[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

What I mean is that you can't hold Google in your hand, or go into a Google store and see it, like you can hold an Apple in your hands or go in to a Home Depot. I'm driving a Jeep, you can own stock in DiamlerChrysler, or whatever it's called now. I just bought lots of stuff from Home Depot, which you can own stock in, and see the store and talk to the employees. I did a Google search for "bikini babes" and got some pics. So what? Google is so overhyped and overvalued, it's PATHETIC. As of now it's $595 per share. Per share of what? Something that's online only? Please.

Why does having an office that customers are supposed to walk into increase the value of a business? Providing a service is a perfectly valid business strategy.

You don't walk into a movie or TV studio any more than you walk into Google's offices, and you don't normally own what they produce any more than you own what Google produces (search results, maps, etc.). And those actually produce more of a concrete product than most service-oriented businesses (e.g. consulting firms, repairmen).

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

What I mean is that you can't hold Google in your hand, or go into a Google store and see it, like you can hold an Apple in your hands or go in to a Home Depot. I'm driving a Jeep, you can own stock in DiamlerChrysler, or whatever it's called now. I just bought lots of stuff from Home Depot, which you can own stock in, and see the store and talk to the employees. I did a Google search for "bikini babes" and got some pics. So what? Google is so overhyped and overvalued, it's PATHETIC. As of now it's $595 per share. Per share of what? Something that's online only? Please.

Google is not an Internet search company. Google is an advertising company.

And Google dominates the lucrative online syndicated advertising market. That's what justifies its ridiculous share price.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

What I mean is that you can't hold Google in your hand, or go into a Google store and see it, like you can hold an Apple in your hands or go in to a Home Depot. I'm driving a Jeep, you can own stock in DiamlerChrysler, or whatever it's called now. I just bought lots of stuff from Home Depot, which you can own stock in, and see the store and talk to the employees. I did a Google search for "bikini babes" and got some pics. So what? Google is so overhyped and overvalued, it's PATHETIC. As of now it's $595 per share. Per share of what? Something that's online only? Please.

Are you serious ?

-t

[- - e r i k - -]

Yeah, some people need to get off the internet. Obviously only physical technology has any worth.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

What I mean is that you can't hold Google in your hand, or go into a Google store and see it, like you can hold an Apple in your hands or go in to a Home Depot. I'm driving a Jeep, you can own stock in DiamlerChrysler, or whatever it's called now. I just bought lots of stuff from Home Depot, which you can own stock in, and see the store and talk to the employees. I did a Google search for "bikini babes" and got some pics. So what? Google is so overhyped and overvalued, it's PATHETIC. As of now it's $595 per share. Per share of what? Something that's online only? Please.

Our economy has changed from a manufacturing to a service economy a long time ago. Just as an FYI.

I earn 100% of my money supplying services, in my case strategy and marketing services, to my clients. We don't produce anything, we don't have any manufacturing locations, we don't have stores. Yet we still run a business.

[ajprice]

Yahoo willing to reopen talks, was just kidding around about $37 - Engadget

So $37 wasn't a final offer by Y!, but MS walked away with Y! willing to negotiate further.

Wowsers.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

Yahoo willing to reopen talks, was just kidding around about $37 - Engadget

So $37 wasn't a final offer by Y!, but MS walked away with Y! willing to negotiate further.

Wowsers.

So, basically Yahoo! tried to "negotiate" at too high a price, and MS wouldn't bite and said FU.



IOW, as we suspected, Yahoo! was just holding out for more cash, and really wasn't bargaining for the integrity of its business.

I suspect that MS may still be interested though, although MS would have been in a better bargaining position had YHOO dropped more than 15%. (It didn't drop more probably because some still believe an MS-Yahoo! deal may still eventually come.)

I betcha MS does come back to the table. All eyes will be on MS now... to see what offer they come back with (assuming they do come back). They could sweeten it slightly, but not by much.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I really hope that guy is an athiest.

Edit: The guy who wants to be able to physically hold a company's product/service.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I really hope that guy is an athiest.

Edit: The guy who wants to be able to physically hold a company's product/service.

Uh oh. Poliwart forum, here we come...

