Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday July 25 2016, @12:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-the-once-mighty-have-fallen dept.

Yahoo! has finally found a billions-slinging buyer for its "assets":

Verizon Communications Inc said Monday it would buy Yahoo Inc's core internet properties for $4.83 billion in cash to expand its digital advertising and media business, in a deal that ends a lengthy sale process for the fading Web pioneer. The purchase of Yahoo's operations will boost Verizon's AOL internet business, which it bought last year for $4.4 billion, and give it access to Yahoo's ad technology tools, BrightRoll and Flurry, and assets such as search, mail and messenger.

The deal, expected to close in early 2017, marks the end of Yahoo as an operating company, leaving it with a 15 percent stake in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba Group Holding Ltd and a 35.5 percent interest in Yahoo Japan Corp. "The sale of our operating business, which effectively separates our Asian asset equity stakes, is an important step in our plan to unlock shareholder value for Yahoo," Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer said in a statement on Monday.

Did you know that Verizon owns TechCrunch?

Microsoft executives recalled a previous buyout attempt and breathed a sigh of relief:

In February 2008 Microsoft Corporation made an unsolicited bid to acquire Yahoo for US$44.6 billion. Yahoo formally rejected the bid, claiming that it "substantially undervalues" the company and was not in the interest of its shareholders. Three years later Yahoo had a market capitalization of US$22.24 billion.

martyb: Registered on 1995-01-18, yahoo.com has been around for a long time. Many services were made available on their site such as e-mail, groups, finance. What, if any, of their services have you used? Do you still use them? What are your plans in light of the buyout?


Original Submission

Related Stories

Yahoo! Remnants Sue Mozilla for Changing Default Search Engine 14 comments

Oath and Mozilla are in a legal battle over a Yahoo search deal

Yahoo's new owner Oath — which, in turn, is owned by telecom giant Verizon — is now in a legal battle with browser company Mozilla over a search deal that was struck by former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer.

Last week, Yahoo Holdings and Oath filed a complaint against Mozilla, alleging that it improperly terminated an agreement between Mozilla and Yahoo. Now, Mozilla just filed a cross-complaint, claiming breach of contract.

Mozilla announced that it was going back to Google, which had been its longtime search provider, in mid-November in the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Google had remained its partner in other countries and Mozilla also has deals with Yandex in Russia and Baidu in China. At the time, it also announced a new browser, Firefox Quantum.

Mozilla's counter-claim says that Yahoo!/Oath missed payments.

Yahoo Holdings complaint and Mozilla blog post.

Also at The Register and ZDNet.

Previously: Firefox Deal With Yahoo not Secured. Mozilla Could Lose Their Main Sponsor
Mozilla Could Walk Away from a New Yahoo Owner and Still Get $1 Billion
Verizon to Buy (Parts of) Yahoo! For $4.83 Billion
Verizon to House Yahoo! and AOL Under "Oath" Brand


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:01PM (#379778)

    MS bid was for the whole of Yahoo, including their Chinese investment.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @01:15PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday July 25 2016, @01:15PM (#379785) Journal

      And you'll see that the value of the whole thing was halved in mere years.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:26PM (#379791)

        Yeah not taking that money then was a disaster. MS saved itself from a total write-off. The value of China investments is almost nil now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @02:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @02:51PM (#379835)

          yeah, totally nil*

          *for a value of nil equal to $32 billions...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:06PM (#379780)

    All I care about is whether or not Mozilla gets their $1B no-strings attached payout. I don't really use yahoo for anything, but without that sweetheart money we could be forced into the arms of chrome and that would be just as bad as when MS IE had 90% of the browser market.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @01:15PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday July 25 2016, @01:15PM (#379783) Journal

      If Mozilla needs another billion to survive on top of the billions they received from Google, then their organization is completely broken.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:49PM (#379799)

        They just barely broke a billion grossed over their entire decade long contract with google. Similarly their contract with yahoo is for a billion spread out over multiple years.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @02:19PM

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday July 25 2016, @02:19PM (#379816) Journal

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing [wikipedia.org]

          In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which US$61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties" from Google.[11]

          From 2004 to 2014, the foundation had a deal with Google to make Google Search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site was also made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. However, Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[12] On December 20, 2011, Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually.

