ballmer to yahoo: fuck off

[TylerDurden]

SOURCE (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1857424,00.html?cnn=yes)

(SYDNEY, Australia) — Yahoo Inc. shares dived more than 14 percent after the chief executive of Microsoft Corp. said Friday the software giant is not interested in renewing its bid for the struggling Internet company. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)

Microsoft's Steve Ballmer told a business lunch in Sydney that he had moved on after Yahoo rejected its takeover bid in the spring. He did suggest a partnership in the search engine market is possible.

"We made an offer, we made another offer, and it was clear that Yahoo didn't want to sell the business to us and we moved on," Ballmer said. "We are not interested in going back and re-looking at an acquisition. I don't know why they would be either, frankly. They turned us down at $33 a share."

Yahoo shares fell $2.01 to $11.95 in morning trading Friday.

Yahoo's co-founder and chief executive, Jerry Yang, said Wednesday that Microsoft should make another bid for his company, which runs the world's No. 2 search engine. His appeal came after top search engine Google Inc. backed out of an Internet advertising partnership with Yahoo to avoid a challenge from the U.S. Justice Department, which said it would sue to block the deal on antitrust grounds.

Yahoo had been counting on the Google Inc. deal to boost its finances and placate shareholders still incensed by management's decision to reject the $47.5 billion takeover bid from Microsoft six months ago.

"I'm sure there are still some opportunities for some kind of partnership around search, but I think (an) acquisition is a thing of the past," Ballmer said.

He also told the Australian audience that Microsoft saw an opportunity to reinvent the online search process.

"If anybody thinks the future of search is going to look like the present search, that's crazy," Ballmer said. "The user interface on search hasn't changed for six years. You still get the same dull, boring 10 blue links, for God's sake. Can't we do any better than that?"

interesting. ballmer smells a dying animal (yahoo) and is politely telling them to fuck off. at least that's what i got out of it. google did well in backing out of the arrangement, and yahoo fucked up a long time ago by not doing anything other than portals, e-mail and horseshit. they stayed stagnant for too long and it's the end for them. their promising technical staff has gone elsewhere (google, microsoft, sun), and now their new ceo is desperate as fuck to inject some fresh capital into development efforts.

sorry, yahoo... someone had to go... might as well be you.

[comicfan]

Not yahoo... noooooo....

[The GWD]

$33 a share isn't bad. I'm sure they're regretting that now.

I've heard that being a tech at google is like living a dream.

[TylerDurden]

$33 a share isn't bad. I'm sure they're regretting that now.

I've heard that being a tech at google is like living a dream.

shit... i'd donate a nut to be on the development staff at google.

[redsox39]

It has more to do with Anti-trust crap...

The Monopoly card was about to be put in play.

Over 90% of all searches are done on Google and Yahoo (part of what I do), so to combine them leave the other 27 major Search Engines pissed off. (And when you think about MSN having 8% of the rest...it really gets scary)

[Morfin]

He also told the Australian audience that Microsoft saw an opportunity to reinvent the online search process.

"If anybody thinks the future of search is going to look like the present search, that's crazy," Ballmer said. "The user interface on search hasn't changed for six years. You still get the same dull, boring 10 blue links, for God's sake. Can't we do any better than that?"

So do it already, Monkey Boy. If Microsoft is so hot-shit that they know where the future of searching is going to go, then do it -- don't go out and buy the technology. Microsoft likes to believe that it is the be-all-and-end-all but it can't develop anything on its own (other than Windows, no further comment needed there). Instead it buys companies and their technology.

So, Steve, Yahoo told you to fuck off. If you're so smart, show them and the whole world how Microsoft will revolutionize Internet search. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, Microsoft told the world more than 3 years ago that it was going to come up with the search engine to out-Google Google. And you haven't achieved shit. And you know you can't do it yourself. And the only way to compete is to buy the competition. Well, Fuck you.

[Mustard]

It appears to me that Jerry Yang hates his shareholders. He should have taken that deal, and he is a fool for not doing so.