[Dakar the Fourth]

Crap. Alright, I promise to say no more on that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, basically Yahoo! tried to "negotiate" at too high a price, and MS wouldn't bite and said FU.
...
IOW, as we suspected, Yahoo! was just holding out for more cash, and really wasn't bargaining for the integrity of its business.

Conversely, they may have been trying to avoid the old "Microsoft buys you, incorporates only the bits they think they can cash in on fast, and then dumps the rest" practice Mr. Balmer's group is famous for. I'm not a big user of most of what Yahoo! provides, but their email and news amalgamation features are pretty useful to me. I'd hate to have MS just cherry-pick the advertising functions of Yahoo! and then shut down everything else-it wouldn't be unimaginable for them to do that.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I suspect that MS may still be interested though, although MS would have been in a better bargaining position had YHOO dropped more than 15%. (It didn't drop more probably because some still believe an MS-Yahoo! deal may still eventually come.)

I betcha MS does come back to the table. All eyes will be on MS now... to see what offer they come back with (assuming they do come back). They could sweeten it slightly, but not by much.

Yahoo! may not be the enormous giant MS is, but they have something MS wants, and that gives them some leverage. My (fantasy world) thought would be that the Yahoo! brass wants to find a way to work WITH MS rather than FOR them, and I think that would be a better idea in the long run for both, than for MS to wholly own everything that is Yahoo! and then apply their historically bad business sense when it comes to newly purchased companies.

This should stay interesting for a while...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Conversely, they may have been trying to avoid the old "Microsoft buys you, incorporates only the bits they think they can cash in on fast, and then dumps the rest" practice Mr. Balmer's group is famous for. I'm not a big user of most of what Yahoo! provides, but their email and news amalgamation features are pretty useful to me. I'd hate to have MS just cherry-pick the advertising functions of Yahoo! and then shut down everything else-it wouldn't be unimaginable for them to do that.

Nah. He just wants to sell.

Chief Executive Officer Jerry Yang, criticized by some investors for rejecting Microsoft Corp.'s $47.5 billion takeover bid, said he'll consider selling to the software company or another bidder for the right price.

Furthermore, Yang's Google partnership idea is basically an admission that Yahoo! can't compete... in the long term.

A partnership with Google could boost sales and profit. Handing over a small percentage of search results to Google may add up to $200 million a year in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, Stifel Nicolaus & Co. analyst George Askew said yesterday in a research note.

By giving up control of some of its search advertising, Yang would put one of the most valuable parts of the company at risk, Haverty said.

``He will have essentially surrendered the crown jewel of the company to Google, which is beating his brains in anyway,'' Haverty said. ``They get short-term gain for long-term punishment.''

Yahoo! may not be the enormous giant MS is, but they have something MS wants, and that gives them some leverage. My (fantasy world) thought would be that the Yahoo! brass wants to find a way to work WITH MS rather than FOR them, and I think that would be a better idea in the long run for both, than for MS to wholly own everything that is Yahoo! and then apply their historically bad business sense when it comes to newly purchased companies.

This should stay interesting for a while...

If you hadn't guessed yet, I agree with this guy:

Microsoft-Yahoo (YHOO): Has Microsoft (MSFT) Really Walked Away? - Silicon Alley Insider

It doesn't seem inconceivable that, over the next few days, Yahoo shareholders will effectively insist that negotiations be re-opened--in which case, Microsoft will have "gone hostile" without going hostile, just by walking away. And if negotiations are reopened as a result of shareholder unrest, of course, the advantage will have shifted overwhelmingly to Microsoft.

---

P.S. I see that a fair number on the YHOO forums shorted the stock... after it had already dropped ~20%. WTF? "Brave" souls I must say. Too bad their shorts failed miserably, as YHOO is now back over 25 bux.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I really hope that guy is an athiest.

Edit: The guy who wants to be able to physically hold a company's product/service.

And that has WHAT to with anything? And no, I'm not an athiest. I know where I'm going in 70 years.

[Eug]

#1 shareholder pissed off

On the latter front, Yang, Bostock and Yahoo's board came under blistering attack from the firm's largest shareholder: Gordon Crawford of Capital Research Global Investors, whose parent firm owns 16% of Tech Ticker's parent.