          They made nearly a billion in just the last 3 years of the relationship, on top of more hundreds of millions paid as early as 2004.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:38PM (#379854)

            You seem to be disputing what I said by agreeing with me. Less than 900 million plus a couple of hundred more million is barely breaking a billion.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @05:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @05:07PM (#379912)

      I hear people maligning Chrome all the time, and I don't get it.

      Facts are, it's technically superior to Firefox. It's way faster objectively and subjectively. While Chrome proper is spyware, Chromium is open source and available in all the major repos, so there's not even a "free software!" argument to make against it. It's standards compliant. It has a thriving and Firefox-equivalent extension community.

      What gives? Is it pure "not invented here" syndrome or bitterness at Google?

      • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday July 25 2016, @06:57PM

        by DECbot (832) on Monday July 25 2016, @06:57PM (#379977) Journal

        Robot resume rejection email perhaps? No gmail beta invitation? Still yearning for Reader? Wave? "I can't believes I sent it all of our datas, my iPrecious!"

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:09PM (#380018)
        Being open source doesn't mean it's not spyware. Sorry for the unusual attachment, but the following is a gzipped base64 log of urls that chromium requests on startup, to showing the favorites menu, to clicking on soylentnews. One of the extensions is the app store, where loads of javascript are pulled from the net and has special access to the internals of chromium. Then there are other coded transmissions back to the mothership.

