing advertising medium going around and Microsoft wants in. The only way to get in is to present a strong alternate advertising model which Yahoo Search Marketing largely is.

This is a volume game and with a set amount of traffic available to purchase Microsoft feel like thinning out the competition.

I don't think most folks here are actually reading your post, so I'm going to quote it.

Yahoo may be a distant memory to people here, but even just the mother site itself is a huge portal. They put up a social bookmarking site on the middle of the page sometime last month, and apparently the numbers they were pulling were just silly. The acquisition makes sense in terms of what Microsoft wants to do on the web. They don't want to be only a software company anymore. They want a bigger slice of the web pie. Not to mention that Yahoo will probably be another platform from which they can shove Silverlight down our throats.

[Serapth]

I don't think most folks here are actually reading your post, so I'm going to quote it.

Yahoo may be a distant memory to people here, but even just the mother site itself is a huge portal. They put up a social bookmarking site on the middle of the page sometime last month, and apparently the numbers they were pulling were just silly. The acquisition makes sense in terms of what Microsoft wants to do on the web. They don't want to be only a software company anymore. They want a bigger slice of the web pie. Not to mention that Yahoo will probably be another platform from which they can shove Silverlight down our throats.

Do not bash on Silverlight, it fucking rocks.

Now the rollout of Silverlight has been botched, but the product itself ( with 1.1/2.0 ) is wickedly nice.

[jeffbax]

Flash is garbage, Silverlight is garbage. The web was not meant to be pent up with proprietary formats. Flash is at least opening up though, maybe that will help fix its abysmal performance.

[Serapth]

Flash is garbage, Silverlight is garbage. The web was not meant to be pent up with proprietary formats. Flash is at least opening up though, maybe that will help fix its abysmal performance.

Actually, I believe Silverlight is pretty open. C# is an open standard, I think the compact CLR is openly available. That said, I am not a huge fan of Flash or Silverlight, and I hate when UIs require either of them, a big no no in my opinion.


That said, between Flash/FLex and Silverlight, I would take silverlight in a fucking heartbeat. Mostly because ActionScript/Javascript is crap.

[jeffbax]

AFAIK, SilverLights "openness" is still up in the air and going by Microsoft's past history I wouldn't really trust them. Similarly, there is still a whole lot of fogginess over the patent issues regarding things like Moonlight and Mono.

And yes, for the web if a site is in flash I just leave. I just about only tolerate video because its so ubiquitous but so shitty at it.... it kills me so many people have chosen to use such a CPU-hating technology for freaking video.

[Serapth]

AFAIK, SilverLights "openness" is still up in the air and going by Microsoft's past history I wouldn't really trust them. Similarly, there is still a whole lot of fogginess over the patent issues regarding things like Moonlight and Mono.

And yes, for the web if a site is in flash I just leave. I just about only tolerate video because its so ubiquitous but so shitty at it.... it kills me so many people have chosen to use such a CPU-hating technology for freaking video.

Silverlight is actually pretty good in that regard ( as a video player ). As with all things Microsoft, it works extremely well with the rest of their dev stack. I am curious how well the Mac client actually works and if its up to version 2.0 (beta ) aswell?

I think you would actually really like the WPF based markup behind silverlight ( Silverlight is basically a port of WPF to work on the compact framework ). If one of the two is going to win ( Silverlight or FLEX ) I would much rather it be silverlight, as frankly I dont find Adobe to be a very developer friendly company.

[jeffbax]

Oh, Adobe sucks, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure they have quite the history of embrace & extend, or the numerous examples of them using the Mac platform as a crutch to promote a technology as "cross platform" only to abandon everything but the latest Windows release when it becomes a dominant format.

If Microsoft was much more forthcoming about it and released it in a license that can't allow that to happen I might like it (as flash is a total nightmare to develop for IMO). But really, they don't have a track record of being able to trust them with this kind of stuff. See Java.

What also sucks is that, I expect Microsoft to hold back IE development on adopting HTML5, ECMA 4, SVG to promote proprietary Silverlight instead. Hopefully more phone manufacturer's follow Apple's lead on not letting Flash/Silverlight onto their phones which is smart from both a device and usability standpoint.

[Talon-]

Do not bash on Silverlight, it fucking rocks.

Now the rollout of Silverlight has been botched, but the product itself ( with 1.1/2.0 ) is wickedly nice.

I'm ambivalent to Silverlight. You have to admit that they're shoving it down the tech world's throat, though.

