I don't have any links but when I heard the news this morning on CNBC, the commentators called it a Murdock bid. They implied that the bid was so high it would have to be accepted. Much in the way Murdock got the WSJ.
I guess there are anti-trust issues that could arise, but I've not heard of any.
Yahoo has some measures to prevent that though. Arstechnica goes into that in which the board can grant extra shares of preferred stock to make sure they can never be taken over in a hostile circumstance.
it sounds like MS wants to force the issue, but the shareholders in this case have more say than the hostile company. The only way the deal goes through is if Yahoo wants to do it.
Here's hoping it fails. It will be marginal news for Microsoft, bad news for Yahoo, and the worst possible news for you and me.
Suppose that this deal goes through, and Microsoft drives Yahoo into a death spiral. Would it be so bad to have a Google monopoly? I posted this on slashdot a month ago, in response to the Google/DoubleClick merger:
"Where is the danger? If we (the consumers) were paying Google money, then this would be a dangerous thing, but it isn't us - it is the advertisers. If Google gets a 100% monopoly over online advertising, then the worst thing that they can do is raise advertising rates through the roof - which would mean fewer ads for us to see, since online advertising would then be less cost-effective. I hope they get a monopoly and raise prices through the roof, personally."
Suppose that this deal goes through, and Microsoft drives Yahoo into a death spiral. Would it be so bad to have a Google monopoly? I posted this on slashdot a month ago, in response to the Google/DoubleClick merger:
"Where is the danger? If we (the consumers) were paying Google money, then this would be a dangerous thing, but it isn't us - it is the advertisers. If Google gets a 100% monopoly over online advertising, then the worst thing that they can do is raise advertising rates through the roof - which would mean fewer ads for us to see, since online advertising would then be less cost-effective. I hope they get a monopoly and raise prices through the roof, personally."
A Microsoft monopoly did not sound so bad at first either.
there is an old saying that absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely. Just because it sounds fine now doesn't mean it will when the chips are down.
No monopoly is good for the consumer or the industry for that matter.
because google is going after microsoft traditions like word and such with online apps that are browser and OS independent.
I really haven't heard of a whole lot of people saying Gdocs are anything close to a substitute for MS Office. I wouldn't expect that to be the case for many years.
You have to read all what Ballmer said to all of Microsoft at a "town meeting". It was absolutely hilarious!!
Quote:
Steve Ballmer To Microsofties: "Full Steam Ahead!"
Peter Kafka | February 1, 2008 1:27 PM
Message from Microsoft execs to employees: "Yes, we've just kicked off a year-long $45 billion acquisition, and yes, your lives are going to be turned upside down. But don't let that distract you! Full steam ahead!"
And in case you missed that last line, MSFT execs repeated it at least three times during a company "town hall" meeting today. Partial transcript follows:
Ballmer, already sounding hoarse. "Full steam ahead, nothing changes until it changes."
Handing off to MSFT ad/platform boss Kevin Johnson:
A pep talk for the online services team. You're doing a great job!
Many of you may say, what does this Yahoo deal mean to me? What does this mean to brand, what does this mean to the brand, or synergies, or my job?
Let me try to answer some of those questions: "Do we need to change current plans of record? No. Full steam ahead. Go, go, go, go, go! We've to got to stay focused!"
Am I going to lose my job? Key synergy will be in expanded R&D. By combining, we can have one team of people working on search, but then have other teams working on other great ideas. "This is about expanding our engineering capabilities... but yes, there are duplicate costs.". But don't worry! "Stay focused! Full speed ahead!" Retaining our best people at both companies is job one.
Then some general talk about strategy: Plan is to "create a more credible alternative to an increasingly dominant player in the search industry." He says this twice.
Hand off to CFO Chris Liddell, who says nothing. Now to MSFT folk hero Ray Ozzie, who also doesn't say much. Now back to Kevin Johnson, who hands off to Ballmer (phew!):
1)Let me reiterate: We want to do this deal. We'll do this deal. "But it's not going to happen overnight. It will take probably over a better part of a year to consummate."
2) This is entirely consistent with strategy already articulated.
3) Winning in search is fundamental to our success. There couldn't be anything more serious than this.
Haven't you noticed that this website is full of AppleFanboyzngirlz that simply refuse to discuss anything related to Microsoft in a mature discussion? They will call you a troll and curse your first borne- so watch out!
