Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses The Internet Yahoo!

Microsoft Looks To Refuel Talks With Yahoo 188

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the if-you-can't-beat-em-buy-em dept.
froggero1 writes "The New York Post is reporting that Microsoft wants to rekindle the takeover talks with Yahoo. According to the article, Yahoo! has repeatability turned away their offers, but Microsoft hopes that a lucrative 50 billion dollar offer will bring them back to the table. This move would increase Microsoft's web search market share to roughly 38%."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Looks To Refuel Talks With Yahoo

Comments Filter:
  • Of couse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by otacon (445694) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:47AM (#18987515)
    Because if you try at something several times and fail every time, just buy a successful one.
    • It's widely reported [searchengineland.com] that Wall Street Journal are also claiming an exclusive:

      In what appear to be early-stage discussions, executives at Microsoft and Yahoo are taking a fresh look at a merger of the two companies or some kind of match-up that would pair their companies' respective strengths, say people familiar with the situation.

      Maybe things really are changing in the Ozzie era - msft mightn't want to swallow & assimilate - maybe they do want a partnership ?
      Fact is anyway for starters the Yahoo brand is a strong valuable asset, I don't see it been squashed. Also Yahoo is probably the second most successful internet company out there, msft is pretty poor to date given its opportunities, they'd be dumb to just take over & dictate.

    • Re:Of couse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vought (160908) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:24AM (#18988077)
      Microhoo.

      Yahsoft.

      I fail to see how this creates anything but more headaches and "me-too" problems for Microsoft - but it does confirm for me (if not Netcraft!) that Microsoft has a serious problem when it comes to creating new ideas and following through on them.

      I used to joke about Microsoft buying all of it's new ideas - but this is a rather bigger problem. Once they buy Yahoo, do they transition it into a new form of MSN, thereby killing everything that was cool about Yahoo? Or do they un-MSN the current Microsoft web properties?

      The problem Microsoft has is that when it comes to finding information and using the web to share information, Google has the most useful tools for the largest number of people. Buying a languishing Yahoo won't magically make Microsoft popular.

      Biggest doesn't win here - subjectively best does.
      • What do you think? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by twitter (104583) on Friday May 04, 2007 @10:04AM (#18988689) Homepage Journal

        Once they buy Yahoo, do they transition it into a new form of MSN, thereby killing everything that was cool about Yahoo? Or do they un-MSN the current Microsoft web properties?

        Hotmail!

        Amazon Search!

        Zune!

        They keep taking and ruining winners, delivering to the public exactly what no one wants. Hotmail was cool, then M$ bought it and spent a fortune converting it to M$ software, loading it with adds and making it suck. Google mail kicked their ass. Amazon used to have a good search, then along came M$. There's nothing wrong with the electronics factories that make iPod and all the rest of the wold's music players, but Zune is a squirting loser. Is a picture emerging here?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by The Bungi (221687)
          They keep taking and ruining winners, delivering to the public exactly what no one wants.

          For the better part of three decades they have also been sucessful at doing the opposite. Aren't you one of those people who accuse them of buying everything they sell and not "innovating" at all?

          Hotmail was cool [...] loading it with adds and making it suck.

          I'm sorry, but Hotmail was not cool. And yes, they made it suck, but then all the free webmails of the day sucked. I remember Altavista mail well. It was GMai

          • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:23PM (#18992257)

            Sure, XBox is not selling and neither is Vista.


            Well, that's true, they're not. Especially Vista. The XBox is outsold by Nintendo now, and they have zero presence in Japan.

            All of Microsoft's product have been "losers", which is why they are where they are today.


            100% true. The reason they're here today is that IBM gave them a braindead contract in the 80s that put their software on every commodity PC sold. Nobody chose Windows, it was put on all their machines by luck.

            Their development tools suck. Their office suite barely sells. The picture is clear. Thanks for bringing that up.


            Office 2003 was a flop, the last Visual Studio had so many bugs that there was an outcry, and Office 2007 had to have its revenues inflated by the accountants to make it look like it was selling.

