digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at breitbart.com

Yahoo's Board REJECTS Microsoft takeover Offer!

breitbart.com — Board members concluded the unsolicited $44.6 billion offer massively undervalues the Web pioneer, a person familiar with the situation told the newspaper.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kazzyD, on 02/10/2008, -11/+138If you look at the reasoning, you can tell Yahoo is grasping at straws with contradicting logic:
    http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/02/09/yahoo-board ...
    • vault, on 02/10/2008, -8/+74They're just trying to get more money out of Microsoft, even if they can't get the whole unrealistic amount they want for it.
      • nospinhere, on 02/10/2008, -7/+22Microsoft will offer them more then anybody else would. If they reject this, they won't see anything better.
      • DMCer, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6Won't see anything better? This happens all the time with takeovers; the acquirer comes out with an offer far slightly lower than the target company's intrinsic value, the target company pretends to mull it over before rejecting it, then the acquirer ups their offer, etc. Microsoft wouldn't come out with their maximum offer on the first try, Yahoo can milk this for a few more billion before its all over.
        • lotsa1s, on 02/10/2008, -2/+7Far slightly?
          • DMCer, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Oops... I was trying to include both "far below what the company wants" and "slightly below the company's intrinsic value." The ADD side of me decide to merge the two into a illogical adverb.
    • Sajentine, on 02/10/2008, -9/+68I agree, I think Microsoft should really just tell them to go ***** themselves and finally take their thumb out their bum and start actually creating a search engine that can compete. I have to believe that with $40 billion laying around Microsoft can actually find people to create what they need and figure what people really want. I mean really how about just browsing the internet for starters.
      • deepdiggdude, on 02/10/2008, -11/+23*****. Those who trade daily in the market laugh at Yahoo. They are a terrible investment.
        • PatrickBrown, on 02/10/2008, -2/+20That may be true if not for one thing: Google exists.

          Microsoft will have to pay a premium over Google and not only attempt to catch up on Google but ALSO improve on Google. Any one of these tasks are difficult, let alone all of them.

          The first thing that needs to change? -- Would you rather work for Microsoft or Google? Yeah, until that answer changes they will continue to struggle with attracting talent in THIS particular field.
      • rpgmaker, on 02/10/2008, -10/+3The quality of the search engine isn't the thing stopping Microsoft from blasting Google, is that, well... Google is Google, that's it.
      • Myztry, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2It's more than simply having talented programmers. The same type of patents and agreements that keep Microsoft in position, is also able to keep them out of some areas.
        Also buying into an company based on an professional Operating System lets them save face when the Windows Server line just doesn't have the horses to pull off ultra massive computing tasks like is required to compete.
      • stretch611, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I doubt it. Remember Microsoft has tried this before. They have tried to build better a serach engine and redesign their MSN site. Still they have failed to generate any buzz with their online offerings.
    • execute85, on 02/10/2008, -5/+21$45 billion way overvalues yahoo. If the yahoo board seriously thought the stock was undervalued they would be making huge stock buybacks. Before the MSFT offer, yahoo was a bad buy at $20 (year a three year low). Yahoo needs to stop thinking of the glory days and get while the getting's good.
      • rpgmaker, on 02/10/2008, -3/+7I think that saying that this offer undervalue Yahoo! is just another way of saying "Microsoft we are not selling out". I don't think that they really believe that the company is being undervalued.
        • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6If that were true, there would be no reason to say anything other than simply, "we're not interested." And this is a board of directors we're talking about, not some benevolent visionary, founder, or otherwise lover-of-the-idea. Money is the only language they speak, and if you find the right words, they will sing them.

          They just smell a chance at procuring a higher offer--cause $44.6 billion just doesn't cut it if you COULD get more.
      • Jones82, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8According to Alexa, Yahoo is the number 1 site for traffic globally
    • tugger, on 02/10/2008, -4/+11There's a difference between what traders think a company is worth, and what the technology community (in this case MS and google) think it's worth. And lets face it, what the stock market knows about technology is for *****.
      Yahoo is worth what someone will pay for it, in this case $40 odd billion.
      Microsofts management structure ensures that the company is completely unable to innovate. Innovation is yahoo's strength (although they can't seem to generate any decent revenue) so it's easy to see why MS thinks yahoo will give them something of an adrenaline rush.
      • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -4/+3I'm unfamiliar on Yahoo's history outside of being a search engine. What innovations have they brought us? I know of none, but perhaps you can fill me in.
        • tightscrummy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8A company name with an exclamation point in it.
        • Breepee, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5Their YUI AJAX libraries, Yahoo Pipes seem pretty innovative to me.
    • Gabberwok, on 02/10/2008, -3/+4A takeover Yahoo is all but inevitable now. Unless someone else comes in with a better offer, Yahoo will end up going to Microsoft (it just might take more than $31 a share to do it).
      • Plezops, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I really dont know why they would accept their offer now, soon after the proposed deal Yahoo! stock shot up to around $30 a share which is a whopping 3.3% premium on their current stock price. Even now (markets are closed as of now so I'll use Friday's stock price) Yahoo! is at $29.20 and Microsoft is at $28.56. Im not saying that stock prices reflect how much a company is worth but their offer lost some of its luster. I personally wouldn't care how this went. If we got a MShoo! not much would change with anyone else, Google might feel threatened but I would seriously doubt that it would have much of an effect on Google as Microsoft isn't much of an innovator, and Yahoo! is well... slightly an innovator but after Microsoft gobbles it up there won't be much of that left.
        • Gabberwok, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Most of Yahoo's current price reflects the deal. People are still holding on because they expect a better offer from Microsoft or a white knight. If the deal fell apart completely, Yahoo would drop down significantly below its price before news of the offer. Also, a lot of the shares of Yahoo have been switching hands recently going to firms that specialize in making these kinds of deals go through - they buy up shares from nervous investors worried about Yahoo's prospects so that they can get the payday from the eventual deal, which often goes for more than the first price offered - those new shareholders definitely don't want the deal to fall through. In the end, the only way Yahoo is not going to be a part of Microsoft is through legal action by Google or a better offer from someone else.
    • MasterDwarf, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3When does it go to the share holders? Shoot, I bet they'd say something about it.
    • parolax, on 02/10/2008, -3/+12GM's value by market cap... 14.5B
      Ford's value... 12.8B
      EMC's value... 32B
      Yahoo's value > 44.6 B!?!?!?!?!?!?

