narramissic and several others have written to point out that Carl Icahn has initiated a proxy battle with Yahoo's board of directors over their rejection of Microsoft's bid for the company in February. Icahn has purchased millions of Yahoo shares over the past week and assembled a group of nine other investors (including Mark Cuban) to persuade the board to resume talks with Microsoft. Yahoo remains unimpressed. Icahn's letter to Yahoo accuses:
"It is unconscionable that you have not allowed your shareholders to choose to accept an offer that represented a 72% premium over Yahoo's closing price of $19.18 on the day before the initial Microsoft offer. I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company and more importantly would be a force strong enough to compete with Google on the Internet."
What are the odds that the FTC would actually allow a merger like this anyway? I mean the evil power of Microsoft coupled with both of Yahoo's users could mean serious trouble.
Wait - where do you think you were posting this, on a Yahoo!Groups forum?
This is Slashdot, for heaven's sake - the most popular place on the Interweb where one of the world's richest men can take the billions he has personally earned as the Former CEO of one of the most successfull software companies in the world and give it away to save lives and fight HIV/AIDS and a host of other diseases that kill millions of children each year...and be called "evil".
Because for every million in cash he donates he donates 3 million in windows XP licenses.
Take a good long look at what the that foundation donates. a decent percentage of it is is windows software which costs bill G nothing to make another million copies of. He then writes off the full retail (not OEM, but retail) value of the software. As if someone was buying boxed copies of the software.
the Oil tycoons, and steel tycoons of old at least built things that the public could visit, and use. Bill G is too cheap to even do that much.
Take a good long look at what the that foundation donates. a decent percentage of it is is windows software which costs bill G nothing to make another million copies of. He then writes off the full retail (not OEM, but retail) value of the software. As if someone was buying boxed copies of the software.
I have a long and proud history of Microsoft-bashing, but you've been modded +5 Insightful (as of when I write this) by alleging some really nasty things without a source. This is a very serious suggestion - you're basically saying that Bill Gates's foundation engages in tax fraud. Also - Bill Gates doesn't own Windows, Microsoft does. Maybe he gets a discount, but it certainly wouldn't be free as you suggest. Do you have a source or documentation for this?
This is Slashdot, for heaven's sake - the most popular place on the Interweb where one of the world's richest men can take the billions he has personally earned as the Former CEO of one of the most successfull software companies in the world and give it away to save lives and fight HIV/AIDS and a host of other diseases that kill millions of children each year...and be called "evil".
He's called "evil" because he got his money by
Monopoly abuse ("that's a nice little program you've got there, Stac...")
Running competitors into the ground (no, that's not business as usual)
Raw hypocrisy ("Open Source is Evil. Just don't look at ftp.exe.")
Flat-out fraud ("sure, IBM, I have an OS I can sell you")
The guy's an ass who's held computing back for the last 25 years through actions that'd get you and me imprisoned, or at least run out of business.
By your logic, it doesn't matter how he got his wealth as long as he gives a little bit away. Well, nuts to that. Warren Buffett's doing pretty OK for himself and I'm unaware of any similar allegations against him.
It's OK that Bill's fake-donating money to charity, but he's still an ass.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday May 16 2008, @02:40AM (#23430048)
What are the odds that the FTC would actually allow a merger like this anyway? I mean the evil power of Microsoft coupled with both of Yahoo's users could mean serious trouble.
Given Microsoft's record on acquiring companies and launching new products Google must be dancing in the streets. They've been trying to kill Yahoo for years. Microsoft should do it in less than a year.
The current approach to monopolies in the US is not to assess whether a monopoly is being created as such. The thinking is that many monopolies, as defined by market share, still behave in a competitive manner. For example, the XM/Sirius merger gave the combined company a 100% share of the satellite radio market. It was not blocked because the merged company will still have to behave competitively, or they will lose out to other audio entertainment alternatives.
My wife tried to register big_trash as a user name for Yahoo email. But that name was already taken.
Why is it that I know a merger between Yahoo and Microsoft won't be successful, but Steve Ballmer doesn't? Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...