            Did I leave anything out?
        • by kestasjk (933987)
          QDOS is conspicuously missing from your examples.
        • Hotmail was cool, then M$ bought it and spent a fortune converting it to M$ software, loading it with adds and making it suck.

          Thats not the only reason. If you don't log in for 30 days (and logging into MSN Messenger doesn't count), then they delete all of your emails. As opposed to the philosophy of Google and Yahoo, which is "keep your emails forever".

          Microsoft prefers "you don't need old emails after 30 days". It's especially a pain for anyone who has a job that takes them away from home for more than 30
          • by rtb61 (674572)
            The reason why M$ kills your hotmail account if your don't log in, is because hotmail is the out and out the most popular dead email box. M$ has near total dominance in the "here you want an email address have this one and send it all the emails you want to, I will never check it, I will never read them, fill my crap hotmail account with all the spam you want, and let it fry in hotmail email hell".

            Nobody trust M$ any more, so a hotmail account is perfect for loosing email you don't want or for sending the

        • by dedazo (737510) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:58PM (#18991789) Journal
          Holy crap, who modded this up for the love of $DEITY.

          It's so funny how Microsoft's success must be measured as an absolute when you are so trying so desperately to re-arrange reality to make them look bad. How many Microsoft products have failed, twitter? I mean, really failed? What, "Bob" and Zune? Out of thousands of them? Out of uncounted billions of dollars in revenue over the past 30 years, "Bob" and "Clippy" are your best examples of why "M$" is about to die and go away?

          Seriously?

          Microsoft doesn't need to dethrone Google with MSN and outsell the PS2. They don't. I'm sure they'd feel better if they did, but they quite simply don't. Their success doesn't need to be absolute. Other companies usually need to, but MS doesn't.

          Consider Google. They're a two-trick pony. Their painfully inflated stock will plummet with first inkling of a problem with the online ad market (not that I would want that to happen, I love Google. But that's not the point). The same event barely makes Microsoft blink. One hiccup in iPod sales and it's pain time for Apple. Microsoft can afford to get it wrong four times with the Zune.

          Microsoft doesn't have to dominate markets completely to be successful in them. It's funny that people like you have to point out "M$" does not have absolute domination of a market to prove they have "failed". Would you rather all of those markets were in the same state as the PC desktop today? Holy shit, I'm a Microsoft fanboy but I sure as hell wouldn't want that to happen. Microsoft needs all the competition it can get.

          • It's so funny how Microsoft's success must be measured as an absolute when you are so trying so desperately to re-arrange reality to make them look bad.

            Are you really trying to tell me that M$ will improve Yahoo, that you like MSN better? Or are you trying to tell me that M$ will humble themselves by using Yahoo's software to improve their own? Do you really think they improved Hotmail or Amazon's search? If you like Yahoo's groups, pictures, search and all that, will you be sad if M$ converts it all

            • by dedazo (737510)
              Seriously twitter, could you cut down on the fucking dollar signs please? Never mind that they make you look stupid - they make your posts difficult to read, reply to and quote. Seriously. At least avoid using them when you're replying to someone.

              Are you really trying to tell me that [Microsoft] will improve Yahoo, that you like MSN better?

              No, but you are pretty sure they'll "ruin" Yahoo to begin with. It's that psychic streak of yours, isn't it? And no, I don't think MSN (Live.com really) is better, at

          • by killjoe (766577)
            MS failures.

            Bob.
            Vista
            SQL server
            microsoft at work.
            xbox
            zune
            sidewalk
            travelocity
            msn
            live search
            money
            CRM
            sharepoint
            virtualpc

            Oh man the list goes on and on. Virtually every MS product except windows and office have failed to reach goals MS has set for the products. Virtually all of them have been money drains that are only in existence because MS makes monopoly profits on windows and office.

            Spin any of these products off and they die within a year. MS can only get market share by giving these away, forcing people t
            • by dedazo (737510)
              ROTFLMAO, SQL Server? And Sharepoint? WTF? Are you for real? What, just because they give them some of them away they're "failures"?

              Even Bob and especially "At Work" served as the basis for later products and enhancements to products.

              Travelocity? And XBox??

              Bwahahahaha!