      • Darph.Bobo, on 02/10/2008, -1/+15Advertising, sell something that costs you little or nothing to produce. No suppliers, inventory, store front location, manufacturing costs, inventory tax or depreciation and no reliance on raw materials. At least none to speak of.
    • compotatoj, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2That sounds about right.
    • MasterLevi, on 02/10/2008, -4/+0I'm pretty sure that Yahoo just sucks and there would nothing better than for Yahoo to be bought by another sucky company so that they can suck together.
    • stockjones, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Some of you are on your high horse over Google. There are many things Yahoo has done content wise that is better than Google. If I was Yahoo why would I want to sell out if I didnt want to? How would you feel if your beloved Google was being threatened with a hostile bid takeover by Microsoft?
    • funkywood, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'd like to think they are doing what's right for the web and the consumer hoping that MS won't raise their offer. They have to say it's because of the offer being too small to placate share holders but they are hoping that MS will realise it's a mistake and go away.
      They are totally different cultures and I certainly don't want them to merge.
  • Jublins, on 02/10/2008, -41/+13yahoo!
  • darkchild82, on 02/10/2008, -10/+292"Board members concluded the unsolicited $44.6 billion offer massively undervalues the Web pioneer" - I agree with the web pioneer part but I don't think they are worth way more than $44.6 billion.
    • jstohler, on 02/10/2008, -30/+14Yahoo is making no sense here. The market has stated pretty clearly that Yahoo is worth far less than the Microsoft bid. By definition, that's what make it a hostile takeover.
      • bowe, on 02/10/2008, -6/+75that doesn't make it a HOSTILE takeover. A hostile takeover would be if Microsoft bought a majority of yahoo stock in the market without an arranged agreement from yahoo.
        • jstohler, on 02/10/2008, -35/+6Hostile takeover: A takeover that occurs without the approval of the target corporation's board of directors. Pretty much exactly what's happening here.
          • bowe, on 02/10/2008, -1/+43Hmm, that's odd because I'm pretty sure that the headline says that Yahoo's board rejected the bid and the story says nothing about Microsoft still pursuing the takeover.
          • knowsfear, on 02/10/2008, -1/+14uhhh, no one is taking anything over. Bowe is correct. Epic fail by tohler
          • Jebral, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5RTFA
      • d3lta, on 02/10/2008, -0/+20From Wikipedia: A takeover would be considered "hostile" if (1) the board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or (2) if the bidder makes the offer without informing the board beforehand.
        Nothing in the definition notes that corporation is worth less than the hostile bid, many hostile bids grossly undervalue a company deliberately to take advantage of the ailing companies vulnerability.
        • tech42er, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5Well, if MS pursues a hostile takeover, the company will have to buy the stock at a significant premium. It's the only way they can get enough.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -7/+52Its still a dumb move by Yahoo though. They have rapidly become more and mroe irrelevent over the past 5 years and MS's offer of 160% what the company is worth woul dhave assured that yahoo wouldn't eventuall ybr broken up and sold as it needs to find more cash to keep going.
      • Narrator, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2Yeah being the number 1 web property is irrelevant.
      • ZachSka87, on 02/10/2008, -5/+2Great comment....but PLEASE use Digg's edit feature.
    • tgc1, on 02/10/2008, -16/+3Maybe they just don't want to sell to Micro$oft.
      • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9I see what you did there.

        I'd rather it had slipped my notice.
    • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -3/+16What use is a "web pioneer" in a fully explored web? Today we need architects, not explorers.
    • mcduckov, on 02/10/2008, -0/+12In a negotiation you typically don't take the first offer. Also, I'm not sure how Yahoo is incorporated but MS may be able to just go ahead and buy a controlling stake on the open market even if Yahoo does not want them to.

      Obviously that could get very ugly and would take time. There will probably be some back and forth before they settle on a deal. If I were a long term investor I'd want yahoo to hold out for the best deal they can possibly get. It isn't like MS will just walk away because the first offer was rejected.
      • Myztry, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1At the very least there will be hissy fits, temper tantrums and dummy spitting...
    • bingobongony, on 02/10/2008, -7/+1And what business school did you get your PhD at?
    • datagod, on 02/10/2008, -7/+4I honestly would be surprised if they were offered $4Billion.... I cannot believe they turned this down. What a bunch of greedy self deluded money minions. Maybe they don't realize how much they suck due to all the over-the-top-in-your-face ads on their own internal memos.
    • ZachSka87, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Their stockholders agree with you.
    • nakp88d, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1As I mentioned earlier this is the Duke Numem:Forever of M&A.
    • smek2, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Yeah like YOU know about these things. Seriously, how come every idiot surfing the internet becomes an expert on everything?
  • eagles2k3, on 02/10/2008, -40/+4stop duplicating my posts.
    • iDiggIt42, on 02/10/2008, -10/+7Would you like a tissue to cry into?
    • sirbeta, on 02/10/2008, -14/+2Stop getting your panties in a twist because someone's digg submission got more popular than yours.
    • Picaroon, on 02/10/2008, -9/+2Dude, the Eagles suck. Find a new team. May I suggest the Dallas Cowboys?
    • catachip, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2If you've got an issue, here's a tissue.
  • ammar456, on 02/10/2008, -37/+32thats stupid. they should just go for it.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -4/+4They're stuffed if they don't. It might not be immediate, but unless they let themselves get bought they will probably not be about in 10 years from now, while you can be certain that MS wmost definately will.
    • naterpoke, on 02/10/2008, -6/+4yahoo is nothing compared to what it was like 5 years ago, its past its prime and is dying.

      i hope they suffer ():D
  • madmariner, on 02/10/2008, -19/+64I dunno...being owned by Microsoft?
    • d3lta, on 02/10/2008, -24/+9would suck... especially if the next offer is being owned by Google, while maintaining your principles and identity
      • fkr3, on 02/10/2008, -3/+14What principles and identity? With very few exceptions Google buys a company, dumbs down the name and replaces the old logo with the new name and "beta". As for principles.... Yahoo and Google are both corporations, they follow the law not principles.
        • d3lta, on 02/10/2008, -6/+3Google doesn't just "dumb down the name" for egoistical reasons, these are strategic decisions made by a company based on how successful they think the acquired asset can be marketed. When your company's name is included in a dictionary, there's a pretty good chance that adding the brand-name to a growing (popular) venture will boost the market presence of the target while strengthening the brand name of the parent company. If the acquired company already has the largest market share, there is no need to do this, as in the case of YouTube, renaming it GoogleTube might have had a counteractive influence.
          As for principles, which company are you more likely to see workers migrating to, Google or Microsoft? They both follow the same laws, don't they?
          • fkr3, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2There's no migration in either direction.... someone changes jobs every now and then and it stands to reason if you're working for one of the top companies you're probably going to move (usually for more money, it's the fastest way to advance your salary) at another top company, there's nothing to read into that it's just the natural cycle.
        • Protoss, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8Yeah but Google generally takes a developing technology and gives it the Google name, thereby making it enormously more well known.
        • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -6/+5"Yahoo and Google are both corporations, they follow the law not principles."

          That still places them head and shoulders above Microsoft, the only tech company so blatantly evil/unlawful in their behavior they actually manage to get themselves punished by completely tech-clueless legal systems.
          • fkr3, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9Oh please. Microsoft is in a position where they are heavily scrutinised and there is no shortage of people and governments eager to take action against them. Any move they make subjects them to another round of crud in the courts, whilst other companies can do what they want, bundle what they want and buy what they want. Why should it be considered illegal for Microsoft to include a media player or a web browser? Just because it's not the media player or web browser you prefer?
          • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -6/+6You damn well know why. It's because consumer's choices are being made for them, cutting competitors out of the market and penalizing consumers who seek the alternatives. No one else has that power, and no one at all should have it. Microsoft's scrutiny is a product not only of that power, but their ready and consistent willingness to abuse it to expand the MS empire.