        H4sIAFFxllcCA+1a227bNhi+31P4JkYL0DrZjmMDQuYesmQpkCxxmrU3AkXSFG2KVEjKhz79KMnG
        kjTFgtZSsjaAIB5E8T9/pH5qIRluxZyJ+Wh0QbTMFSIX5CYn2oxGmpiriw+vkBTabAed2p5W+3Ur
        V3zUQomSKemQlSFCMylGrkspTTGPp2mSSJGlFMI54pzROaNCECLdiBJBFDQERzFEc6pkLnCUQUqc
        xKT8t8WuOcrgdB5TitMZz+gcz1E8S5N0inAmEMQ0qZmjxJhMWzaWy6VDpaScOEimbuRWrLqCLA2M
        D4nOFmHQZiS8mhx1DnavhhfD7N4w7yTKUyLMBwkxUaORFS1X5FoxQ9SG8vXkaDQaG5kydGkUE7TV
        Bq1GDdeSC6IUw5b2qNU8+z9q5bvsx1Lyb7GfwnVMisb7NDPrV69bWvCKrZql/raGm4lcJBVxZvoJ
        IjQ3jDOzfhriCCqs75PevXUfhxMdTdSCIbKUak6U5apmp/hP7fwbSz9une9UwbMwzH0A36Vdthxo
        zR2qDTQMlSxsGLDVTAors3axlJiTjpCGTRlRHS+ocQljqQVP7cYKikJMt3rEJZVusLrVipDkUkXB
        IFgNA5w5maD1MLSaaWsWe5uHtuoIkzlERFeXznh1/jFZnaerNyfOmZuGMw2BfQowQJq5yoQzF4e+
        a8IvKNWu0uH47WToyT9mX8YX13p1Ek0+nZ7g48/Xx4MJ7TIYnT+1BDpDyZZx7xkw/mhfsAtKYhrz
        CLvmR4HXO1yE3bYOq0htQ7POQmv4NmFhMoYnHztk/K4Hc3J+fbzo0eM2xEnYtvoPmWDGCYZ9p1ua
        Ihj2LNxAx3fiGDteOwt1W2Qi9NtWfHu39siUcXpBfwDs61w7ve6BDyR3evtDr+gi2ul7/V5ZJU6/
        1xsW1aoCp/ZV/2AfLLWd5MDv9a13GscDWJSFurGFHwyA0plxumXbOP39oQ9yYTv6/YPihU0Ns2Jw
        Pxj8MnsZTaBCifWBVGrTWTBtucOuthR4tcU7VCS1ZCdWH4Zl4Tsp9oKB2Qs8ncilLYq2ZxKmbVHs
        C+txSajXAm0XjbIRrhge+SCapmY001J80y83S8za3l7Cpa5weVFsA4qt7ZNw5yBQxz7uf4QIL2j1
        M6PVY4IGad0Albq+HZ+V/97/fqPxdt+88KPB/uCgSwLv2W2GkWFShHmGoSEPRcUqUU5v4Fc+7nd7
        XuXjfn/gD152sN8VISbJ09gtzLix4lTK0oS10Alcf8fzTuGC2dE2uL8Q19//3V81IMwDRHcv2VeW
        0XLNrV/ZaNKOVLQuCwWNWqhmoR60VFCbpQoohAhJizH6Nh5eVnnED5IycbhJKoblNCxPi6WiraHK
        LMhZooaJnITlbHvd8V5wZK+78Go7mDDcFkR0ri5tWXFkKzGHYl7uPve6R5Vce913fk2u0m3GVX4R
        rT7oq926UeWWPjdJ3kILLhHuknDbu8uz0q8cqNco1jyJqA9atVcrAlVPb4u7JLE2UpHDhIdE1GTM
        fnNo0LCED9qwv8ut862tuqTbvLykjr2qrPzqaPg2oTeLfPrJOavS8WnIMaAcMA0YBiIGYgl0DDQG
        GVhgAJcYaAO4xIDYgSwDOAMowy5ZpWFsQAw1AbEAcW577RA70r7OgGBAT0FuhxdzAGavKaAMLBjI
        GCA3IEflEQYpbsU5wDj4pCaL8XrwFvorPE0ns+EJ5jf0jHv8xluJ8cs3xrNN+z0vbfyUR927OGp+
        cZPdaANmTN81gkbahTHqVAC8RV5qBzrljQhn1lkPbv7483RNvfJAtOiP2FTBlGhQTVbMGyHOrO+C
        jOdaClJhtF5YkLyDlsfZmZQdP46hMR/P1GD95v3fOf58dH7Kj4L4Qv7loriiz4sowJG348WMSwR5
        R5hsmxFCXGoSdaMU6nmZEvrpkyD1fX/WO7N+zNT1guh90rX8fHKPRrFTKZLDh4okUCeRvx95gb1q
        ImeBodCfbpDk7XZzVDfxb2TG0KYon+0uLfwIipqgXBV/3DVKFZNF8f+ITJslm0CFl1CRZqmmxMD6
        KWYWSIxD2bReMrCELSnqp6S0rplQpbLGA778O+r2s8I3/gEUo4rdODEAAA==
        • (Score: 2) by E_NOENT on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:55PM

          by E_NOENT (630) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:55PM (#380278) Journal

          Fascinating stuff. And this is in CHROMIUM (the free and supposedly vetted version) of Chrome?

          I see dark days ahead. Historically I haven't been concerned about Mozilla and privacy (you can opt out of data collection I believe) but if Firefox tanks or fails to keep up, what's left?

          Only browsers that explicitly ship your data off to some unknown behemoth?

          --
          I'm not in the business... I *am* the business.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:38PM (#380396)

            Yes, a checkout of plain chromium source from May or so. And from what I suspect, there are other transfers that may happen outside the DOM/ResourceRequest layer.

            • (Score: 2) by E_NOENT on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:01PM

              by E_NOENT (630) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:01PM (#380734) Journal

              Thanks! +1

              --
              I'm not in the business... I *am* the business.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:11PM (#379781)

    What happens to the millions, nay, billion of @yahoo.com e-mail addresses? Are those kept by yahoo?
    Poor bots, their new owner is even worse than their old one...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @01:28PM (#379793)

    Every time I see a customer using yahoo mail.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday July 25 2016, @04:30PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday July 25 2016, @04:30PM (#379887)

      Oh come on, that isn't remotely as bad as seeing a customer with an aol.com email address.