              *sniff* Thanks for that, I was having a bad day but now there's soda on my keyboard and I feel better.

              Seriously, how is Microsoft Money a "failure"? I'm actually curious. Just clarify that one for me, if nothing else. Or Virtual PC?

        • by johansalk (818687)
          Gmail may have kicked their butts technically but it still has nowhere near as many users as hotmail. No where near.
  • Too easy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Surely such a move would be too easy for companies like Google and Ask.com to block via. anti-trust laws? Neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! can really be expecting Google to sit by and say "Oh, that's nice." to such a move, do they?
  • Indeed... (Score:5, Funny)

    by locokamil (850008) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:49AM (#18987539) Homepage
    ... I repeatability wonder why the grammar is so poor in Slashdot articles.
    • Not just grammar (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:55AM (#18987643)
      Facts are also in question. Where does it say MS is offering $50 billion?

      From the FA:

      The new approach follows an offer Microsoft made to acquire Yahoo! a few months ago, sources said. But Yahoo! spurned the advances of the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant. Wall Street sources put a roughly $50 billion price tag on Yahoo!.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fastball (91927)
        The article may not say MSFT is offering $50 billion, but the Associated Press article notes that the offer could be worth $50 billion. So an exact offer has not been announced, but Yahoo's [yahoo.com] market cap is about $45 billion, so a $50 billion offer would sound about right.
  • by lucabrasi999 (585141) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:49AM (#18987541) Journal
    The NY Post says that John Kerry will pick Dick Gephart as his running mate.
  • by garcia (6573) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:50AM (#18987577) Homepage
    According to the article:

    As it stands now, a deal between Microsoft and Yahoo! would up the combined companies' share of the all-important search advertising market to 27 percent against Google's 65 percent.

    I figure that it would be around 30% either way and falling.
  • Increase share? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djones101 (1021277) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:51AM (#18987589)
    You assume that people will stick with Yahoo! after M$ takes it over.
    • If they pay $50 million then you will have to drop the M$ and use something like Yah!
    • by fermion (181285)
      I know. With googles take over of doubleclick, i was wondering if I should move back to yahoo. If MS takes over yahoo, should we be looking to see what altavista is up to?
    • by Ilgaz (86384) *

      You assume that people will stick with Yahoo! after M$ takes it over.

      I remember back in the day, when Hotmail got purchased by Microsoft, I logged in to my account and asked them how to cancel account as they are taken over by MS. They replied the account is deleted if I don't login for 3 months or so.

      Now right when I heard this story, I tried to remember which option was "cancel yahoo account" and how many critical e-mail (e.g. software update) I am subscribed via my @yahoo.com address

      Some of us use Yahoo because it tries to be platform independent, rather reliable and esp

  • OK, so presumably a large chunk of the $50bn will be in paper, not cash, but this is a good answer to those who say that Microsoft's $50bn in cash guarantees that they will be around for a long time.

    A handful of deals like this, and the money will be gone. Then it's back to actually doing good business, something Microsoft seems awfully bad at these last years.

    If Microsoft do buy Yahoo, it screams "duopoly", but in the long term they will ruin Yahoo's business, and leave the market entirely to Google.
    • by Steepe (114037) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:06AM (#18987823) Homepage
      Leaving ANY market entirely to ANYONE is a bad thing. Google notwithstanding.

      I use google, they are my homepage, I pretty much do ALL of my searches on google, but do I want them to destroy Yahoo and be the only major player in the market? NOPE!

      "Don't be evil" goes out the window quickly when you have all the power.

      If there is no one to compete against, then there is no reason for innovation. They spend that energy they would have spent on search would move elsewhere to try to become Google$
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Timesprout (579035)

      A handful of deals like this, and the money will be gone.