            The last time I checked, NO other company has tried to infiltrate and subvert international standards bodies to prevent interoperability with alternative office software, NO other company has pressured system distributors into exclusive OS contracts and threatened to stop selling licenses if the company distribute alternative operating systems, NO other company has tried to take control of the internet itself (by promoting proprietary technology online through pre-bundled and force-distributed OS+browser) and NO other company actively designs every service and product with the clear intent not to make their product good, but to make not having it infeasible--to employ it as a hostile market takeover.

            Maybe you'd like to like to console Microsoft for failing to make the internet itself their own proprietary controlled service. Maybe they were only fulfilling their corporate mandate to make a profit. After all, they only wanted "a piece of every online transaction." What is the good of society in the face of satisfying your shareholders?

            Microsoft is the only company that actively makes my life ***** without me actually owning or wanting any of their software, services, or related IP (yet worse, or at least no better, even if I DID own/use their crap). And that's what makes me angry enough even to waste my time ranting to an obvious shill like yourself.
          • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -4/+4Wow are you really that much of a ***** moron? The ONLY reason that you don't see other companies in the office suite industry pushing their own proprietary formats is simply because it's not in their best interest yet since they're no where near in the lead. The only reason the companies are pushing open formats is because they all know it's one of their better chances at being able to grab a little bit of the office market from MS. It's not because they love the consumer and want to do what's best. It's a purely monetary calculation on their part.

            And please. MS doesn't make life *****. The majority of their products are great for what they're for and the markets their aimed at. Nor are they evil or have done anything that other companies in the market haven't already done and continue to do to try and gain share.
          • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -2/+4Thank you Captain Obvious, for pointing out that greed breeds douchebags. But one can point out many companies in a position of market dominance that do not abuse their power nearly so badly, a category into which both Yahoo and Google fit. What exactly is your point, anyway? That because we understand their motivation and how they do it, it's ok?

            Meanwhile, the greatest innovations are coming from open technology, which is mostly produced by non-profit efforts. That body has recently become expansive enough for a significant number of noticeably-sized companies to start building open business models that Microsoft can't shut down or cut off from a consumer base. Nobody is claiming that these companies love society, but some of them might (and many of the people who have made this possible have dedicated their lives to the protection of technological freedom and innovation, in non-profit efforts), and regardless, the open business models do improve society.

            MS saw this coming, and they've done everything in their power to suppress open innovation for the past 3 decades...an effort that has cost our entire planet severely, and won't stop costing until no Microsoft or IBM-of-the-past can ever again exist. So pardon me if I'm not overly friendly toward the company that strangles the world in which I dare to dream (I'm a software developer, and I make software for the good of its users, which usually includes myself...I guess you'll have to call me an old-fashioned hippy next).
      • SirBotchness, on 02/10/2008, -2/+10i don't think google can legally own yahoo.
        • d3lta, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2thats true, I take that back, I think they are exploring a "strategic-partnership"
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -18/+9Well "Live" has been awesome so far, hasn't it? And Yahoo is pretty much a piece of ***** in it's present form.
      • TomTruelle, on 02/10/2008, -11/+17I fail to see how Live is awesome...
        • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8Live is a good search engine and has many other good tools that are about as good as anything google has to offer. They just don't have the whole google fetish thing going for them right now. Must say google sure has PR down to a tea because while people complain that monopolies are horrible and thus MS is horrible, google has taken a huge monopoly of the search engine and adtervising market and nobody complains...
        • ElbertF, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1It's not. Try searching for "explorer" on both MS Live and Google, ironically Google's first result points to IE's download page where Live doesn't even show it on the first page.
        • strictnein, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4http://maps.live.com is the best mapping service out there.

          Go and search for your house, and then use the bird's eye view. Makes all other satellite views from other providers seem pointless.
        • YourMaster, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=explorer&go= ...

          Appears on the front page for me. And I'm really not sure that most people who search for "explorer" mean a web browser. They might mean a car, or, just maybe, an explorer.
    • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -22/+44Ohhhh you mean being owned by one of the best companies in the world to work in?
      Trace the origin of your hate for MS. You might find it unfounded.
      • iofthestorm, on 02/10/2008, -10/+24I love how on digg someone gets buried for simply telling people to look beyond their fanboyism and sharing his experiences.
        • nastajus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2No, I hate that!
          Yeah, sarcasm meter, etc. . Whatever. I dugg you up.
        • Fartag, on 02/10/2008, -13/+5It's because there's been over a decade of quite offensive anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft that they've employed in the position of a monopoly to the detriment of their competition and computing in general. This continues even up to recently. Education is essential on this front, there are many innocent "goldfish memory" posts that come from either new users or those that have no qualms sweeping all the issues under a rug (the size of Alaska).
        • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -5/+7Uh no, there's been very little truely anti-competition behaviour from Microsoft and just a lot of blown out of proportion stories and slander as their competition uses the court systems to try to gain market share and Euro governments use them like their own private bank account.
          • Fartag, on 02/10/2008, -6/+4So you claim that all the courts, and all of their competition is just out to get poor innocent Microsoft who's just minding their own business, toiling to "innovate" new and better software so that people will choose it freely above their competition? Sorry, it didn't happen that way, and it _never_ will as long as Microsoft's current management is running things and as long as the courts are impotent in enforcing their findings.

            Read up on http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm charges and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f217900/217969.htm findings for the first decade or so of charges (this one's _extremely_ important to show how we were all held back by Microsoft for many years and what they did to cause this) in the U.S. Also consider the Halloween documents discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents, I'll avoid link farming here.

            New things range from using SCO as a front corporation to try to claim infringement of code in Linux in court. Paying hundreds of millions to Novell to legitimize patent claim FUD and work their tentacles into Samba and other Novell contributions (starting a familiar embrace, extend extinguish cycle) one more: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000121 .

            This is related to trying to dissuade people from streaming over to Linux based systems by claiming there are hundreds of patents being violated but never identifying any of them. Continually using the whole mechanic of embrace, extend, extinguish using proprietary protocols leveraged by them as standard (reminding you again here that they're a monopoly) but without a way for competition to implement those proprietary components. Making a secret but official language that only the monopoly can only speak is just downright shameful. You'd think they could compete on merit alone right?

            We're not done yet, there's plenty more. You've got general anti-intercompatibility on this front as well, making it difficult to completely export or import files from competitors formats, monopolistic bundling deals with PC manufacturers, contractual deals penalizing installation of certain non-MS software on site, and all those general things of deals to keep hardware specs and information exclusive to avoid competition being able to construct drivers or utilize the hardware without extremely costly and difficult reverse engineering. Having every vendor targeting a monopoly that is auto-bundled everywhere is a side effect. Trying to cram OOXML format as an ISO standard but getting caught red handed is not.