When a mediocre, adversarial company merges into an another mediocre, adversarial company, what will be the result? Cute puppies?
It has been reported that Yahoo employees are against the merger. Maybe that is because many of them will lose their jobs.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday May 16 2008, @05:48AM (#23431044)
You have to understand the economics of the situtation to understand why this would probably be a good combination. Yahoo has a very large web audience, but has had difficulty generating advertising revenue from it, i.e. its technology isn't very good, so it isn't making as much money selling advertising as it otherwise could. Microsoft has the opposite problem, i.e. good technology that can convert traffic into advertising revenue, but it was much too late to the game, so it lacks a sufficiently large audience, and there's no reason for Yahoo or Google users to switch (even assuming Microsoft's content is as good, which is questionable).
A Microsoft/Yahoo combination (assuming it's even on the cards any longer from Microsoft's view) would allow Microsoft to replace Yahoo's ineffective technology with Microsoft's superior technology, whilst keeping Yahoo's popular content and websites. Google already has both high traffic and the technology to generate a high amount of advertising revenue from it, which is why Microsoft and Yahoo really can't compete in advertising on their own: Microsoft needs a bigger audience and Yahoo needs better technology. This is the logic behind Yahoo's approach to Google too (i.e. combining Yahoo's audiences with Google's superior advertising technology), but it's nevertheless insane from a business point of view, because in almost every area Yahoo operates, Google is its chief competitor. It really looks like a principal-agent issue, with Yahoo management more interested in securing their own power than in doing what's best for the shareholders who employ them.
If the Yahoo employees behind the company's lagging technology are less than thrilled about a Microsoft takeover, I can certainly understand why: Microsoft have no need of Yahoo's inferior technology, only its audience, so a lot of Yahoo engineers are surplus to requirements. At best these engineers will end up working on technology designed by someone else (i.e. Microsoft's current technology), and at worst they'll lose their jobs. That doesn't mean the deal doesn't make a huge amount of sense for Yahoo shareholders, and the long-run viability of Yahoo as a whole, which it does. If Yahoo continues to be run by inept management, and continues to use technology that isn't competitive with its rivals, it's only a matter of time before it fails, and then these employees will lose their jobs anyway.
"Microsoft has the opposite problem, i.e. good technology that can convert traffic into advertising revenue, but it was much too late to the game, so it lacks a sufficiently large audience..."
What is the "good technology" from Microsoft?
I just used Microsoft's Live.com to search for "aardvark". Interesting: Google returns a link to Firefox's Aaadvark add-on as the second entry. But Microsoft's live.com never lists the Firefox extension in the first 10 pages.
Can Microsoft be trusted not to be adversarial to customer interests in its search results? Apparently the answer is a big NO. Just that one random search convinced me to never use live.com.
+5 Funny would be more appropriate. It is a wonderful joke.
The joke is confusing Microsoft's fantastic marketing prowess, built upon freedom of encumbrance of any form of ethics, with good technology. Besides, everybody at this point knows that Microsoft's developers developers developers have all cashed in their stock options and gone to more interesting work at Google, IBM, and yea even unto Yahoo. The whole point of that Microsoft - Yahoo deal is that Ballmer misses having some developers around.
Good technology will be successful on its own merits, especially with a company like MS funding it. You could make a decent argument that Google was late to the game, when they came on the scene Yahoo was already well established, and there were other players like Altavista. Google didn't win by somehow levering legions of users, they won by having better search technology that convinced people to move.
If MS has a better search engine than Google, then why doesn't anyone know about it? It's not like MS is so
... having boatloads of cash doesn't make you smart. Icahn is an idiot if he believes that a) Yahoo and MS can merge peacefully, and b) Yahoo brings anything other than a brand to MS. MS doesn't want anything other than Yahoo email users, Yahoo portal users and Yahoo search engine users. Note to MS: users come and go. You tried it before with various other web companies, and it didn't work then. It won't work now.