      Actually I would have though Google would be much more vulnerable to this sort of scenario. They dont have the reserves or historical revenue MS has so if a few deals go south, the big share price takes a hit and suddenly the bank manager has more reservations, requirements and fees when they want to fund their next acquisition. Fortunately their revenue is increasing quite rapidly so they should be able to build up reserves over the next couple of

  • Too much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kiracatgirl (791797) on Friday May 04, 2007 @08:56AM (#18987665)
    Maybe if Microsoft didn't keep trying to dominate every market they see someone else being successful at, they'd be able to do better in the ones that they've been successful at. Such as, I don't know, operating systems? Everything I've heard about Vista is bad; if MS had been focusing on making Vista better (and maybe on time) instead of trying to match everyone else it wouldn't have been such a, well, failure. The attempts to get into said other markets haven't really been a success, either. (Zune, anyone?)

    Microsoft needs to let Yahoo alone and realize that it's not possible to do everything.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jorghis (1000092)
      "Everything I've heard about Vista is bad"

      Well duh, look at what website you are visiting. Thats like saying everything you heard about the United States on Al-Jazeera is bad so obviously they deserve to be blown up. Why dont you use it and try to develop your own opinions objectively rather than believing everything you read on an enourmously biased website? There are certainly good and bad elements to Vista, but if you are going to flame them it should at least be based on something better than reading
      • "Everything I've heard about Vista is bad" Well duh, look at what website you are visiting

        The GP said "everything I've heard about Vista", not "Everything I've heard on Slashdot about Vista"

        I can say that everything I have heard about Vista, from a wide variety of sources including Windows users, is bad.

        That is like saying everything you heard about the United States on Al-Jazeera is bad so obviously they deserve to be blown up

        You have never read Al-Jazeera, have you? From what I have seen on their Eng

      • by Miseph (979059)
        "Why dont you use it and try to develop your own opinions objectively rather than believing everything you read on an enourmously biased website?"

        Because he doesn't really have $300+ lying around to buy a new OS he apparently isn't too interested in using? Because installing a brand new OS just because you can serves no real purpose? Because he might read sites other than Slashdot? Because personal, objective opinions are both virtually impossible to have and very frequently of no use? I could keep going wi
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kimvette (919543)

      Everything I've heard about Vista is bad;

      Well here are a few good things about it:

      -- Media Center is INCREDIBLE and unlike Myth, it works out of the box
      -- Recording audio is SIMPLE, whereas in Linux, it can be a PITA with some audio chipsets
      -- Hardware support for bleeding-edge hardware (and new-but-not-quite-bleeding-edge-any-more) is fairly good, unlike Linux
      -- the new GUI sure is pretty (but on the other hand, Beryl on Linux is FANTASTIC. KDE +

      • by dc29A (636871) *
        -- Make it EASY to install an alternate desktop such as KDE, replacing the crappy Explorer

        As a longtime and now ex LiteStep [wikipedia.org] user, you can replace the Explorer shell very easy. If I recall correctly, it takes about 2 very simple registry key changes (just tell windows what shell to load in the HKLM hive and fire up explorer in separate process). Been a long time since I used LiteStep, so I could have missed a few things.

        To get a popular alternative desktop running on Windows, it needs to stop mimicking Explo
        • by KillerBob (217953)
          Agreed.... the only times I ever use KDE are when I'm trying to get somebody who's new to Linux to come to the dark side. :) It's way too windows-like, and while it does have some nice functionality over and above Explorer, whatever happened to keeping things lightweight and zippy? Give me XFCE 4 any day... it's not as light as, say, blackbox, but it's also nowhere near as fugly. I think it strikes a good balance between eye candy and functionality, and is something that MS has never been able to do.
          • by kimvette (919543)
            I used to like Gnome, but quickly got sick of gconf, having to recompile to make configuration changes to the GUI, and Nautilus is a clone of Windows' file explorer.

            KDE is NOTHING like Windows. If anything, Gnome is closer to Windows' usability paradigm than KDE is. KDE is far more flexible, and allows for more productivity. When I have to work in Windows I feel crippled because of the lack of tabbed browsing, having to use filezilla or winscp to download files THEN do what I need to do an upload them. It i
    • by 0racle (667029)
      Microsoft is not one person. They can do a whole lot of unrelated things, and if they get the right people they could be the best at them all. The only thing stopping a company from doing a whole lot of things at once is money, and Microsoft has no shortage of that.
    • Microsoft needs to let Yahoo alone and realize that it's not possible to do everything.