"I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board," Crawford told The New York Times.

#2 shareholder pissed off

"Had there been a full deal on the table, a hostile deal, at $34 or $35, we would have had to take a look at it," Legg Mason's Bill Miller told The New York Times.

Legg Mason owns about 7% of Yahoo's stock and is the second-largest institutional shareholder, behind Capital Research & Management.

Yahoo backpeddles, says $33 offer wasn't in writing

Monday was a rough day for Yahoo, with shares plunging 15% in the wake of the weekend collapse of merger talks with Microsoft. Yahoo’s President, Sue Decker, sat down with me in San Francisco and recounted her version of events during the 3-month takeover battle. She reiterated what looks to be a key Yahoo theme: Jerry Yang & Co. never received written confirmation of Microsoft’s $33 raised bid.

This is an echo of comments made by Yahoo sources over the weekend (including those to the Wall Street Journal and CNBC). In addition, when I asked Decker which shareholders support the Board’s decision to hold firm at $37, she referred back to the original formal bid: "The work our Board did was to go around and talk to shareholders at the price Microsoft offered in writing, which was $31 a share."

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I did a Google search for "bikini babes" and got some pics. So what?

Have a teacher explain the term "advertising revenue" to you for an answer to the "So what?" part of that post.

[Eug]

You don't like gals in swimsuits?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Speaking of the PL...

[ghporter]

Can I once again point out the "shareholders only after the easiest, quickest profit" angle? Just because it looks like it applies here. (Present company excepted, of course.)

Instead of going public and berating Yang, why aren't these shareholders getting together and saying "we want this thing to happen with these conditions:..."? It's their right and responsibility as owners of big chunks of stock...

I STILL think that when Microsoft buys anything they muck it up badly and quickly. Sure, there are a few exceptions of course but their track record of "buying a whole hardware store for the plumbing tools section then pitching the rest in the dumpster" is there for all to see. Predatory business isn't pretty, and it doesn't produce equity, just short term profits that can't be depended on to last through the next quarter.

But you're probably very right about this Eug, and I'm sad because of it.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You don't like gals in swimsuits?

I can see her ankles. What a whore.

[ctt1wbw]

[Eug]

reportonbusiness.com: Icahn launches Yahoo proxy battle

Carl Icahn has launched a proxy battle to force Yahoo Inc. to reopen buyout talks with Microsoft Corp., the billionaire investor said in a letter to the Internet company Thursday.

Icahn has formed a 10-member rival slate for Yahoo's board to push the company to accept Microsoft's bid of $33 (U.S.) per share, or $47.5-billion.

He also disclosed in the letter to Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock that he had acquired 59 million shares and had sought antitrust clearance from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to acquire up to about $2.5-billion worth of Yahoo stock.

“It is clear to me that the board of directors of Yahoo has acted irrationally and lost the faith of shareholders and Microsoft,” Mr. Icahn wrote.

[64stang06]

Originally Posted by Eug 

reportonbusiness.com: Icahn launches Yahoo proxy battle

Carl Icahn has launched a proxy battle to force Yahoo Inc. to reopen buyout talks with Microsoft Corp., the billionaire investor said in a letter to the Internet company Thursday.

Icahn has formed a 10-member rival slate for Yahoo's board to push the company to accept Microsoft's bid of $33 (U.S.) per share, or $47.5-billion.

He also disclosed in the letter to Yahoo chairman Roy Bostock that he had acquired 59 million shares and had sought antitrust clearance from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to acquire up to about $2.5-billion worth of Yahoo stock.

“It is clear to me that the board of directors of Yahoo has acted irrationally and lost the faith of shareholders and Microsoft,” Mr. Icahn wrote.

*deity* forbid that Yahoo actually lookout for it's own best interests and not be suckered by money.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by 64stang06 

*deity* forbid that Yahoo actually lookout for it's own best interests and not be suckered by money.

Whose best interests? Maybe Jerry Yang's... Certainly not the interests of Yahoo!'s other shareholders. It's clear from report after report that the shareholders were looking to sell at around the $33-35 price range, but Jerry Yang and David Filo decided themselves that wasn't good enough.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Whose best interests?