I'm not even convinced that this is a legitimate play by Icahn to make MS/Yahoo be more competitive with Google. If I'd have a billion dollars to invest, and I'd know that a merger would pump a company's stock price by 72%, I'd try to buy enough influence to make that happen. Icahn would make out like a bandit even if MS/Yahoo go down in flames the day after the deal is signed.
I don't think Icahn actually believes what he is claiming. He's just claiming it so that he can make even more boatloads of cash.
The Yahoo deal would have made a lot of people like Icahn richer. They take the profits, run and do they really care what happens to Yahoo? No they don't.
If you think the deal doesn't make sense, then the people who should worry should be the people owning Microsoft shares.
The founders of Yahoo may not like their baby being destroyed in the long run, but that's what happens when you take a company public - it's no longer 100% in your hands.
You're exactly right. Icahn is nothing more than a corporate raider- he buys just enough shares of a company to get a controlling state so that he could suck the company dry. He pretty much single-handedly destroyed TWA (IIRC, the biggest airline in the 80s) in the late 80s/early 90s by selling off its most profitable ventures. By the time TWA could oust him, the damage had already be done, and they went bankrupt.
He recently tried to do the same thing to Motorola (disclaimer- I'm a current shareholder of MOT, and despise him) before the shareholder vote kept him out of the board- he still sued the company to force Motorola to sell its mobile business so he can cash out quickly.
Interestingly, he owns a hefty stake of Take Two. He may try the same shit if EA comes back with a bigger offer.
He has no other vision than seeing dollar signs as quick as possible (at any cost) and doesn't care any about the long-term health of the companies he plunders. Thousands have lost their jobs and even more small-time retail investors have been trampled on by him.
He's the worst kind of trader. In fact, I welcome short hedges more than seeing him scoop up shares of companies that I have positions in.
You've just become rich by making millions of people more miserable!
That's the very backbone of capitalism friend. This isn't a touchy-feely world full of flowers and lollypops. When you are an investor it is your job to make money, period.
"I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company and more importantly would be a force strong enough to compete with Google on the Internet"
Right..like they do care about that..they only want to cash out...money slaves.
And I can understand him, he's just trying any way possible to screw as much people as possible, wile walking away with money.
Nearly, but not quite.
It would be more accurate to say he sees it as a way of making an enormous quantity of money in a very short time. Whether or not that would happen to screw a bunch of people is really not of any consequence to him.
What about the Yahoo board asking 40 USD? What about Jerry Yang who rejects 33 USD and does not even take that to the board?
What ICahn is doing is telling Yang to go take a flying leap. I think Icahn is right here.
Yang let his emotion of hating Microsoft get in his way of business. If Yang had owned 51% of the shares then that is his right. BUT Yang owns about 43 million shares of 1.4 billion. This means he can say squat on what "his" company can or cannot do.
The M$ buy of Yahoo had nothing to do with making M$ a better company, it was all about Ballmer's survivability after his windows and office blunders as well as his bombastic boats about beating google. This was a look at the other hand buy, a whole lot of flash and noise about buying Yahoo to obscure the failures.
Simply put, in a few months the M$=B$ PR machine would rewrite history, add Yahoo market share and revenue to MSN's lack of market share and revenue and then claim all those gains for MSN as a result of Ballmer's skill, rather than simply buying those numbers in at a loss.
How come FTC hasn't looked into the antitrust implications of this merger? If Microsoft and Yahoo are allowed to merge, the US search engine market will be split between only two companies, a dangerous situation. Moreover, one of them, Microsoft, had been already convicted of possessing a monopoly in the desktop OS market and using its market power in operating systems to tie its secondary products with the OS, thus gaining an unfair advantage over other software and service vendors. Even if the FTC allowed Microsoft and Yahoo to merge, they should seriously consider forcing Microsoft to give the consumer a choice of creating a gmail account and say getting google bar instead of automatically getting the standard MSN setup.
It is unconscionable that you have not allowed your shareholders to choose to accept an offer that represented a 72% premium over Yahoo's closing price of $19.18 on the day before the initial Microsoft offer. I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company and more importantly would be a force strong enough to compete with Google on the Internet.
Translation: "I got burned buying Yahoo! shares betting MS would raise its offer, please resume talks so the share go up again and I can win my money back!"