      It is if you're General Electric or Proctor and Gamble. Almost everything you buy or use is stamped with GE or PG on it.
      • by rfunches (800928)

        It is if you're General Electric or Proctor and Gamble.

        GE is trying to sell its plastics unit, IIRC, and the company has a history of selling off underperforming units rather than preserving the kitchen sink. Yes, it is possible for a company to do everything, but clearly it is not profitable to do so.

    • by nametaken (610866)
      I know it's been said before, but the funny thing about that is that they don't HAVE to do well on the operating systems. Yes, Vista is crap, but MS will still make money selling PLENTY of copies of it. In the meantime, they can put a lot of money into buying up other companies, just like they've always done, and just like Google does. Why sink $10 into software you can already profit on when you can take that $10 and buy a substantial share in a whole second market?

      You'll notice the 3-articles-per-hour
    • Well, duh... if they wanted to try to make good operating systems, they wouldn't have put all that time and effort into monopolizing the market. The whole point of having a monopoly is so that you don't have to do a good job anymore.
  • if 38% = $50B

    then 100% = $132B

    So why does Google [yahoo.com] have a market cap of $146 billion? That's more than 100% of the market value. Some numbers must be wrong here... likely Microsoft's offer is too shallow. Or is Google over valued?

    • by Metaldsa (162825)
      Google is growing at a faster rate. Also they have better execution. That is the reason for the premium to Yahoo.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:07AM (#18987847)

      if 38% = $50B

      This is an incorrect assumption in several ways. First Yahoo has 28% of Web searching, not 38%. The 38% number was for Yahoo and MS's combined share. The other way it is incorrect is the assumption that all Yahoo or Google or MS does is search, which is of course not true. The value of $50B was for the company, not for their Web search service.

    • As are most "brands" are overvalued relative to their market share...

      However, value is not generally directly proportional to market share. There's lots of value associated with growth potential and being number 1 in a market...

      Then again, there's always a limit to how many tulips [wikipedia.org] people want...
    • So why does Google [yahoo.com] have a market cap of $146 billion?

      Do they have more fat billions on Nasdaq [nasdaq.com]? Am I missing something?

  • by agentultra (1090039) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:00AM (#18987743)

    ... cause then Microsloth would be one step closer to wiping out web standards and all the good work Yahoo! has put into the web development community.

    Buy your way to the top!

    No greater an illusion.

    Like buying your search ranking or myspace friends.

  • by Virtex (2914) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:00AM (#18987751) Homepage
    If at first you don't succeed, try try to buy out your closest competitor.
  • by hrieke (126185) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:07AM (#18987841) Homepage
    Any serious offer on the table and the parties need to sit down and have a chat. to do otherwise would be ignoring your duties.

    On one side I don't see this being more than a chat to work out a deal- to buy Yahoo would cost MS all of their cash reserves, and then there is the little problem of moving their technology base from *unix to Windows would be a multiyear screw up, er, project (how long did it take MS to move Hotmail over to Windows?).

    On the other side- MS does need to move against Google in some meaningful manner- Google's judo flip and really put MS off balance in a way that will play out for years to come- and I doubt MS shareholders are happy with the flat stock price for the last 7 years.

    I suggest a large bowl of popcorn while we wait this one out, with extra butter.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:11AM (#18987881)
    This is the company that used all sorts of illegal techniques to crush competition in the desktop OS, browser, and media player markets. Microsoft's CEO likes to use the phrase "integrated innovation" to tout the advantages of their offerings vis a vis the competition. In other words, they don't play well with anyone else.

    Now they want to use a portion of their accumulated monopoly profits to acquire a company that has huge on-line communities and brand names. Anyone who's paid attention over the last 15-20 years knows what will come next: "best" access will soon be restricted to those who use Microsoft's operating system, browser, media players, and development tools. Eventually those using other browsers and operating systems may be shut out altogether. The average person buys Windows preinstalled on their Dell or Gateway won't care, but they don't see how innovation is being shut down the same way innovation in the PC desktop software market fell dramatically after Microsoft established its hegemony with Windows 95.