      There's other addresses that are really awful too, namely anything tied to an ISP: verizon.net, comcast.net, etc. I can't believe a lot of people are still so ignorant that they use ISP-provided email. At least yahoo email doesn't look like it's going away any time soon (it's a lot healthier than aol.com email). And it's better to have a 3rd major free webmail provider out there besides Gmail and whatever the heck MS is calling theirs this week.

      • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Monday July 25 2016, @04:40PM

        by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Monday July 25 2016, @04:40PM (#379895) Homepage Journal
        Heh, I know someone with a juno account still. :-]
        --
        "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday July 25 2016, @02:15PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Monday July 25 2016, @02:15PM (#379814)

    Tony Robbins says that success leaves clues. Marissa Mayer is going to make more money in her time at Yahoo than I've made in my entire life (and I'm not young), so what did she do? Her plan never made any sense to me. She acquired many technology companies, but I can't remember seeing a single news article (besides the acquisitions themselves) about Yahoo coming out with any new technology of interest to anyone. During that time, the tech press, starved for anything, ran articles about Google, Apple, Facebook, and LinkedIn (!). Yahoo was only in the news for acquisitions and to use Mayer's picture for clickbait. Did any Yahoo acquisition make any difference either in buying an important technology (well, not Tumblr) or acquiring important talent that would change Yahoo's fortunes? Yahoo was kept afloat by Alibaba, an investment Mayer didn't make, and which peaked while she was CEO for reasons she had no control over. Mayer is not that attractive, but she's more attractive than, say, Ginni Rometty, so every single article I ever saw (except for one) about Yahoo since Mayer became CEO has had Mayer's picture. This is a double standard. Ugly CEOs like Rometty do not usually have their pictures on articles, and male CEOs almost never (outside of Wired puff pieces on startups). Usually, a news story has a picture of the corporate headquarters or the company logo. Other than looking attractive for cameras, Mayer seems to have failed completely in doing anything with Yahoo to turn it around.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:02PM (#379841)

      > Mayer is not that attractive

      She's more attractive than you are.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday July 25 2016, @03:49PM

        by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Monday July 25 2016, @03:49PM (#379861)

        There are extras on The Walking Dead who are more attractive than I am.

        --
        (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @03:41PM (#379856)

      > Tony Robbins says that success leaves clues.

      Robbins is a huckster who made millions selling pop-psych bullshit to fools looking for short-cuts in life.
      Citing him is a sure-fire way to discredit whatever you might want to say.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday July 25 2016, @04:35PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday July 25 2016, @04:35PM (#379890)

      Marissa Mayer is going to make more money in her time at Yahoo than I've made in my entire life (and I'm not young), so what did she do?

      She made more money in her time at Yahoo than you've made in your entire life, that's what she did.

      Sounds like she was hugely successful to me.

      And she's not unique that way; lots of high-profile CEOs do the same: they walk away with huge golden parachutes while doing either little positive, or a lot negative, for the company. But they're still successful: they made a ton of money for themselves, so you can criticize them all you want, and they'll just laugh all the way to the bank.

      • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday July 25 2016, @07:34PM

        by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Monday July 25 2016, @07:34PM (#379996)

        My point is that people like Tony Robbins say success leaves clues, and you can look at those clues and imitate the successful people to have success. I'm trying to find out what this CEO did to be so successful. All I see is nothing.

        --
        (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday July 25 2016, @08:05PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday July 25 2016, @08:05PM (#380014)

          Maybe you should stop listening to hucksters like Tony Robbins.

          As for Marissa, she was a successful upper manager of some kind at Google. Apparently that let her talk her way into the Yahoo job.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 25 2016, @08:07PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 25 2016, @08:07PM (#380017) Journal

          So the key to success is to do nothing?

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by DECbot on Monday July 25 2016, @09:43PM

            by DECbot (832) on Monday July 25 2016, @09:43PM (#380064) Journal

            The key to success is the opportunity to run a major company into the ground, sell all the cash assets, layoff all the effective workers, and then sell the company before anyone catches on.

            --
            cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @08:30PM (#380025)

          Go to a good university and study a hard science or engineering discipline. While you're there, meet as many people as you can and form friendships. After you graduate start working the network you created for an in with a big company. You'll need a good deal of luck, too. Most people who try this path in life fail, through absolutely no fault of their own. Not everyone can be a CEO of a $5B company.