Though luck Icahn, betting on a single stock is stupid, go back to your books and study what "idiosyncratic risk" means.
Tough luck? As a major shareholder, he has voting rights. And he's using those rights to challenge Yahoo's board over their failure to seriously consider the offer. Anyone who believes that letting Microsoft walk away was going to increase shareholder value is an idiot. The $33/share offer was probably the highest value any Yahoo shareholder will ever again see for their stock.
Yahoo's board screwed up big time by trying to stay independent. Guess what? Google owns internet advertising and search. Neither Yahoo or Microsoft can really make much of a dent in it alone. Quite frankly, I'd much rather see a merger between them give Google some actual competition, because alone neither one is going anywhere. There is of course no guarantee that a combined company would actually be more competitive, but I find that more likely than Yahoo's fortunes suddenly doing a 180.
Tough luck? As a major shareholder, he has voting rights. And he's using those rights to challenge Yahoo's board over their failure to seriously consider the offer. Anyone who believes that letting Microsoft walk away was going to increase shareholder value is an idiot. The $33/share offer was probably the highest value any Yahoo shareholder will ever again see for their stock.
Well first of all, the job of the yahoo! board is to maximize shareholder value for _all_ shareholders, not just Icahn. Second, since when has the conjunction of two failed strategies ever worked out? Both Yahoo! and MS have failed to win marketshare over Google and somehow the combination of both will work? I might be too old and all, but a clear trend on the web is that small start-ups are the ones that usually succeed, not huge conglomerates, so keeping Yahoo! at a decent size might give them a bigger chance to adopt to what the market wants. Microsoft has a pretty bad track record (certainly recently) at meeting consumer demand, just look at Vista, the Zune, the whole range of Windows Live! services, etc... Why would Yahoo! want to sell-out to a company that obviously has a hard time meeting consumer demands in a market that needs exactly that?
Does Yahoo have a plan to increase their share price by 73% in the [next 5 years]? If not, [the Yahoo board] failed at their responsiblity to maximize shareholder wealth.
I think if you look more carefully, the board has a responsibility to increase shareholder wealth by pursuing a line of business. If you think they shouldn't be in that business at all, you're a damn fool for investing in them. (Now, if they changed to a new line of business in backing monoline insurers or something else that's now known to be stupidly risky right now, you might have a reasonable claim on the fiduciary responsibility front.) The board doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that you personally maximize your own profit on a short-term investment; people who think they do are Wall Street scumbag leeches of the worst sort as they don't know the real difference between money and wealth.
investers were investing in the long-term health of the company. Dividends were the method they gained as the company did better. Now it's a complex poker game and you aren't buying shares because the company will do well but so that you can sell those shares on quickly and make a profit.
Which isn't *necessarily* wrong except that, since this money is not gained from the output of the company, can only come from the poor investment choices of other people.
In other words, it concentrates the wealth into the h
What offer is this idiot talking about?
From TFA: "I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company"
Of course, with Icahn really pushing this, there's no real reason for MS to come back with a stellar offer. Look at them walking in to buy yahoo for peanuts. Should be telling, if they do, icahn is embarrassed by it. If they do, and icahn's still pushing hard, start looking into whatever side deals MS might have made with icahn through proxies. Wouldn't put it past MS to offer a good deal for show, then buy yahoo for peanuts once they signed on a patsy.
Either way, if yahoo can't fight this somehow, they're done. Nobody that has a clue is going to stick around hoping MS gets this one right. If people wanted to play with MS, hotmail and others would have been an automatic winner, and this wouldn't even be an issue.
As with a previous poster, I hope this puts a nice dent in their wallet, and burns them all. Not just because MS needs a rung kicked out, but as an example to other companies that buying out the competition in order to destroy what made it competition, is a stupid idea.
I've followed the/. headlines over this lack of a deal, and have been generally surprised by the neoliberals ordaining that the yahoo board had a duty to sell the company for short-term advantage. Despite the fact that under any decent discount rate, the whole proposal represented little more than a bet.