    Microsoft has all the money and resources in the world. Let's see them build their own online communities, really innovate instead of talking about innovation.
  • Heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aftk2 (556992) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:18AM (#18987989) Homepage Journal
    This seems like a profoundly bad idea for all concerned. I like Yahoo. I don't use them for search, but they seem, at least marginally, to "get it": they've purchased a number of promising web startups like Flickr and Upcoming, and seem to mostly let them do their own thing (contrasted with that other web company [gigaom.com]). They allow their developers to be pretty transparent. They've created the Yahoo User Interface Library (which is quite helpful), etc...

    If Microsoft were running the show, I'm worried that would change. Plus, I think there would be other problems. For Microsoft, what would be the easiest and quickest way for them to completely demoralize the employees who work in their Internet divisions? Buy Yahoo. For Yahoo, what would be the easiest and quickest way to confuse and worry their employees? Sell to Microsoft (although many might not be that confused while they're swimming in their huge piles of money.)

    Finally, I'm concerned about Yahoo's services, were Microsoft to purchase them. It sounds like Microsoft has a large number of middle managers and policy makers who like nothing more than to assert their authority with arbitrary decisions. Yahoo seems to value a fair amount of development and language agnosticism (with sites written in PHP, custom languages, etc...) What happens to these sites when Microsoft comes in? "I'm sorry - we're rebuilding that in .NET now."

    I don't know - my responses aren't typically those of the knee-jerk Slashdot mentality, but this makes me even me wince.
  • by rucs_hack (784150) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:20AM (#18988033)
    Wow, they must really be worried at Microsoft.

    This is no less then an admission that their own search and online advertising strategy has failed completelly. They may disagree, but coin like that being offered for yahoo speaks volumes.

    MSN was, at first inception, meant to be *the* portal to the internet. That failed so fast most people don't even know it. The new Microsoft search site? Know anyone that uses it? cos I don't, and I know a lot of computer users, ranging from expert to pebmak's. Not one Microsoft web strategy has succeeded. Ok, ok, people use Hotmail, and people use msn messenger. Alas that's not much of a money maker for Microsoft, not without the original ill conceived all encompassing Microsoft Network.

    So, they now know that without buying out another major search company they can't compete in search or net advertising. The problem there is that they have no assurance that the purchase will help them at all?

    First, they can't drop the Yahoo! name, or people simply won't use the product. Secondly, adding it to their monolithic corporation will most likely result in innovation at yahoo (is there any? I'm out of touch) will also slow to a crawl.

    Microsoft have been good at (well, successful at) operating systems and office software. Their mistake is believing that the same strategy can be extended to maintain a dominant position in other fields that didn't even exist when they first became dominant.

    Most likely outcome of a purchase? Five years down the line it is spun off as a separate business again, related to Microsoft by shares only.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BewireNomali (618969)
      GLOBAL WEBMAIL MARKET

      YAHOO: 250 million
      MSFT: 228 million
      AOL MAIL: 50 million
      GOOGLE: 51 million

      US WEBMAIL MARKET

      YAHOO: 79 million
      MSFT: 45 million
      AOL MAIL: 40 million
      GOOGLE: 10 million

      source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/09/single-ajax-i nterface-for-yahoo-mail-im-coming/

      I'm not certain that ALL of MSFT's web strategies have been failures. I also am not certain that the strategies to success by any of the companies in this list differ greatly: they all are too large to be genuinely innovative - as innova
      • by rucs_hack (784150)
        lots of those mail addresses at Microsoft exist solely because they were required to access passport Microsoft services. I have one myself, I used it recently to get the free visual studio compiler

        If it meant actively used email adresses it would be a smaller number
        • by DarkOx (621550)
          Its also worth noteing that Hotmail was developed as its own brand and has lots of pre-M$ ownership users like me still. I doubt I would have selected hotmail in its present form over the competition but then again I am not going to give up an e-mail address I have had for more then a decade. Hotmail was more or less the first player, and the old hats introduced their pals to it and so on and so fourth. Its a success because of its legacy. Current versions of Windows are only successful due to legacy, u
    • by TobascoKid (82629) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:34PM (#18991277) Homepage
      This is no less then an admission that their own search and online advertising strategy has failed completelly.