OK, so they've made a hostile bid. What are the chances of Microsoft succeeding in its acquisition attempts? This isn't a subject I know much (or anything) about?
Can anyone fill in some of the gaps?
I don't know much either - but basically whether friendly or hostile, a company offers to pay a premium price to take over the other. If the board and management like the idea, see the benefits, or whatever, then they recommend it. The price doesn't have to be such a premium if shareholders like the outcome.
For a hostile takeover, the management and board don't want the takeover. Sometimes they can 'poison' the bid, making it hard for the takeover... but generally it just means that the company has to pay much higher to get shareholders to sell. So Microsoft is offering a 60% premium, and they have a lot of cash reserves.
If they want it, they'll get it. If there's a huge public backlash then maybe they'll decide it's not worth it.
When SJ eventially retires-hopefully, several years from now, I would like Google to then buy Apple. Apple and Google seem to have all of the creative juice these days.
Nah, lets keep 2 independent companies with 2 sets of good ideas. The whole capitalist/competitive environment setup means that if we have LOTS of different companies that some really surprising and innovative ideas can emerge.
If all the competitors merge into one entity, then they get efficiencies of scale but little competitive external push to work better or have more ideas. Not to target east vs west, but competitive forces (with lots of different companies competiting) are why our systems did so much better than those blocks without competition (where they assumed an 'obvious' fact that single, bigger companies were more cost effective because there was no duplication, etc).
we could (someone could) probably come up with a definitive list, but the ones I know of include:
the original powerpoint (originally developed by "four" something software decade+ ago), Virtual PC (bought and then stopped development when mac os/hw changed), CopyAgent (bought and immediately killed - one of my most favorite OS 9 tools), Hotmail, as mentioned (though it was also always a spam attractor), and must be others but that's a start.
feel free to correct or add.
Bigpics: wow, lots of thoughts there, worthy of further cogitating.
My take -
Overall, I'd be pretty sad if MS gets away with stealing, I mean, hostile takeover of Yahoo. I really have no faith that they would make the product better at all. More like, they are just looking for more ways to pull in money longterm.
If MS takes over Yahoo, does that mean we are all one step closer to the ultimate merger of MS with ATT?
Since SBC bought ATT, changed its name to ATT, and uses Yahoo as its DSL/quasi-cable broadband home portal.
Lets see, that means my internet provider may soon be MicroSATT or YahooSoft or MicroTel or ...
Anyway, I hope their takeover fails, as I think the only beneficiaries would be upper mgmt and institutional stockholders of the two companies -- well, of course, the other big beneficiaries would be the boatload of lawyers and merger managers. They are most likely some of the big proponents on this, with mega $$ signs in their eyes.
Haven't you noticed that this website is full of AppleFanboyzngirlz that simply refuse to discuss anything related to Microsoft in a mature discussion? They will call you a troll and curse your first borne- so watch out!
..erm.. damn your first born, err, you troll.. or something.
True people use it, but it STILL SUCKS, I have a legacy hotmail account (8 or 9 years) and recently it has gone to the pits, its EVEN harder to use than it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBeck
Xbox has made a profit, it isn't a dismal failure.
Oooooo KAY, you are either well and truly on the teat, or just cant realise the crap from the M$ PR machine from reality. 6 BILLION pumped in and 500million in profit does not a profit make, when they have recouped the 6BILLION and mad a dollar profit over that, then I'll agree.
Comments
I don't have any links but when I heard the news this morning on CNBC, the commentators called it a Murdock bid. They implied that the bid was so high it would have to be accepted. Much in the way Murdock got the WSJ.
I guess there are anti-trust issues that could arise, but I've not heard of any.
Yahoo has some measures to prevent that though. Arstechnica goes into that in which the board can grant extra shares of preferred stock to make sure they can never be taken over in a hostile circumstance.
it sounds like MS wants to force the issue, but the shareholders in this case have more say than the hostile company. The only way the deal goes through is if Yahoo wants to do it.
Here's hoping it fails. It will be marginal news for Microsoft, bad news for Yahoo, and the worst possible news for you and me.
and the worst possible news for you and me.