Agreed; this deal has gotten so much publicity that the price of YHOO is wildly affected by really irrational, speculative investor assumptions ("It's Steve Ballmer! It's Microsoft! Of course they'll get their way!"). Personally, if I had been holding onto YHOO stock before the deal was announced, I would have dropped it immediately as soon as it hit $30/share and enjoyed something like a 100-200% gain.
...the big cheese until a couple of guys in a garage fucked it up for them. Yahoo failed to adapt.
Microsoft was the big cheese until they fucked it up themselves by releasing an unstable (moreso than they usually do) product. They'll probably fail to learn their lesson.
Merging a company full of fuckups with a company full of fuckups will still give you a company full of fuckups - just bigger. Even so, Google doesn't have its own OS, and that would significantly contribute to Yahoosofts's power. (I'd say Microhoo, but it sounds dirty.)
Not that I would spend a great deal of effort defending Ed Zander, former CEO of Motorola, but when I was at Moto last year, Icahn seemed indignant that Motorola was sitting on some $12E+09 in cash, and was busy prancing around and bulk-mailing shareholders to vote him a seat on the board of directors, so that he could give the cash to Moto shareholders as a huge dividend (or something).
Even before Apple's iPhone came out and smacked Moto's RAZR out of the park, it was clear that Moto needed to be doing R&D for the next-gen handsets. Oh, and you might want to keep some cash around in case of a rainy day. Icahn got handed his hat. And Moto did a bunch of weird acquisitions.
These days, it's raining pretty hard at Moto. I'm sure that pile of cash is helping them through the lean times.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying: Carl Icahn is a vocal, over-exposed pain in the ass. Whenever he talks, put your hand over your wallet, and pay very careful attention to what he's doing with his own.
Actually squirrelling it away in the bank makes a lot of sense from a tax perspective. If they distribute it as a dividend it gets taxed as dividend and as income. If they squirrel it away in the bank it raises the price of the stock by a reasonable amount represented by the expected return they are receiving. That gain is taxed at the capital gains rate which is substantially lower. Of course, this is one good reason to not have dividends tax as it encourages squirreling instead of releasing profits to sha
Yahoo is not the #1 search engine and even if microsoft took it over they still wouldnt be.
Whatever you think of microsoft as a company doesnt matter.
The yahoo board is supposed to represent its shareholders, if I hold stock in a company and someone offers 72% more than the shares are worth, and the company wont even let me consider the offer id be pissed too!
Icahn doesnt have a duty to yahoo, yahoo has a duty to its shareholder to act in their best interests even if it means selling out to microsoft and losing their cushy jobs.
What do you mean Yahoo would be endangered? It wouldn't exist anymore. "Yahoo" would just become a Microsoft brand, probably pulling in the Live/MSN products under it. This would have been a better deal for Yahoo than Microsoft. Yahoo shareholders would have gotten an "out" from that struggling company, but Microsoft would have been stuck with yet another Internet property that can't compete with Google's advertising business.
If I were a Yahoo shareholder, I would be pissed at the board rejecting Microsof
I think he's way off base. If Microsoft is going to be a Dynamic Duo with anyone, it would be more likely some organization that thinks like them and can compliment their business practices, such as:
Microsoft + Halliburton Microsoft + SCO (oops, already happened) Microsoft + Phillip Morris Microsoft + the Mafia Microsoft + Dow Chemical Microsoft + Exxon Mobile...
Not exactly, remember they were in the search and email business before Google. MS strategy for success is invariably, buy up some vibrant company, like Hotmail, re brand it as Microsoft Whatever, use the Windows desktop monopoly to leverage it. Eg, every software update, installs Outlook, adds Microsoft affiliate web sites to Favorites and makes Microsoft.com your home page.
Design Microsoft services to make using third party services a jolting experience. Eg. Disable
It's not completely their fault (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's not completely their fault (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Slashdot, for heaven's sake - the most popular place on the Interweb where one of the world's richest men can take the billions he has personally earned as the Former CEO of one of the most successfull software companies in the world and give it away to save lives and fight HIV/AIDS and a host of other diseases that kill millions of children each year...and be called "evil".