[taters]

ITs a ploy. Balmers no fool, and though he has a sense of spite, hes not stupid enough to ignore this.

Hes driving the price down, and putting Yahoo in a pinch for unconditional surrender. Microsoft is watching Yahoos death knells, making sure when it goes for Yahoo again, it wont put up a fight. The reason is because Microsoft itself is spilling blood in the waters (with the vista fallout, and the announcement of an earlier than anticipated launch of Windows 7), and Google and Apple smell that blood.

Combine that with the fact that Apple and Google are on REALLY good terms with the incoming administration, and MS has a lot to fear.

[TylerDurden]

Microsoft likes to believe that it is the be-all-and-end-all but it can't develop anything on its own (other than Windows, no further comment needed there). Instead it buys companies and their technology.

can't say too much here... google does this a lot.

So, Steve, Yahoo told you to fuck off. If you're so smart, show them and the whole world how Microsoft will revolutionize Internet search.

they won't. they can't. they don't even have regular site-searching down yet. but if people think that's what ballmer really gives a shit about at this point... he's too much a forward-looking guy for that and the proof is coming.

google, on the other hand, hasn't forgot what their bread-and-butter is. google has 90% of search down to a fucking science. that's not web-search, text-search, etc. that's search ability... period. they're within five to ten years of the ability to search every piece of information that's able to be digitized and connected to a network. audio, video, books, scanned documents, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

what microsoft does have, however, is resources. furthermore they're slowly getting with the development-transparency movement and allowing developers more access than ever to APIs that they'd have never dreamed even five years ago. the question here is: who will be the first to reach the cloud-computing landmark? that's the race and it involves search abilities just as much as it does the applications which will be used without a physical computer to use them from.

Hes driving the price down, and putting Yahoo in a pinch for unconditional surrender. Microsoft is watching Yahoos death knells, making sure when it goes for Yahoo again, it wont put up a fight.

a very good possibility. yahoo's rejection of microsoft's previous offers was a slap to the face and now ballmer's going to be spiteful about it and still own yahoo.

The reason is because Microsoft itself is spilling blood in the waters (with the vista fallout, and the announcement of an earlier than anticipated launch of Windows 7), and Google and Apple smell that blood.

Combine that with the fact that Apple and Google are on REALLY good terms with the incoming administration, and MS has a lot to fear.

i'm not so sure about this sentiment. windows 7, thus far, has been hailed as a) what vista should have been, and b) yet another in a long line of every-other-lifecycle ploys (in which every other iteration of windows is touted a failure; i.e. windows me). the fact remains that so long as they continue on the path they have they're in a good position to restore some of the faith they lost with vista. the reason this will work: they're more transparent with their in-house development efforts. vista bombed because it was some 5+ years of huge promises, and ms was so close-lipped about it no one was prepared for the ensuing horseshit that followed.

but windows 7 isn't what's really around the corner... microsoft has a web-version of the office suite coming (to compete with google apps), and their first effort at a cloud-computing operating system (with whatever that means; it still remains to be seen).

also... microsoft has seen how many unfriendly forms of the us gov't... they're still here and thriving.

[taters]

i'm not so sure about this sentiment. windows 7, thus far, has been hailed as a) what vista should have been, and b) yet another in a long line of every-other-lifecycle ploys (in which every other iteration of windows is touted a failure; i.e. windows me). the fact remains that so long as they continue on the path they have they're in a good position to restore some of the faith they lost with vista. the reason this will work: they're more transparent with their in-house development efforts. vista bombed because it was some 5+ years of huge promises, and ms was so close-lipped about it no one was prepared for the ensuing horseshit that followed.

but windows 7 isn't what's really around the corner... microsoft has a web-version of the office suite coming (to compete with google apps), and their first effort at a cloud-computing operating system (with whatever that means; it still remains to be seen).

also... microsoft has seen how many unfriendly forms of the us gov't... they're still here and thriving.


I agree about Office Online, but you can get your bottom dollar Google is already shoring up Google Office in preparation.