Suppose that this deal goes through, and Microsoft drives Yahoo into a death spiral. Would it be so bad to have a Google monopoly? I posted this on slashdot a month ago, in response to the Google/DoubleClick merger:
"Where is the danger? If we (the consumers) were paying Google money, then this would be a dangerous thing, but it isn't us - it is the advertisers. If Google gets a 100% monopoly over online advertising, then the worst thing that they can do is raise advertising rates through the roof - which would mean fewer ads for us to see, since online advertising would then be less cost-effective. I hope they get a monopoly and raise prices through the roof, personally."
Suppose that this deal goes through, and Microsoft drives Yahoo into a death spiral. Would it be so bad to have a Google monopoly? I posted this on slashdot a month ago, in response to the Google/DoubleClick merger:
"Where is the danger? If we (the consumers) were paying Google money, then this would be a dangerous thing, but it isn't us - it is the advertisers. If Google gets a 100% monopoly over online advertising, then the worst thing that they can do is raise advertising rates through the roof - which would mean fewer ads for us to see, since online advertising would then be less cost-effective. I hope they get a monopoly and raise prices through the roof, personally."
A Microsoft monopoly did not sound so bad at first either.
there is an old saying that absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely. Just because it sounds fine now doesn't mean it will when the chips are down.
No monopoly is good for the consumer or the industry for that matter.
because google is going after microsoft traditions like word and such with online apps that are browser and OS independent.
I really haven't heard of a whole lot of people saying Gdocs are anything close to a substitute for MS Office. I wouldn't expect that to be the case for many years.
Steve Ballmer To Microsofties: "Full Steam Ahead!"
Peter Kafka | February 1, 2008 1:27 PM
Message from Microsoft execs to employees: "Yes, we've just kicked off a year-long $45 billion acquisition, and yes, your lives are going to be turned upside down. But don't let that distract you! Full steam ahead!"
And in case you missed that last line, MSFT execs repeated it at least three times during a company "town hall" meeting today. Partial transcript follows:
Ballmer, already sounding hoarse. "Full steam ahead, nothing changes until it changes."
Handing off to MSFT ad/platform boss Kevin Johnson:
A pep talk for the online services team. You're doing a great job!
Many of you may say, what does this Yahoo deal mean to me? What does this mean to brand, what does this mean to the brand, or synergies, or my job?
Let me try to answer some of those questions: "Do we need to change current plans of record? No. Full steam ahead. Go, go, go, go, go! We've to got to stay focused!"
Am I going to lose my job? Key synergy will be in expanded R&D. By combining, we can have one team of people working on search, but then have other teams working on other great ideas. "This is about expanding our engineering capabilities... but yes, there are duplicate costs.". But don't worry! "Stay focused! Full speed ahead!" Retaining our best people at both companies is job one.
Then some general talk about strategy: Plan is to "create a more credible alternative to an increasingly dominant player in the search industry." He says this twice.
Hand off to CFO Chris Liddell, who says nothing. Now to MSFT folk hero Ray Ozzie, who also doesn't say much. Now back to Kevin Johnson, who hands off to Ballmer (phew!):
1)Let me reiterate: We want to do this deal. We'll do this deal. "But it's not going to happen overnight. It will take probably over a better part of a year to consummate."
2) This is entirely consistent with strategy already articulated.
3) Winning in search is fundamental to our success. There couldn't be anything more serious than this.
Thanks a lot! Go back to work!
Haven't you noticed that this website is full of AppleFanboyzngirlz that simply refuse to discuss anything related to Microsoft in a mature discussion? They will call you a troll and curse your first borne- so watch out!
You're a troll, and I curse... oh, nevermind.
Microsoft + Yahoo = Microhoo... I like it!
I kind of like "Yicrosoft"...
OK, so they've made a hostile bid. What are the chances of Microsoft succeeding in its acquisition attempts? This isn't a subject I know much (or anything) about?
Can anyone fill in some of the gaps?
I don't know much either - but basically whether friendly or hostile, a company offers to pay a premium price to take over the other. If the board and management like the idea, see the benefits, or whatever, then they recommend it. The price doesn't have to be such a premium if shareholders like the outcome.
For a hostile takeover, the management and board don't want the takeover. Sometimes they can 'poison' the bid, making it hard for the takeover... but generally it just means that the company has to pay much higher to get shareholders to sell. So Microsoft is offering a 60% premium, and they have a lot of cash reserves.