            Does any of this look like "very truly little" anti-competition? Keep in mind this is not even close to ending there because this is only about anti-competition and it's incomplete as well. There are still shady practices in many other categories such as dealing with user's (lack of) control, forced upgrades, utilizations of forced DRM in the OS and effectively contractually and so on.

            If Microsoft is so much better technically they would be able to compete on merit alone, not continually pay out to try to destroy competition through subversion and holding back software advance in general. There is _no_ company more hated by nerds the world over and there is an incredible number of reasons why. Yet people still defend all of this, why? For most because Windows is what they've got installed on their machine and are used to it, and I agree, that's ridiculous.
          • tdous, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1That's a lot of text to be dugg down for, Fartag. I take it you're not really all that bothered about this ;)
          • Fartag, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1@tdous

            Yeah that is pretty big, and I'll try to cut these down. :D There's just _so many things_ that Microsoft has done to harm tech progress that it's difficult to just stick to 10. And it's sad to see Digg's recent change where blatant misinformation promoting Microsoft starts outpacing the small nerd contingent's abilities to correct it. One side feigns ignorance, or throws misinformation in that neophytes have no reason to doubt, and the other has to contend with a virtual tome of evidence that never fits well into a small Digg comment.
      • philhatesyou, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2The origin of my hate for MS is summed up in the following text from an internal MS memo:

        "The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most Independent Software Vendors would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (total cost of ownership), our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."

        Aaron Contorer, Microsoft's head of C++ development

        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsof ..."
        • strictnein, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Written in 1997.
          • philhatesyou, on 02/10/2008, -6/+0He said to trace the origin of my hate for MS and that I might find it unfounded. I was showing him that he's incorrect, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to hate MS. Additionally, this was only one example in a long history of unethical and illegal behavior. If we could see more of MS' internal memos, I'm willing to bet we'd have many more reasons to hate them.
        • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Well, its such a good company that it allows their workers to public say what they think.
          • philhatesyou, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0Except that was an internal memo, not in public. Try actually reading next time, douchebag.
          • AlvesLopes, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1@philhatesyou: read some MS blogs. Oh, and imagine a world with no MS and where IBM was still the key player.
    • celkin, on 02/10/2008, -9/+22If you use Windows, you're already owned by Microsoft!
      • Phocion55, on 02/10/2008, -4/+12Well....YOU aren't...but your computer (physical hardware) is.
        • HonoredMule, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6Kinda sucks, when you think of what YOU paid for it, AND the software that has taken ownership of it.

          Where would you like to go if we allow and enable it today?
    • starkes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3it'll all be in costco one day.

      i'd rather see yahoo stay on its own. anything to keep competition high.
  • killerknives, on 02/10/2008, -55/+11All they ever do is copy Google and Apple anyway
    • alexdemers, on 02/10/2008, -4/+32Apple? In what way did they "copy" Apple?
      • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -8/+2Being sucessfull?
        Oh, wait, this is yahoo right. Sorry.
      • tzon, on 02/10/2008, -24/+2Windows. Zune.
        • bob12321, on 02/10/2008, -1/+17Damn, how could I forget that yahoo stole the Zune.
        • tdous, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Windows? You've heard of Xerox, yes?
    • ElBeh, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1Either someone very, very stupid or a troll.
    • Rileyper, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2wait i thought google copied from yahoo...THE CAKE IS A LIE
  • bowe, on 02/10/2008, -19/+62Good, I may be one of the few who actually likes some of yahoo services better than google. I think they need to refocus their business quite a bit, but they offer some good stuff. If you look at Microsoft's web offerings they're 10x ***** than anything put out by yahoo.
    • archer75, on 02/10/2008, -5/+21That's why microsoft wants yahoo. They would likely ditch MSN and put alot of resources behind yahoo. It would be better for everyone in the end.
      • mcmlxxii, on 02/10/2008, -3/+14How? You assume good+bad = good. Maybe good+bad = brown
      • Tenareth, on 02/10/2008, -3/+3Yeah, because Microsoft never just kills the better and keeps the crap going.. (Where have you been the past 20 years?)
    • posure, on 02/10/2008, -9/+3Maybe Live mail would switch to Yahoo Mail's technology (which is much better) or maybe we could see XBL gamertags integrated into Yahoo's services which could be pretty sweet.
    • catalysis, on 02/10/2008, -1/+27I think a lot of people don't realize that yahoo is the #1 news provider on the internet. That alone is worth billions.
      • Murdats, on 02/10/2008, -2/+19and that is what they are being offered.
      • bingobongony, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8it is still the number 1 EVERYTHING provider on the internet. It is the top site overall
        • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -5/+2nope, google monoplizes the search engine market. Think they have well over 70% of that market and a very large chuck of the advertising market which is what MS is after.
        • thatcrazycommie, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4He means that Yahoo is the single most visited site on the internet, and he's right.
    • bingobongony, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9Uhhh...other than search, MOST people prefer Yahoo's offerings to Googles.
    • stockjones, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4No you aren't one of the few. Yahoo has many features that are better than Google. Honestly I love Google's search, but thats about it. Their email and other news features, stock quotes etc are nowhere near as good as Yahoo. Google is just the Ron Paul of search engines. Net geeks associate anything Google as God Like which is not always the case.
  • thinman1189, on 02/10/2008, -11/+120The guys at Google must be rejoicing right now.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -5/+31They're probably behind the offer being rejected.
    • skyshock1, on 02/10/2008, -6/+30Something tells me Google's not exactly worried about such a merger. Even with the combined marketshare that would create, it would still PALE in comparison to Google's marketshare. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog ...
      • bingobongony, on 02/10/2008, -2/+10If they were not worried, why did they release press released bitching about it?
        • skyshock1, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2Making a statement about how much MS sucks != worrying about their latest acquisition.
          • FKnight, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1HAHAAHHA Wake me up when you turn 16.
    • rmxz, on 02/10/2008, -13/+5Really? Seems Microsoft is simply killing one of Google's competitors. Seems it'd be good for them. Kinda like how Ford would giggle if Microsoft bought Toyota and BMW.
      • Protoss, on 02/10/2008, -7/+21I think everyone would giggle if MS bought a car company....
        That was a terrible analogy buddy.
        • Euler2718, on 02/10/2008, -2/+12I'm pretty sure you're focusing on the wrong part of the analogy buddy.
      • skyshock1, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4On the contrary. Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers.
    • loganhid, on 02/10/2008, -7/+1yeah we are
    • mrbutter, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Actually he's right. I heard on NPR that google was teling Yahoo that they would help them in various ways but to REJECT microsoft's offer.