          People like to leave out the luck aspect because they'd rather believe in the Just World fallacy. If we accept that much of the universe is arbitrary and capricious then our accomplishments look a lot less impressive. People like to feel that they're entirely responsible for their successes (and failures). It makes justifying selfish and anti-human ideologies easier, too (see: libertarians).

          Also, unless you started this whole plan in High School it's too late to start now.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @06:06PM

      by frojack (1554) on Monday July 25 2016, @06:06PM (#379949) Journal

      Mayer seems to have failed completely in doing anything with Yahoo to turn it around.

      And that seems to be the gist of the news these days.

      You could have lead with that, and not fallen into the morass of judging her looks. (Disclosure: I'm so clueless about Yahoo that I had to go google her to see what the hell you were getting on about.).

      Signing on to help save a sinking ship is a thankless task, especially when you keep buying other sinking ships. But given that she extracted 4.8 billion from the smoking ruin of a walking-dead company would seem to suggest she was not a total failure. It was dead when she got there. And like Elvis, its still dead.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday July 25 2016, @07:36PM

        by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Monday July 25 2016, @07:36PM (#379997)

        Mayer's looks are important because every ... single ... article ... about ... Yahoo for years has had her picture. I think I've seen one that didn't. We are bombarded with her looks. I pointed out the double standard, because I don't know any other CEO, male or female, who is given this treatment. Ellen Pao or whatever her name was got the same treatment. Every single article about her had a picture of her. I think that it's worth pointing out and discussing because it's so in-your-face. How do you judge people on their merits (or demerits) when the media is judging them on their looks? If Mayer was as ugly as Ginni, would she have been given the same treatment? Not even close!

        --
        (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 25 2016, @08:15PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 25 2016, @08:15PM (#380020) Journal

          So what? Would you decide to buy stock of a company because the CEO is attractive? Or would you consider using a company's products because the CEO is attractive?

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @10:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @10:31PM (#380084)

            Theranos suddenly makes sense.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @02:20PM

    Online advertising is doomed. Not because of ad blockers, but because of the reason we want ad blockers: the increasing intrusive shrillness of online ads.

    The problem is that the total budget for online advertising is roughly fixed to the total GDP of the world, roughly two percent. The number of web pages is steadily increasing, many sites cost quite a lot of money to operate, and everyone has heard about how you can "Quit your job for AdSense". (I did, for several years.)

    Skyrocketing numbers of web pages with only slowly growing ad budget means that each web page will earn less and less.

    I am completely convinced that direct mail - junk mail - will make a comeback, and intend to try it myself to flog my consulting business.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday July 25 2016, @02:28PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday July 25 2016, @02:28PM (#379825) Journal

      Skyrocketing numbers of web pages with only slowly growing ad budget means that each web page will earn less and less.

      But the top ten thousand sites or so get many orders of magnitude more traffic than the long tail websites. Adding more web sites isn't going to dilute the amount of revenue earned by those top sites very much.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @04:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @04:42PM (#379897)

      Not only that they are buying up the irrelevant players (ie AOL).

      They *honestly* think this is a grand idea. They thought they were going to move the needle on the company with these. They didnt. So they are buying even more. They are doubling down on the idea.

      They actually believe they are the next google. They are even arranging their offices to have open floor plans. Thinking that is what makes google, google. They think if they keep hiring people from google and putting them in VP positions it will work.

      They should play to their strength. Connecting people and computers. They keep doing these silly things. When they build connections they shine. When they play the 'we can get x dollars per month for blah blah service' they fail. The division I worked in was 9 digit yearly revenue (with actual plausible plans to double that in the next year). They gutted it for this open floor plan idea and advertisements.

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 25 2016, @05:40PM

        He actually took me for a ride on his yacht. That was quite cool.

        (I used to BE somebody.)

        When I told him how impressed I was to meet a real VP, he replied "Don't be. When Motorola wants to get rid of you, they make you a vice president."