I'm pretty sure the post you were replying to said "Yahoo."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm pretty sure the post you were replying to said "Yahoo."

It was a rhetorical question, since I already answered it here in this thread, and in that post too.

It's already clear that Jerry Yang had no real plan for the future of Yahoo and he wanted to sell, just like the other Yahoo shareholders wanted to sell. However, Jerry Yang and David Filo just wanted more money, even though Yahoo's other majority shareholders were fine with something very close to the offered price.

IOW, Jerry Yahoo didn't have the company's interests at heart. He had his own monetary interests at heart.

[Eug]

Microsoft Issues Statement Regarding Yahoo!:

REDMOND, Wash. — May 18, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. today issued the following statement:

“In light of developments since the withdrawal of the Microsoft proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft announced that it is continuing to explore and pursue its alternatives to improve and expand its online services and advertising business. Microsoft is considering and has raised with Yahoo! an alternative that would involve a transaction with Yahoo! but not an acquisition of all of Yahoo! Microsoft is not proposing to make a new bid to acquire all of Yahoo! at this time, but reserves the right to reconsider that alternative depending on future developments and discussions that may take place with Yahoo! or discussions with shareholders of Yahoo! or Microsoft or with other third parties.

“There of course can be no assurance that any transaction will result from these discussions.”

[osxpinot]

Can somebody justify to me how Microsoft can make this work? The way I see it is: Yahoo! is at a crossroads. They have a a few good products, but if they are to make it they must continue to innovate or they are going to go down.

Now, Microsoft has their own web-services stuff. Suffice to say, they are unable to innovate, so they are forced to buy Yahoo!. Now, if Yahoo! must continue to innovate to stay alive and Microsoft is unable to innovate in their area under their own name, what is the Yahoo! name going to do for Microsoft?

[ghporter]

I hope that this becomes an opportunity for two things: Microsoft to accept that they can't own everything, and Yahoo! (particularly Jerry) to accept that change is god in a huge market like Yahoo!'s. Considering that so far Microsoft has never managed to make their own portals anything better than third string, and that it looks like someone in Redmond takes personal offense at Google's success, I think this can be a good thing for them.

I also agree that Yahoo! has some good points but doesn't seem to be going anywhere—in an industry where being ahead is something measured in nanoseconds, that's never a good thing. Hopefully this will also interrupt the hostile board actions currently underway at Yahoo! and get some focus on the combination of stock performance because of solid products.

This "I have to get a huge return on this stock because...I just have to, whether it helps make the company work or not" attitude that so many investors have is counterproductive and damaging to the concept of public ownership of established companies. It amounts to stating that you're pillaging the village when you first move in, rather than moving in to make a nice village very prosperous.

[Eug]

Yahoo turns to Google, after talks with MS officially die - YHOO stock tanks

Yahoo!'s efforts to revive takeover talks with Microsoft Corp. have reached a dead end, prompting the Internet pioneer to hire online search leader Google Inc. to handle some of its advertising sales.

The news disclosed Thursday caused Yahoo! shares to plunge 10 percent as investors abandoned hope that Microsoft would renew a nearly five-month quest to buy the Sunnyvale, California-based company.

Although a stock sell-off is never welcome news for any company, Wall Street's disenchantment comes at a particularly bad time for Yahoo! and its board of directors.

Investors clearly favor a sale of Yahoo in its entirety. Yahoo! shares dropped $2.63, or 10.1 percent, to finish at Thursday at $23.52 and then shed another 7 cents in after-hours trading.

[IceEnclosure]

What will happen to flickr if MS buys Yahoo!?

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yahoo!'s efforts to revive takeover talks with Microsoft Corp. have reached a dead end, prompting the Internet pioneer to hire online search leader Google Inc. to handle some of its advertising sales.

And with this, Yahoo! becomes another Hewlett Packard. The company will remain profitable, but who cares. A once great, innovative company becomes just another Web site displaying Google ads.

Terry Semel should have worked out a merger with News Corp when he had the opportunity.