      ***** stupid.
      • skyshock1, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4Why's that stupid? It's no secret Google and Yahoo have been ~business partners for a while.
    • knelto, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5I'd like to see some kind of partnership or merger between Yahoo! and Google just to see how pissed off Ballmer would get...
      • falafelkiosken, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Let the ***** killing commence.
      • tdous, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I think a merger would be viewed as a monopoly in the search field and not looked upon kindly by the various authorities who care. Partnership seems more likely.
  • rhustang, on 02/10/2008, -11/+2wow, 4 of the top 10 articles on the tech board are dupes of this yahoo / microsoft thing.
    man, guess there's no glamour in technology anymore. :(
  • linkin2, on 02/10/2008, -21/+1ZOMYGOD
  • michaelfitz, on 02/10/2008, -13/+217Massively undervalued? That's a crock of BS.
    The board is just trying to increase Microsoft's offer to even more ludicrous levels.
    • AndrewDB, on 02/10/2008, -8/+5Or, they're listening to what Google has to say.
      • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3Google isn't going to do anything beyond try and get the deal blocked. They're not going to or can't buy yahoo themselves.
    • cisox, on 02/10/2008, -2/+5Business is Business
    • Mist0r_Wiggles, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3wow really, you really think so? You must have a MBA or a mastermind to figure that one out.
    • betobeto, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Like, it's 1999 all over again.
  • chi1thook, on 02/10/2008, -26/+10Microsoft is becoming Chrysler with mediocre software and mediocre search engine and the best OS today is Linux with Google software.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -2/+9Have you actualy used their search engine? I still use google (mainly out of habit) but MS's one is pretty good, at last.
      • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3Yeah. I'm not usually inclined to always like MS software, but their search engine is pretty nifty. Mainly in the Image and Video search area. And the Web search results are actually getting better in other areas.

        I never liked Y! Search. For some reason, it was way bland and didn't offer anything that beneficial over the competition.
    • dcollins, on 02/10/2008, -3/+7Okay look: I like to take a shot at Microsoft as much as the next guy, and I use mostly mac/ubuntu. But 1. this article has nothing to do with operating systems, and 2. You can't say with a straight face that linux > windows for the average user. I challenge you to tell an average user that setting repositories, installing the necessary compilers, and running apt-get commands is easier than putting an install disk in and pressing play.
      • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6I like compiling my supositories.
        • dcollins, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5Hah, I just did a double-take, thinking I had actually written that. Kudos. Oh, and I also should have included troubleshooting the inevitable compile error.
      • mjPayne, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2He may actually have a point. The world of IT is marching towards SaS (software as a service) and Google is pushing for application that run on Linux. Yahoo is using a lot of OSS themselves and combined with Google dwarf Microsoft in traffic. With Google "Android" and 700MHz wireless push Microsoft is feeling the squeeze.
        • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2Huh? What google software runs on linux?
      • chi1thook, on 02/10/2008, -4/+5It's click and install with linux and google software also and you don't even have to go to the store. Google and Linux are great, no confusing programs that crash all the time and free.
        • dcollins, on 02/10/2008, -6/+3Its only click and install if someone has added it to the package manager. Many programs have to be installed and compiled manually, and you can often be looking at an hour plus if you have to hunt down some obscure library that the configure script can't find. I personally don't mind having to do all that, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't eat bits for breakfast.
          • Darkhacker, on 02/10/2008, -3/+4Deb and RPM are still click and install despite not being in the repository. Besides, the only people who would need such an obscure piece of software, probably know how to compile it. Mom and Pop have more than enough in the repository.
  • Goldbricker, on 02/10/2008, -18/+77Massively undervalued at $44.6 billion?.........whateva.
    • arjung, on 02/10/2008, -5/+32seriously, i valued them at about $12. not million, just 12.
      • Shiner6, on 02/10/2008, -3/+10You're being generous. I don't see any value in Yahoo!
        • tdous, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Their CSS reset code is ok. I'd like to see MS pay $12 to keep that around.
      • chrispr, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Sold!
    • fuzzybeard, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Sounds like greed to me. My God, they're offered Department of Defense-level money and they say it's not enough?
  • digitallysick, on 02/10/2008, -20/+16I think its a bad move on yahoos part, they aren't worth that much and should of took the money.
    • daengbo, on 02/10/2008, -14/+23"should of took"
      Should have taken. Should have taken. Say it again. Should have taken.
    • bingobongony, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Again..what business school did you go to?
    • polywaffle, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2.
  • Daiken, on 02/10/2008, -7/+69Microsoft is stupid to offer such a high bid. Yahoo is even more stupid for refusing. I'm happy though, more players = more competition = better services/products.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -4/+8Not when yahoo has to start selling off divisions to the highest bidder because it can't get its act into gear enough to operate as a single company and not go bankrupt.
    • archer75, on 02/10/2008, -1/+20Yes, more competition is better. But right now microsoft nor yahoo can come close to touching google. A merger of the two would stand a chance though. And that's the only thing right now that may give google a run for their money thus forcing more innovation on both sides.
      • Tenareth, on 02/10/2008, -5/+0Because the sick amount of PhD's at Google never innovate... but Microsoft does. WTF?
      • philhatesyou, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2You're forgetting that Google is winning precisely because they put out a better product than anyone else. If you've got a memory capable of spanning past 5 years ago, you'll remember that the search engine market was about as crowded as a market can be. Google does not have more market share because there are unreasonable barriers to entry thus giving them an unfair advantage. Google has more market share because they're better.
    • Rowan187, on 02/10/2008, -13/+4hahah better services/products? you realize we're talking about MICROSOFT and YAHOO here. I don't think I've seen a good product from them since the revolutionary Windows 3.1
      • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6Time to come out from between google's legs, wipe your mouth off and take a look at the real world. Google's services offer practically nothing the others don't. In some areas google is better in some MS and/or Yahoo are better. Google just one the PR game which convinced all the simpletons to follow them blindly.
    • EXreaction, on 02/10/2008, -4/+4What is the last innovative thing that came from Yahoo? For that matter, when is the last time you visited Yahoo or installed anything made by Yahoo?

      I can't remember on any of those accounts.
      • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2ALl I know is that in my job repairing computers I will only ever UNINSTALL stuff made by Yahoo.
      • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Innovative? Wow. If something isn't innovative, I should use it. (sarcasm)

        I love to use Y! Answers - a community question and answering site. Y! Mail has a 'few' features that I like but can't find in other providers. Oh, and the MyYahoo! start page is the 2nd best start page right behind Netvibes.