On the other hand, I dont think windows 7 will keep them afloat. It wont sink them, but it wont restore confidence.

The problems with vista werent originally that it sucked and was merely a flashy new OS, it was that

1- It was too big a change from Xp, which was hard to learn and get used to

2- It wasnt compatible with a lot of XP software,a nd developers ignored or hated it (games and software still being made for XP)

3- It was system taxing and was effectively useless as an OS for notebook users. It was easier and more efficient to have XP on a laptop than Vista, not only because it was less taxing and more compatible, but because there was nothing vista offered that couldnt be done better or the same with XP.

People are pissed about having to re-learn another windows that was so drastically different, that seems to work badly. Its been compared to ME, but IMO its MUCH worst, because at least ME was recognizable to people who were used to 98 and 95. Vista was like working Linux for the first time, only far less accomodating. People arent going to forget all that when 7 gets 'released' to the public (in other words, forced on computer manufacturers). The WGA situation did not help either.


Thats my rant, I guess. I think Microsoft is afraid, and they damned well should be. If apple were to absorb its costs and drop price 25-33%, Apple products would start to viably compete with Windows. (Of course in todays market they no longer can...but they should have 2 years ago...Jobs and crew are too comfy sitting back and watching the game rather than playing it).

[TylerDurden]

I agree about Office Online, but you can get your bottom dollar Google is already shoring up Google Office in preparation.

On the other hand, I dont think windows 7 will keep them afloat. It wont sink them, but it wont restore confidence.

The problems with vista werent originally that it sucked and was merely a flashy new OS, it was that

1- It was too big a change from Xp, which was hard to learn and get used to

2- It wasnt compatible with a lot of XP software,a nd developers ignored or hated it (games and software still being made for XP)

3- It was system taxing and was effectively useless as an OS for notebook users. It was easier and more efficient to have XP on a laptop than Vista, not only because it was less taxing and more compatible, but because there was nothing vista offered that couldnt be done better or the same with XP.

People are pissed about having to re-learn another windows that was so drastically different, that seems to work badly. Its been compared to ME, but IMO its MUCH worst, because at least ME was recognizable to people who were used to 98 and 95. Vista was like working Linux for the first time, only far less accomodating. People arent going to forget all that when 7 gets 'released' to the public (in other words, forced on computer manufacturers). The WGA situation did not help either.


Thats my rant, I guess. I think Microsoft is afraid, and they damned well should be. If apple were to absorb its costs and drop price 25-33%, Apple products would start to viably compete with Windows. (Of course in todays market they no longer can...but they should have 2 years ago...Jobs and crew are too comfy sitting back and watching the game rather than playing it).

google office? why bother? google apps has everything they need already. there's no need to rename a product to the point of confusing the consumer. i can already hear a million grammas at best buy going, "which office do i need?" google won't enter a possible brand-confusion dilemna. tightening up the existing application framework? sure. adding features? you betcha. streamlining it even? absolutely. no matter what: it holds the advantage. it's free, it contains the absolute gem of usability (seriously, have you met a google application that wasn't absolutely brilliant and intuitive to use?!), it's been around long enough to be absolutely solid, and it already has a huge userbase. microsoft has some ground to make up.

vista was a clusterfuck, no doubt about it, but really... who are they going to lose ground to? those who aspired to run *nix-based servers because of their cost (free) easily ate up that saved money in the trained resources needed to configure, maintain and optimize those servers; hence microsoft has been gradually making ground in the server domain. and with windows servers gaining ground the need for developers to write web and desktop applications for those servers/workstations/home pc's grows by the day. and those developers are going to use the .net framework (natch) to do it. so visual studio .net needs to run on those pc's. that in addition to the ease-of-use of all windows operating systems. you can claim a lot has changed, but the difference isn't that great. they moved a few things around, re-org'd some shit, but windows apps largely still all operate the same way. windows isn't going anywhere.

and steve jobs... fuck him and his company.