[Meglomaniac]

I'm ambivalent to Silverlight. You have to admit that they're shoving it down the tech world's throat, though.

Thing is, shoving new technology down the tech worlds throat is the way companies get their technology used and thusly adopted by the masses. Every company does it and so does the users. Shitting on a company for using marketing to get their product used or technology adopted is just stupid. Trying to create a buzz, show off a product at every chance, flood advertising, etc is just good marketing. It works. Even creating news that inspires debate such as this thread serves the purpose of getting the name out there.

Now back to the topic of the thread. I think it was really dumb for Yahoo to not accept the MS bid. MS has a long history of buying out companies and in the process making the shareholders of those companies better off. MS has bought out a lot of companies and in about 95% of the cases the companies have grown and the products has gotten better. The average person never hears about most of the buyouts from MS. Most of them are fairly quiet and not very high profile. Being bought out by MS usually means better times ahead for shareholders and employees.

[Taco]

I hope you are perfectly cool with telemarketers.

Even if you are. You're opinion is wrong. Yes I know it's an opinion, but still... stupid for not liking unsolicited annoyances?

[jeffbax]

MS buying Yahoo would be good for shareholders. It would also run Yahoo into the ground as MS tries to turn it into Yahoo! Live! and destroy all the brands associated with Yahoo not to mention the development environment that is the antithesis of MS technology and almost 100% open source based.

[Serapth]

MS buying Yahoo would be good for shareholders. It would also run Yahoo into the ground as MS tries to turn it into Yahoo! Live! and destroy all the brands associated with Yahoo not to mention the development environment that is the antithesis of MS technology and almost 100% open source based.

I agree, but from a different perspective. MS buying Yahoo would have killed yahoo ( and probrably MSN and even possibly Microsoft ) as they just werent a good match. Different personalities, different technologies, etc...

Plus, Yahoo is already in a downward spiral, as is MSN ( hopefully they do better with Live ). Frankly even Google is more or less idling for the last little while. The inovation in the web space isnt going to be from any of those companies, except maybe in terms of developer tools.

[J3DI]

I was listening to NPR on the way back from the comic book store (tried to score some of those free comics... I am a Sabbath keeper). Anyways, they were saying that Yahoo! wants another take at the bid. Perhaps they were thinking MS was gonna offer more (a game of poker) and instead MS folded. They were saying that Yahoo's CEO was "confused" about the $33 offer and didn't know that is what Balmer and MS were offering. WTF? So apparently, Yahoo has started to warm up to MS in order to open the deal back up.

I think this is because of Yahoo's big stock dive.

[Taco]

Basically they both wanted the deal done, they both negotiated tough and Yahoo had their ass handed to them. Who's surprised really?

[Serapth]

I was listening to NPR on the way back from the comic book store (tried to score some of those free comics... I am a Sabbath keeper). Anyways, they were saying that Yahoo! wants another take at the bid. Perhaps they were thinking MS was gonna offer more (a game of poker) and instead MS folded. They were saying that Yahoo's CEO was "confused" about the $33 offer and didn't know that is what Balmer and MS were offering. WTF? So apparently, Yahoo has started to warm up to MS in order to open the deal back up.

I think this is because of Yahoo's big stock dive.

No, its just posturing. That deal is dead and off the table. Yang now has to fight back against angry shareholders as to why they didnt accept 33$. This is part of his ( lame duck ) defence.

Frankly, all of this makes Yang look like a giant idiot, and Balmer look like almost as giant an idiot. Expect shareholder lawsuits out the ass, and expect them to win as Yang really will have one hell of a hard time explaining why 45 billion or a 70% premium wasnt in the shareholders best interest!

[Emma Peel]

I would just like to say as an angry yahoo stock holder that I am pissed about it myself. Yahoo stock has been sloping downwards for the last three years that I have been following them. Don't forget at the time that *** made the initial offer that yahoo was at an all time low of about 19 dollars. *** was offering 31. I am not insaniac with the maths but thats more money then the stock was worth.

I get these fun mails from Yang and the yahoo board saying "Don't sell! In the next few years yahoo is going to grow and get better in almost all aspects." They dont mention that thats what they have been saying for a long time now with absolutly no results. I want to go to a stock holder meeting to yell at someone but I figure the line would be too long.

[Emma Peel]

Those *** should read Microsoft. The filter seems to remove M(dollar sign).

[Serapth]

Those *** should read Microsoft. The filter seems to remove M(dollar sign).

Thank god for that too!

We allow people to use M.$. and we will start people using lame In Soveit Russia jokes