        Just because you don't use Y!, doesn't mean you can go around making ignorant statements like that. For the most part, btw, I use Windows Live stuff.
      • funkywood, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Yahoo's support for mobiles is better than Google's. It might have improved now but I gave up trying to use Google maps on my phone. You'd have thought they'd get that right. Yahoo Go is just simple and easy to use.
    • FutureGuy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3If you are an advertiser there isn't any real competition, its Google or a roadside sign, ohh wait Google is planing to take over that too.
      • stockjones, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Google hasn't been meeting investor revenue goals they are very bloated valuation wise right now. Yahoo on the other hand has made great strides in regards to its contents and YUI library. When you all go oh jquery is so cool. YUI is even more amazing. Most of you are hard core geek mentality so you walk the Google mantra like a Ron Paul zealot. Most non-techy people I know use Google for search. Yahoo for mail, news, stock quotes the works.
    • stockjones, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Gee Maybe Yahoo has no interest in selling itself to Microsoft. Go Figure.
  • PhilThePhenom, on 02/10/2008, -17/+6Good. Down with Corporate America.
    • Pixelante, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2You do understand that you are a nothing but a property of Corporate America (or Corporate Anywhere, it's the same all over the world) to be sold and bought at a price decided by people you don't even know? Your life is, has always been and always will be the property of a faceless entity. Learn to live with it: the alternative is suicide.
      • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I agree with most of your commentary. But suicide is a losers way out. You can just go live in the jungle, homeless, system parasite and you can run for president!
        • Pixelante, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0Yes, but a widespread suicide epidemic would cause heavy damage to the economy - if the consumers die by the thousands, nobody is left to buy anything.
          Just think of it... Hundreds of people taking cyanide pills inside the Virgin Megastore: they all drop dead, they won't buy anything anymore and the staff has to clean up the mess.
          That's the way you do it.
      • PhilThePhenom, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Your reply is completely ridiculous. Our options are getting slimmer by the hour and the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots is growing. What good is freedom without choices?

        "I am not a number, I am a free man!!" -The Prisoner
  • Super6, on 02/10/2008, -22/+6Just think, if M$ did buy them they would own the 2 crappiest families of websites on the internet. Viva la google!
    • lemz, on 02/10/2008, -5/+10Still hanging out in 1998 with the /. crowd with that "M$" piece?
  • lemz, on 02/10/2008, -6/+60Buried for wrong article and a spam post. Yahoo board is THOUGHT to reject the bid.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/yahoo-board- ...
  • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -15/+2If some site like youtube that deletes anything someone cries about can get what they got Yahoo can get tons more than 44B... Email Youtube tell them u own the color red, by next week their logo will be blue
  • TheMachine1, on 02/10/2008, -5/+2If their just trying to work up the buy price this is lame. If they truly believe they can grow Yahoo faster alone and hence make the shareholders alot more money this is great news. I have zero faith the combination of the two companies would grow both business. If Microsoft is so smart and cash rich they could grow their own internet business. I do view Yahoo as a AOL though and I doubt they have alot of upside growth potential (Google Bigot).
    • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4They're not buying Yahoo for innovation, they're buying Yahoo for market share.
  • K31TH3R, on 02/10/2008, -8/+2the small pic of the dude on the article looks like down syndrome. but upon full sizing it i realize that he indeed has all of the right chromosomes :(
    • Stroggoth, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0Ha, I thought that too. I was like "that explains why Yahoo turned down the offer"...
    • yuutokun, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Oh. I thought you were talking about me.
  • bxblox, on 02/10/2008, -2/+10I can see that they could have reasons for rejecting the offer and trying to grow on their own, or compete with with Google. However, yahoo is worth nowhere near that much. They're being ridiculous.
    • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -5/+4Not worth that much? they make that a year are you kidding me.. There is not a person alive that dont know the name Yahoo or Google
      • dtt1167, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2actually, a lot of people do not know yahoo!, google is clearly the market leader. a buyout by MS could actually revive them.
        • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3how so? they cant revive their own MSN site wtf can they do with yahoo
  • deadbaby, on 02/10/2008, -17/+8Microsoft is so irrelevant on the web that a company will actually turn down a generous offer to avoid being sucked into their black hole internet strategy. That's just crazy. No wonder Microsoft is so terrified of Google.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -2/+10Look at it without jeded eyes though, and the ONLY thing google does better than yahoo/MS is selling advertisments. The rest of their offerings don't even come close.
      • skidooer, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Google is in the business of selling users to advertisers. I'd hope that's what they are best at.
      • tightscrummy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1My eyes aren't jeded, they're brown.
    • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Can you explain how Microsoft has millions of user accounts across the world? Using WinLive/MSN every day?

      And there are actually a 'few' good things that have came from Microsoft via the web. Like Live Writer, Live Messenger, and Image and Video search.
      • Myztry, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Yeah. They brought them when they purchased HotMail. The lazy people "cos it's there" factor helped Messenger.
        But having the default search. They failed with that seriously. Only a real lame company could cause people to overcome the laziness of the masses and seek out better alternatives.
  • cavie2002, on 02/10/2008, -8/+1lolffer
  • Dylson, on 02/10/2008, -18/+6Im sure I speak for everyone but microsoft when I say ***** WOOOT!!
    • lemz, on 02/10/2008, -1/+9No you don't speak for everybody, especially not for people who are currently holding YHOO at $29.20
      • scaaven2, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2it will be the house of pain on monday
  • uziko, on 02/10/2008, -11/+6Good news, the last thing we need is 2 competitors instead of 3.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5If yahoo keeps on being retardedly stupid thats going to happen soon enough anyway, but not on their terms as would currently be the case.
    • archer75, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11Right now you don't have 3. Yahoo and Microsoft by themselves aren't much of a competitor to google.
    • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2Right now there's 1 monopoly and no competition. Google owns the search/advertisement markets and this deal was one of the few options that might have brought some competition back in play.
  • arunforce, on 02/10/2008, -14/+89What innovation has Yahoo! turned out in the last 5 years that anyone actually uses besides Yahoo! Answers?
    • onClipEvent, on 02/10/2008, -7/+4don't know about you guys, but most of my answers in Yahoo! Answers are courtesy of Wiki anyway.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 02/10/2008, -2/+44Yahoo's deal with SBC to provide cheap DSL
      Yahoo Messenger has become a pretty damn large platform
      Yahoo's Small Business Hosting is used by a TREMENDOUS amount of vendors
      Yahoo Widgets, as a result of the acquisition of Konfabulator
      Yahoo Mail improvements that provide a pretty damn nice AJAX interface
      Flickr
      del.icio.us

      Oh yeah, and they are the #2 advertiser behind Google.
      You might want to point out that half of those are a result of acquisitions, but the same can be said for Google.
      • darkane, on 02/10/2008, -14/+3You fail hard. Cheap DSL existed long before Yahoo SBC. Yahoo Messenger isn't a platform, nor is it "pretty damn large." Yahoo's hosting business is barely worth mentioning. Yahoo Mail's AJAX interface was implemented as a direct response to GMail's (which is still better). Flicker and del.icio.us were acquired by Yahoo, not created by. You can't call Yahoo an innovator just because they buy innovative things. Oh, and a large majority of Google's products/services were created by Google and were -not- a result of acquisitions.
        • darkane, on 02/10/2008, -7/+2You can bury me for spelling Flickr wrong, but that doesn't make anything I said less true.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 02/10/2008, -0/+9lol, what a noob. Yahoo Messenger merged with MSN to create the second largest instant messaging platform.
          Yahoo's Merchant services power something like 20% of ALL online stores. You've probably used it and don't even realize.