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @06:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @06:45PM (#379967)

          Hehe, In verizon VPs actually hold some sway on what goes on. That is because no one really knows what is going on. They regularly have 2-3 groups working on the exact same thing. Whichever VP can kiss ass better to the CEO wins.

          It is by far the most disorganized company I have ever worked for. That they make money is amazing. They regularly make money on equipment that was bought by Bell in the 40s and charge a premium for it.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Monday July 25 2016, @02:59PM

    by Anne Nonymous (712) on Monday July 25 2016, @02:59PM (#379840)

    > What are your plans in light of the buyout?

    I guess if they're going to ruin Yahoo, I'll just go back to AOL.

  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Monday July 25 2016, @06:00PM

    by mendax (2840) on Monday July 25 2016, @06:00PM (#379944)

    It's a real shame that Yahoo, that once grand company, a symbol of the Silicon Valley of the 1990's and early 2000's, is now essentially kaput. I'll continue to use Yahoo for what I've always used it for, checking the weather forecast. I feel that Verizon waited was premature to buy Yahoo now. It'll be worth only a quarter of what it paid a year from now.

    This is a lesson for Google, the new Yahoo. While it is a very different company, it can and likely will eventually share Yahoo's fate when someone else comes up with the next great idea.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday July 25 2016, @06:38PM

      by frojack (1554) on Monday July 25 2016, @06:38PM (#379961) Journal

      Insightful.

      Seems hard to contemplate today. But google has a lot of services that really have no visible means of support other than advertising revenue. Maps, Gmail, News, and Search, Calendar, Drive, etc. The list goes on an on.

      All of that hanging off of advertising revenue in a time when people are rebelling against ads pushed in their face more and more.

      Prediction: Google is going to have to break their word.
      Google is going to have to stop using what they know about you to tailor ads to you.
      They are going to have to start directly selling what they know about you.

      And the instant they do that, they are dead.

      Admittedly, they are way better positioned than Yahoo, but just about all their income these days is selling tailored ads.
      In the future they will have driverless car tech to sell, broadband services to the household, and cloud based apps,mail,storage that they sell to businesses and schools.

      Possible alternative: Maybe some services get pushed to a subscription basis. But it better be cheap. Cuz nobody will pay much.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Monday July 25 2016, @08:33PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 25 2016, @08:33PM (#380030) Journal

        Another alternative. The services will be free if you use Google's network (which you of course have to pay for), or a "partner network" (where the ISP is paying Google in return to Google offering their services for free on their network).

        Or in short: The cost of those services may end up being hidden in your internet connection cost. Basically the "Microsoft Tax" model, except that instead of "taxing" the computer, they "tax" the internet connection.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:33AM (#380165)

    There was a perl script called fetchyahoo to download messages from a Yahoo webmail account. The project looks dead. [sourceforge.net] Ya I know, messages never really get deleted from these services.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:12PM (#380260)

    What, if any, of their services have you used? Do you still use them? What are your plans in light of the buyout?

    Well, I use what used to be Yahoo Small Business to host my personal web pages. Paying for what I occupy gives me a greater sense that it's mine to do with as I please; while it could theoretically fold up I'm not at the mercy of someone deciding I can't have it free anymore. (Whether that sense is real or not, dunno.) It is a little confusing since their hosting was spun off in a different name I'm not sure if that would be on the table for Verizon to buy or not.

    I still use Yahoo! mail. I fail to understand why anyone has a problem with that, aside from the fact that I pay a pittance annually to be able to POP my mail when GMail offers that for free. The Spam blocking is just as good as GMail's. I'm not sure what Yahoo harvests, but I know GMail does, so.... I have a feeling that those who criticize must not have grown up in an era of heavy email use. I wouldn't want to guess how many dozens of notifications and changes I'd have to make if I were to switch. And I know I don't want to go through that kind of effort unnecessarily. So why was it necessary to do so again?

    I used to use My Yahoo as a portal, until their redesigns fucked it up. Now I don't use a portal anymore.

    Honestly, why would the news of Yahoo *maybe* being sold cause me to do anything until they ACTUALLY do something which would influence me to move?