--ScottKin
Parent
Re:It's not completely their fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a good long look at what the that foundation donates. a decent percentage of it is is windows software which costs bill G nothing to make another million copies of. He then writes off the full retail (not OEM, but retail) value of the software. As if someone was buying boxed copies of the software.
the Oil tycoons, and steel tycoons of old at least built things that the public could visit, and use. Bill G is too cheap to even do that much.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a good long look at what the that foundation donates. a decent percentage of it is is windows software which costs bill G nothing to make another million copies of. He then writes off the full retail (not OEM, but retail) value of the software. As if someone was buying boxed copies of the software.
I have a long and proud history of Microsoft-bashing, but you've been modded +5 Insightful (as of when I write this) by alleging some really nasty things without a source. This is a very serious suggestion - you're basically saying that Bill Gates's foundation engages in tax fraud. Also - Bill Gates doesn't own Windows, Microsoft does. Maybe he gets a discount, but it certainly wouldn't be free as you suggest. Do you have a source or documentation for this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Osama Bin Laden gives money to orphans that doesn't make him a saint.
Giving money away doesn't undo what you have done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you fucking serious? Osama Bin Laden KILLS PEOPLE.
How fucking out of touch do you have to be to compare Bill Gates to Osama Bin Laden?
Re:It's not completely their fault (Score:5, Insightful)
He's called "evil" because he got his money by
The guy's an ass who's held computing back for the last 25 years through actions that'd get you and me imprisoned, or at least run out of business.
By your logic, it doesn't matter how he got his wealth as long as he gives a little bit away. Well, nuts to that. Warren Buffett's doing pretty OK for himself and I'm unaware of any similar allegations against him.
It's OK that Bill's fake-donating money to charity, but he's still an ass.
Parent
Re:It's not completely their fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Similarly, if the barriers to entry in a m
Re:It's not completely their fault (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why is it I know a merger won't be successful... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that I know a merger between Yahoo and Microsoft won't be successful, but Steve Ballmer doesn't? Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...
When a mediocre, adversarial company merges into an another mediocre, adversarial company, what will be the result? Cute puppies?
It has been reported that Yahoo employees are against the merger. Maybe that is because many of them will lose their jobs.
Parent
Re:Why is it I know a merger won't be successful.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A Microsoft/Yahoo combination (assuming it's even on the cards any longer from Microsoft's view) would allow Microsoft to replace Yahoo's ineffective technology with Microsoft's superior technology, whilst keeping Yahoo's popular content and websites. Google already has both high traffic and the technology to generate a high amount of advertising revenue from it, which is why Microsoft and Yahoo really can't compete in advertising on their own: Microsoft needs a bigger audience and Yahoo needs better technology. This is the logic behind Yahoo's approach to Google too (i.e. combining Yahoo's audiences with Google's superior advertising technology), but it's nevertheless insane from a business point of view, because in almost every area Yahoo operates, Google is its chief competitor. It really looks like a principal-agent issue, with Yahoo management more interested in securing their own power than in doing what's best for the shareholders who employ them.
If the Yahoo employees behind the company's lagging technology are less than thrilled about a Microsoft takeover, I can certainly understand why: Microsoft have no need of Yahoo's inferior technology, only its audience, so a lot of Yahoo engineers are surplus to requirements. At best these engineers will end up working on technology designed by someone else (i.e. Microsoft's current technology), and at worst they'll lose their jobs. That doesn't mean the deal doesn't make a huge amount of sense for Yahoo shareholders, and the long-run viability of Yahoo as a whole, which it does. If Yahoo continues to be run by inept management, and continues to use technology that isn't competitive with its rivals, it's only a matter of time before it fails, and then these employees will lose their jobs anyway.
Parent
What is the "good technology" from Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
What is the "good technology" from Microsoft?
I just used Microsoft's Live.com to search for "aardvark". Interesting: Google returns a link to Firefox's Aaadvark add-on as the second entry. But Microsoft's live.com never lists the Firefox extension in the first 10 pages.