If they want it, they'll get it. If there's a huge public backlash then maybe they'll decide it's not worth it.
Yahoo has the oldest and best email, and easiest to use small business hosting IMO. Or should I say *did* have.
I hope Yahoo doesn't go for it.
I use their small business hosting services and I know MS will screw that up.
When SJ eventially retires-hopefully, several years from now, I would like Google to then buy Apple. Apple and Google seem to have all of the creative juice these days.
Nah, lets keep 2 independent companies with 2 sets of good ideas. The whole capitalist/competitive environment setup means that if we have LOTS of different companies that some really surprising and innovative ideas can emerge.
If all the competitors merge into one entity, then they get efficiencies of scale but little competitive external push to work better or have more ideas. Not to target east vs west, but competitive forces (with lots of different companies competiting) are why our systems did so much better than those blocks without competition (where they assumed an 'obvious' fact that single, bigger companies were more cost effective because there was no duplication, etc).
Long live genuine competition
we could (someone could) probably come up with a definitive list, but the ones I know of include:
the original powerpoint (originally developed by "four" something software decade+ ago), Virtual PC (bought and then stopped development when mac os/hw changed), CopyAgent (bought and immediately killed - one of my most favorite OS 9 tools), Hotmail, as mentioned (though it was also always a spam attractor), and must be others but that's a start.
feel free to correct or add.
Bigpics: wow, lots of thoughts there, worthy of further cogitating.
My take -
Overall, I'd be pretty sad if MS gets away with stealing, I mean, hostile takeover of Yahoo. I really have no faith that they would make the product better at all. More like, they are just looking for more ways to pull in money longterm.
If MS takes over Yahoo, does that mean we are all one step closer to the ultimate merger of MS with ATT?
Since SBC bought ATT, changed its name to ATT, and uses Yahoo as its DSL/quasi-cable broadband home portal.
Lets see, that means my internet provider may soon be MicroSATT or YahooSoft or MicroTel or ...
Anyway, I hope their takeover fails, as I think the only beneficiaries would be upper mgmt and institutional stockholders of the two companies -- well, of course, the other big beneficiaries would be the boatload of lawyers and merger managers. They are most likely some of the big proponents on this, with mega $$ signs in their eyes.
You're a troll, and I curse... oh, nevermind.
I was waiting for that one! Have a great weekend everybody- let's check out those new MBAirs!!!!
(assuming M$ does their usual job of farking things up and making them unnecessarily complicated)
re. what products did MS buy and screw up?
we could (someone could) probably come up with a definitive list, but the ones I know of include:
the original powerpoint (originally developed by "four" something software decade+ ago),
Virtual PC (bought and then stopped development when mac os/hw changed),
CopyAgent (bought and immediately killed - one of my most favorite OS 9 tools),
Hotmail, as mentioned (though it was also always a spam attractor),
and must be others but that's a start. feel free to correct or add..
WebTV - first real set top box solution. Squashed/mangled into other set top plans
FoxPro - considered a brilliant database. Forgotten as they let Access take the market share.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments.../catalog.shtml
You can all thank me later.
So, when is Steve Ballmer going to stop hiding in the shadows and finally don the Darth Vader mask. It is his destiny...
Well he makes my stomach turn almost as much as hayden christensen.
..ok MORE than.
Haven't you noticed that this website is full of AppleFanboyzngirlz that simply refuse to discuss anything related to Microsoft in a mature discussion? They will call you a troll and curse your first borne- so watch out!
..erm.. damn your first born, err, you troll.. or something.
Hotmail still exists and a lot of people use it.
True people use it, but it STILL SUCKS, I have a legacy hotmail account (8 or 9 years) and recently it has gone to the pits, its EVEN harder to use than it was.
Xbox has made a profit, it isn't a dismal failure.
Oooooo KAY, you are either well and truly on the teat, or just cant realise the crap from the M$ PR machine from reality. 6 BILLION pumped in and 500million in profit does not a profit make, when they have recouped the 6BILLION and mad a dollar profit over that, then I'll agree.
And there is the precursor to powerpoint: Forethought (which I misremembered as "four" something-or-other)
saying that I am going to give MS the benefit of the doubt this time around...
Without knocking you
How many have said that over the years? and how often?