          If you don't want to count acquisitions, then your precious Google really doesn't look that much more "innovative." Outside of search and maybe GMail, most of their other things are acquisitions. Google Docs, Google Earth, Google Maps, Blogger, Google Groups, Orkut, YouTube, Feedburner, Jaiku, Picasa and even Android are all acquired products. Google has just gotten into the practice of renaming things like Keyhole to Google Earth and making you think they invented them.
        • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7Exactly. Google's main innovation is how to convince 80% of the internet that they're regular joe innovators looking out for the small guy while fighting the good fight to the point that so many nerds jizz their pants every time they do a search on google. When in reality there a huge corporation looking out solely for the bottom line, slandering their competition publicly, using the courts to gain market share, gobbling up massive amounts of smaller projects and slapping their name on them etc...

          Bassically everything people complain about MS for, Google is doing twice as much these days. MS at present is probably doing more for the small guy than Google is.
        • origamiinstruct, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Google search isn't an innovation!
          The concept of search and search engines were known before.

          They just took a bit different approach to it.. And better marketing.
    • celkin, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13I know a lot of people that use Yahoo! Mail
      • tightscrummy, on 02/10/2008, -3/+3You should try to call the Yahoo board and tell them then...this might dramatically change negotiations with MS.
    • hungerf3, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8Yahoo Pipes is pretty innovative.
      You can check it out here: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/
      Google has a video about it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8569811679 ...
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -11/+42yahoo's stock will plunge.
    • bob12321, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2I don't think so since the offer the stock has risen $10
      • Protoss, on 02/10/2008, -2/+7Stocks rose because they would be worth more after the buyout, now that Yahoo thinks they're worth more than MS offered them, the stocks will drop dramatically.
      • Euler2718, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Maybe that rise was somehow connected to the offer, and now that Yahoo has turned it down, the stock will lose that $10.
    • bekeleven, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3It has plunged. That's what caused the offer. When it rose, it was just the stock bouncing back to what it was.
    • EXreaction, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Maybe I should buy a bunch of Yahoo stock after it falls. Then when MS decides to go the hostile takeover path maybe I can make some $, or maybe Yahoo will accept the offer after their stock falls.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I think AlienGG forgot to add 'further' to the end of his comment.
    • stockjones, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2More like Googles stock may plunge. They have not been meeting investor expectation's revenue wise. They are very over hyped right now.

      http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/01/live-analysis- ...
  • cronian, on 02/10/2008, -4/+0They just want to keep their jobs as board members along with CEOs.
  • InvaderDem, on 02/10/2008, -14/+18Wow, what a bunch of egotistical asses to think they're worth more than $45 billion.
    • tightscrummy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Maybe they are secretly completing the fuhrer's super-weapon projects and we are on the eve of a Yahoo! thousand-year Reich.
    • pw378, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3I bet you also said that when Google turned down a $1 billion buyout from Microsoft before they went public... and also when Google's IPO came out at $85....
      • InvaderDem, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0Why would I have said that? $1 billion is a lot less than $45 billion.
  • sfacets, on 02/10/2008, -11/+22Hahahahahahahaha
  • netzdamon, on 02/10/2008, -18/+20Not a Yahoo user but, I am happy Microsoft is not taking over. Nice job Yahoo.
    • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -5/+0Maybe nice job MS too!!
    • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4So why would you care anyhow?
      • netzdamon, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3I don't want every other company online being bought up by a company I don't like.
    • Zilk, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3I am happy as well. Microsoft will eventually try to buy out all it's competitors so that we only see the ads they want us to see, hear the news they want us to hear, and they'll eventually become the Umbrella Corporation.
  • scaaven2, on 02/10/2008, -4/+18the stock will crash and burn next week. news of the offer alone propelled the stock up 45%. at this point there is even less reason to trust their leadership -- having lost more and more market share over the years.
    • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1The last 5 years has seen their stocks tumble just over 40%. Its going to take somehting drastic (like MS) to reverse this.
      If I was a shareholder I'd be pretty pissed at the board right now.
    • Yazilliclick, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1There's perhaps a good chance MS will take a deal directly to the share holders in the near future so some people may hold onto their shares in the hopes that happens.
  • ChrisGray, on 02/10/2008, -4/+18MicroSoft offers Yahoo! massively more than their stock value. As a result, Wall Street punishes MicroSoft by knocking down MicroSoft's stock price. Consequently, Yahoo! wants MicroSoft to up the offer to offset the drop in MicroSoft's stock price from the day they made the offer, when the whole reason the stock de-valued was because the market doesn't believe Yahoo! is worth the value MicroSoft offered. Hence, if MicroSoft offered more in the deal, the market would only devalue MicroSoft further, making the same "correction" down to the true value of the Yahoo! purchase. Yahoo! should take the offer, they will never get a better one. Here is an anecdote for Yahoo! I know of a guy who owned a dot com in the late 90s. He was offered $30M for it. His advisers told him to turn down the offer, that he could get more. Shortly thereafter, the dot com bubble burst, his company folded, and he took a job making $65k working at an ad agency. $30M > $65k What a shame. Yahoo!, don't be fools.
  • LANjackal, on 02/10/2008, -5/+12I honestly don't know what Ballmer was thinking when he made that offer. Talk about Google blindness. Yahoo's refusal is the best for all parties involved.
    • EXreaction, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4Except for themselves.
    • Myztry, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Microsoft's products never make it on merit.
      It's all about "position, position, position" and Internet wise, they are in a real crap position.
      The Seattle DOS > IBM stroke of luck was a once off. They are desperate.
      They either buy into a position, or their (Internet) business dies. It's that simple.
  • SleighBoy, on 02/10/2008, -9/+25Thanks Yahoo, I will be keeping my Flickr account now.
    • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5Yeah, but I was hoping the merger would mean cheaper Pro account fees. You could probably expect Microsoft wants to keep the Flickr users there by making the pro account fees cheaper. So we don't all pack off and move away.

      And PhotoSynth integration would have been cool too. Oh well.
  • zdiddy85, on 02/10/2008, -3/+25They are holding out so they can get my offer of $5 dollars and a can of Planters.
    • EXreaction, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1How about $6 and a half can of Planters?