Can Microsoft be trusted not to be adversarial to customer interests in its search results? Apparently the answer is a big NO. Just that one random search convinced me to never use live.com.
Parent
Re:Why is it I know a merger won't be successful.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent is currently moderated +5 insightful.
+5 Funny would be more appropriate. It is a wonderful joke.
The joke is confusing Microsoft's fantastic marketing prowess, built upon freedom of encumbrance of any form of ethics, with good technology. Besides, everybody at this point knows that Microsoft's developers developers developers have all cashed in their stock options and gone to more interesting work at Google, IBM, and yea even unto Yahoo. The whole point of that Microsoft - Yahoo deal is that Ballmer misses having some developers around.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google didn't win by somehow levering legions of users, they won by having better search technology that convinced people to move.
If MS has a better search engine than Google, then why doesn't anyone know about it? It's not like MS is so
Next up (Score:5, Funny)
In other news.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Addendum: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Addendum: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
You don't know what Icahn does, do you? (Score:5, Interesting)
-jcr
Parent
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Icahn actually believes what he is claiming. He's just claiming it so that he can make even more boatloads of cash.
The Yahoo deal would have made a lot of people like Icahn richer. They take the profits, run and do they really care what happens to Yahoo? No they don't.
If you think the deal doesn't make sense, then the people who should worry should be the people owning Microsoft shares.
The founders of Yahoo may not like their baby being destroyed in the long run, but that's what happens when you take a company public - it's no longer 100% in your hands.
Parent
Re:In other news.... (Score:4, Interesting)
He recently tried to do the same thing to Motorola (disclaimer- I'm a current shareholder of MOT, and despise him) before the shareholder vote kept him out of the board- he still sued the company to force Motorola to sell its mobile business so he can cash out quickly.
Interestingly, he owns a hefty stake of Take Two. He may try the same shit if EA comes back with a bigger offer.
He has no other vision than seeing dollar signs as quick as possible (at any cost) and doesn't care any about the long-term health of the companies he plunders. Thousands have lost their jobs and even more small-time retail investors have been trampled on by him.
He's the worst kind of trader. In fact, I welcome short hedges more than seeing him scoop up shares of companies that I have positions in.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Money slaves.. (Score:2, Informative)
"I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company and more importantly would be a force strong enough to compete with Google on the Internet"
Right..like they do care about that..they only want to cash out...money slaves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be more accurate to say he sees it as a way of making an enormous quantity of money in a very short time. Whether or not that would happen to screw a bunch of people is really not of any consequence to him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the Yahoo board asking 40 USD? What about Jerry Yang who rejects 33 USD and does not even take that to the board?
What ICahn is doing is telling Yang to go take a flying leap. I think Icahn is right here.
Yang let his emotion of hating Microsoft get in his way of business. If Yang had owned 51% of the shares then that is his right. BUT Yang owns about 43 million shares of 1.4 billion. This means he can say squat on what "his" company can or cannot do.
haha (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only imagine what would happen by taking yahoo's infrastructure off free bsd and putting it on windows.
Google might just be loving this.
Yahoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
I had given up hope that Microsoft would fire their legendary footgun at a Microwho? deal. I hope they blow all their available cash on this.
The synergy of this opportunity rivals a .com bubble for the ability to vanquish vast quantities of value.
Now I can look forward to reading about this in the news [google.com].
I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Simply put, in a few months the M$=B$ PR machine would rewrite history, add Yahoo market share and revenue to MSN's lack of market share and revenue and then claim all those gains for MSN as a result of Ballmer's skill, rather than simply buying those numbers in at a loss.
Parent
Competition in the search engine market (Score:3, Interesting)
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Though luck Icahn, betting on a single stock is stupid, go back to your books and study what "idiosyncratic risk" means.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yahoo's board screwed up big time by trying to stay independent. Guess what? Google owns internet advertising and search. Neither Yahoo or Microsoft can really make much of a dent in it alone. Quite frankly, I'd much rather see a merger between them give Google some actual competition, because alone neither one is going anywhere. There is of course no guarantee that a combined company would actually be more competitive, but I find that more likely than Yahoo's fortunes suddenly doing a 180.