      I'd love to know why MS still tries. Either in fields where becoming dominant is a mighty large challenge (like with MSN), but also in areas where they are never going to be able to extract profit (like Internet Explorer). I can understand giving things a shot, but there must come a point where it's best to cut your losses. Other than some irrational fear that if they don't control everything then the core will wither away, I can't see any reason for them to continue down several of the paths that they are taking.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by David Off (101038)
      > MSN was, at first inception, meant to be *the* portal to the internet.

      erm I think you've got that wrong. MSN was meant to replace the Internet, at least that is what the Microsoft Sales Idiots tried to convince me around 1994. The exact term they used was "MSN will bury the Internet in 6 months". The idea at Microsoft was that centralized and controlled networks were the future, think France's Minitel mating with AOL. You've got to remember that this was around the time Bill Gates tried the vision thin
      • by rucs_hack (784150)
        you are correct, and that's what I meant. Its just easier to say portal to the internet because that would make more sense to most people.
  • unix/windows (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:26AM (#18988111) Homepage Journal
    A friend who used to work for Prodigy once told me that they had a peek at the MSN infrastructure and they discovered that in the mega-portal space, Windows requires twice as much hardware per unit of load as Unix systems. Yahoo is of course built around Unix. Are they really going to try to move that whole infrastructure over? Look at how long it took them to convert Hotmail.
    • How do they calculate this "twice as much" number? I find it hard to believe they meant Windows and *nix - both have well designed APIs for super-scalable software and I seriously doubt either one could perform so significantly well over the other. More likely they compared some premade framework that had poor code for Windows, or something entirely different like ASP and Perl.
    • Yahoo is of course built around Unix. Are they really going to try to move that whole infrastructure over? Look at how long it took them to convert Hotmail.

      In all fairness, IIS has improved significantly since then, and so has Windows, in terms of both security and general brain-damage.

  • Bought by Yahoo [blogs.com], and now further by Microsoft... break out the new business cards....
  • by Mordaximus (566304) on Friday May 04, 2007 @09:48AM (#18988421)
    Here in Ontario, at least in the national capital region, there are two major internet players, Rogers and Bell Canada(Sympatico). Rogers and Yahoo! are in bed together, MSN and Sympatico likewise. It would be interesting to see how things play out if the deal does go through.
  • by frank249 (100528) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:22AM (#18989933)
    This reminds me of when Netscape and Yahoo were in talks to merge. They were going to move the headquarters to Israel and call the new company Net'n'Yahoo.
  • AT&T dumped their co-branding arrangement with Yahoo, "AT&T Yahoo DSL". It wasn't adding any useful value to their DSL service. Why at this late date does Microsoft want Yahoo?

    • AT&T dumped their co-branding arrangement with Yahoo, "AT&T Yahoo DSL". It wasn't adding any useful value to their DSL service. Why at this late date does Microsoft want Yahoo?

      They did?

      From: "AT&T Yahoo! Member Services"
      Date: 03 May 2007 17:36:59 -0700
      Subject: Notice: AT&T Yahoo! Mail Service Update

      Dear AT&T Yahoo! Member:

      AT&T and Yahoo! have a history of providing our members with
      award-winning, industry-leading Internet products and services at
      a great value.

      As more members are usin

  • ... Yahoo management will take over the combined entity, and we'll be done with Ballmer and Gates for this lifetime.
  • Why don't they put half a trillion dollars and just buy Google? That way they can also waste a lot of money and call themselves Moogle, while at the same time removing the 'No' from the Google's motto.
  • As I see it, the potential MSFT offer of Yahoo has more conflict of interest than just stemming from Web browsers and Internet search.

    MSFT failed a few years ago to get Passport to blow up into a 'universal' portal for the internet and e-commerce. Buying into Yahoo and its huge e-mail subscriber base (for free e-mail) would give the number of potentail Passport users a boost. Ditto to Hotmail users. They could easily up the ante with targeted e-mail advertisements.

    But Yahoo e-mail is also a bit different. R

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid

Working...