      Actually, better just make that $7, I am hungry.
    • norbiu, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1"$5 dollars" ? Isn't that 5 dollars dollars?
  • Gallowayj, on 02/10/2008, -10/+13yahoo's stock will plunge.
  • jeffgtr, on 02/10/2008, -16/+8I use Yahoo from time to time. If Microsoft would have bought them I would never visit their site. I wonder who Microsoft will try and ruin now.
    • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6Please state a logical reason.
    • l0k0, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6Fanboy much?
    • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, Microsoft's goal is to buy and ruin companies. It's a wonder why anyone would at all keep using their products and services. (sarcasm).
  • tufftugg, on 02/10/2008, -10/+13Yahoo sucks. When they first hit the net, it was good, but it has gone downhill. It's kinda the Walmart of the net.
    • janoo1989, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2except Wal-Mart isn't about to get bought out
  • wonder102, on 02/10/2008, -5/+9How can that bid undervalue Yahoo immensely considering when it was made it represented a 61% premium on the closing price, besides Yahoo sucks, they continually make less money, their market share slides, what undervalue, I consider the bid outlandishly over valuing Yahoo.
  • tehpyro, on 02/10/2008, -12/+2didn't google pay way more for youtube? common Microsoft! don't bee soo fing cheap!
    • vajra918, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube. MS has offerd $44.6 billion for Yahoo...
  • mcool119, on 02/10/2008, -4/+8The offer was about 60% more than what Yahoo is projected to be worth...
  • kjcdude, on 02/10/2008, -3/+3The official AP story - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9cE_gI-aemyNxZ ...
    • laelfrog, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1I see what you did there...
      Keep up the good work!
  • baalzebub, on 02/10/2008, -22/+13Microsoft has not worked well with anyone. Even though they are a company based in the United States and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are U.S. citizens, they have a philosophy and mantra that goes against the principles of democracy, against the very foundations of their country that establish freedom and opportunities for ALL people. They simply want to take advantage of numbers, not grow a society in the freedoms many forefathers have fought for, but one that would continue to give them lots and lots of money. They are selfish, greedy, and self-serving. All they care about is getting people to use their software, so they continue their money stream. They don't care who they exclude, they don't have to care about the quality of their services, because they have a monopoly bought from the US-government through the avenues that allow special interests to take power away from the people and give it to the people who have a lot of money, no matter if that money was earned honestly, or not.

    If the way Microsoft did business is very good, right, and moral, then why not teach this to our kids in our schools? Lacking in creativity? getting bad grades? Pay off your teacher. Buy your way through school through manipulation, power, and influence. Isn't that what Microsoft has done in the real world, except they have bought their way through the government enough to dispell public scrutiny? If we let Microsoft do this, are we not doing our kids a disservice because we are not teaching them the way the world is? Maybe the correct way is not democracy, but to make as much money as possible, any way you can, buying your way through life, and trampling over people who have less power than you?

    If we would let Bill Gates and Steve (monkeyboy) Ballmer take over the world, I would have to say, your free speech would be removed, you would have to pay to post your words anywhere on the internet, and your words would of course be censored, and only speech that would glorify Microsoft's cause as long as Bill and Steve could use it propaganda for their empire. They are no different than one country trying to take over the world. There are governments in their way and they will be dealt with accordingly.

    Your choice. Freedom or Bondage. I want freedom. In everything I do, I do those things that promote those ideals. In regards to computing, I use only Open Source software such as Linux, Open Office, and the rest of the gems produced as GNU/GPLed Free Open Source software which is the stuff Bill Gates and Steve (monkeyboy) Ballmer do not want me to use because it does not suit their purposes, like MS-Windows, Microsoft Office, or Internet Explorer (stuff that would lock me in to giving Bill Gates and Steve (monkeyboy) Ballmer a perpetual revenue stream without them having to earn it from me.)
    • AlvesLopes, on 02/10/2008, -3/+11Let me see if i can see your point:
      MS is evil because it is a company who makes money.
      MS is evil because it represents capitalism.
      MS is evil because it is not idealistic.
      MS is evil, even beyond IBM.
      Bill Gates is evil because he gives money for african health problems, which in fact is evil because although they will be healthier, Bill's purpose is just to make more future buyers...
      The world should have no companies and people should give their work freely.
      • Kazrog, on 02/10/2008, -7/+6You obviously missed the point. MS is evil because they strong-arm their competitors to create ignorance in the marketplace. They don't compete based on quality.
        • banmaster, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Sounds like EVERY other company that is a market leader through their own efforts.
      • baalzebub, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2sit & spin AlvesLopes, and while your at it read this and weep:
        http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-03.ht ...
        http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14294

        • geomon, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3Read both of the links. First can be rewritten with a free-market angle to sound less odious than what the author implied (Pharmaceutical companies pricing AIDS drugs to keep them from children?). Anti-globalization screed doesn't prove your initial argument.

          The second link is even weaker than the first. A couple that doesn't take the time to read the documents they are signing are complete idiots.
    • Euler2718, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5Wow, you were fired by Microsoft, weren't you.
    • Roshak, on 02/10/2008, -4/+7I am with you
      I contracted for Microsoft a few times. The place is like its own country. When you go in there it is like nothing else. There is motivational Microsoft posters everywhere. Some of these posters say useful things like gays are good and wash your hands after you poop but most make as much sense as a Zune poster (remember welcome to the social).

      Every project that I worked on seemed a little disfunctional. People at Microsoft seem to be motivated by their bonuses. You see alot of messed up things happen because people are trying get that bonus rather than do a good job or be ethical.

      When you bring this greed principal out to the rest of the world via the software it produces you can see the ratifications of this type of behavior. Take for example IE. After they won the browser wars with Netscape. They slacked off. It was not until Adobe started to make a product that could complete with Visual Studio and Fire Fox was launched with promises of supporting new editions of javascript that Microsoft invented MS Ajax and Silverlight and came out with some upgrades to IE. In the mean time you and I have been having a lesser internet experience.


      If Microsoft takes over Yahoo. Yahoo with be a shell of MSN or Live. And no one wants that.
      • sammykeyes, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Well it's true - competition really does keep companies going.

        And I don't think it's fair to claim 'everybody' at Microsoft is all in it for the money. A lot of Microsoft employees love to blog their personal lives, and they don't seem like all-out greedy people. In fact, sometimes they even use non-MS products as they mention in their posts. So it's for real. You're just grouping some of the people you see into a much bigger thing than it really needs to be seen.
    • Lith25, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Paraphrase please?
    • ks13, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1tl;dr
    • outspokenguy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2Right on the money, baalzebub.
      MS needs Yahoo more than Yahoo needs MS. I believe that Yahoo sees the bigger picture here. And, of course, one important point everyone -- it's not your company to run. Nor MS's. So I say bravo to Yahoo; run it as you see fit... even if it is (or is not!) into the ground.
  • Stroggoth, on 02/10/2008, -8/+17I have to commend Microsoft, they made a tremendously huge offer far above that Yahoo could expect in any near or foreseeable future, and they obviously are doing it to increase web growth which only increases competition on Google. This is a win for everyone, and the investors in Yahoo. For Yahoo to reject this is the ultimately in stupidity... watch their stock collapse. The board has a duty to serve the shareholders, and the board has basically just told investors to screw themselves, which is a really bad idea.
    • tehpyro, on 02/10/2008, -11/+2Considering that google payed what 65 billion for youtube? You think yahoo! would expect more from a bigger than google company like Microsoft... think about it
      • ThEDeMoNKiNg, on 02/10/2008, -0/+10They paid 1.65 billion, not 65 billion.
    • kckman, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Who is responsible to the clients/customers of Yahoo?
  • stringerbell, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5Undervalued, how ludicrous. How do they explain their stock trading at a third less than that on the open market right before the bid??? Isn't the open market a perfect indicator of a company's worth?
  • 3vno, on 02/10/2008, -3/+7at 62% over stock value!!! HAHAHAH
  • Carlix, on 02/10/2008, -7/+5Wow that Chinese CEO's face is ugly as hell
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.