Parent
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
</rant>
Parent
Traditionally (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it's a complex poker game and you aren't buying shares because the company will do well but so that you can sell those shares on quickly and make a profit.
Which isn't *necessarily* wrong except that, since this money is not gained from the output of the company, can only come from the poor investment choices of other people.
In other words, it concentrates the wealth into the h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What offer? (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA: "I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company"
Microsoft, on the other hand, says it is no longer interested http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/may08/05-03letter.mspx [microsoft.com]
Re:What offer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, if yahoo can't fight this somehow, they're done. Nobody that has a clue is going to stick around hoping MS gets this one right. If people wanted to play with MS, hotmail and others would have been an automatic winner, and this wouldn't even be an issue.
As with a previous poster, I hope this puts a nice dent in their wallet, and burns them all. Not just because MS needs a rung kicked out, but as an example to other companies that buying out the competition in order to destroy what made it competition, is a stupid idea.
Parent
When I see something like this.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if regulated accounting doesn't float your boat, the ideas of Fischer Black (eg. http://www.amazon.com/Fischer-Black-Revolutionary-Idea-Finance/dp/0471457329/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1210920867&sr=11-1 [amazon.com]
) can't be ignored. Under that light, the entire deal seems to be more involved in noise trading than any solid economic expansion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo was... (Score:5, Insightful)
...the big cheese until a couple of guys in a garage fucked it up for them. Yahoo failed to adapt.
Microsoft was the big cheese until they fucked it up themselves by releasing an unstable (moreso than they usually do) product. They'll probably fail to learn their lesson.
Merging a company full of fuckups with a company full of fuckups will still give you a company full of fuckups - just bigger. Even so, Google doesn't have its own OS, and that would significantly contribute to Yahoosofts's power. (I'd say Microhoo, but it sounds dirty.)
Icahn's a Pain in The Ass (Score:5, Informative)
Even before Apple's iPhone came out and smacked Moto's RAZR out of the park, it was clear that Moto needed to be doing R&D for the next-gen handsets. Oh, and you might want to keep some cash around in case of a rainy day. Icahn got handed his hat. And Moto did a bunch of weird acquisitions.
These days, it's raining pretty hard at Moto. I'm sure that pile of cash is helping them through the lean times.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying: Carl Icahn is a vocal, over-exposed pain in the ass. Whenever he talks, put your hand over your wallet, and pay very careful attention to what he's doing with his own.
Schwab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Icahn is right! (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever you think of microsoft as a company doesnt matter.
The yahoo board is supposed to represent its shareholders, if I hold stock in a company and someone offers 72% more than the shares are worth, and the company wont even let me consider the offer id be pissed too!
Icahn doesnt have a duty to yahoo, yahoo has a duty to its shareholder to act in their best interests
even if it means selling out to microsoft and losing their cushy jobs.
Sometimes not everything is black and white.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This would have been a better deal for Yahoo than Microsoft. Yahoo shareholders would have gotten an "out" from that struggling company, but Microsoft would have been stuck with yet another Internet property that can't compete with Google's advertising business.
If I were a Yahoo shareholder, I would be pissed at the board rejecting Microsof
Illogical conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft + Yahoo = "Dynamic" ?
I think he's way off base. If Microsoft is going to be a Dynamic Duo with anyone, it would be more likely some organization that thinks like them and can compliment their business practices, such as:
Microsoft + Halliburton
Microsoft + SCO (oops, already happened)
Microsoft + Phillip Morris
Microsoft + the Mafia
Microsoft + Dow Chemical
Microsoft + Exxon Mobile
Microsoft + Yahoo = .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly, remember they were in the search and email business before Google. MS strategy for success is invariably, buy up some vibrant company, like Hotmail, re brand it as Microsoft Whatever, use the Windows desktop monopoly to leverage it. Eg, every software update, installs Outlook, adds Microsoft affiliate web sites to Favorites and makes Microsoft.com your home page.
Design Microsoft services to make using third party services a jolting experience. Eg. Disable