[taters]

google office? why bother? google apps has everything they need already. there's no need to rename a product to the point of confusing the consumer. i can already hear a million grammas at best buy going, "which office do i need?" google won't enter a possible brand-confusion dilemna. tightening up the existing application framework? sure. adding features? you betcha. streamlining it even? absolutely. no matter what: it holds the advantage. it's free, it contains the absolute gem of usability (seriously, have you met a google application that wasn't absolutely brilliant and intuitive to use?!), it's been around long enough to be absolutely solid, and it already has a huge userbase. microsoft has some ground to make up.

Apologies, I meant Google Apps. Though I am wondering will MS buy Zoho to slim competition further.

vista was a clusterfuck, no doubt about it, but really... who are they going to lose ground to? those who aspired to run *nix-based servers because of their cost (free) easily ate up that saved money in the trained resources needed to configure, maintain and optimize those servers; hence microsoft has been gradually making ground in the server domain. and with windows servers gaining ground the need for developers to write web and desktop applications for those servers/workstations/home pc's grows by the day. and those developers are going to use the .net framework (natch) to do it. so visual studio .net needs to run on those pc's. that in addition to the ease-of-use of all windows operating systems. you can claim a lot has changed, but the difference isn't that great. they moved a few things around, re-org'd some shit, but windows apps largely still all operate the same way. windows isn't going anywhere.

and steve jobs... fuck him and his company.

I would say apple could gain grounds, but it wont, so I gotta agree with you.

However, the changes were not simply a few things moved around. To an avid user, yes none of the changes are too difficult (though they can get annoying), but to a person whos been working in a cubicle for the past 12 years with office and 98,2k and XP, its pretty drastic.

The WGA bullshit is another pain in the ass thats been crammed down our throats.

[TylerDurden]

Apologies, I meant Google Apps. Though I am wondering will MS buy Zoho to slim competition further.



I would say apple could gain grounds, but it wont, so I gotta agree with you.

However, the changes were not simply a few things moved around. To an avid user, yes none of the changes are too difficult (though they can get annoying), but to a person whos been working in a cubicle for the past 12 years with office and 98,2k and XP, its pretty drastic.

The WGA bullshit is another pain in the ass thats been crammed down our throats.

as a person who's been developing software for the web and windows platforms for the past six years, and support technician for four years prior to that i can honestly say that the differences are, to most people, skin deep.

so the start button doesn't say start anymore. the taskbar, start menu, system tray, desktop, file system, menu structures, etc. ad infinitum are exactly the same. most of the shit that has changed has changed in the shit that no one but a developer would see.

the uac... bullshit.
wga... bullshit.

those i agree on. otherwise, except for the shit beneath the hood, it's business as usual. people didn't like vista because it was sprung on them like a candy-peddling pedobear hiding behind a tree.

[taters]

as a person who's been developing software for the web and windows platforms for the past six years, and support technician for four years prior to that i can honestly say that the differences are, to most people, skin deep.

so the start button doesn't say start anymore. the taskbar, start menu, system tray, desktop, file system, menu structures, etc. ad infinitum are exactly the same. most of the shit that has changed has changed in the shit that no one but a developer would see.

the uac... bullshit.
wga... bullshit.

those i agree on. otherwise, except for the shit beneath the hood, it's business as usual. people didn't like vista because it was sprung on them like a candy-peddling pedobear hiding behind a tree.


Understood. Before it goes too far, I was speaking exteriorly in reference to cubicle folk. I have only worked Cubicle for 3+ years max. I was judging from what I heard from others.

Also, I am fucking hammered.

[TylerDurden]

Understood. Before it goes too far, I was speaking exteriorly in reference to cubicle folk. I have only worked Cubicle for 3+ years max. I was judging from what I heard from others.

Also, I am fucking hammered.

i wasn't calling you out on anything. i was simply suggesting that when people say they don't like vista for this reason or that reason, 9 times out of 10 they're going off of something someone else said. vista is a solid operating system. i never ran into any of the issues that were supposedly plaguing everyone.

[freegood]

I didn't like Vista when I was running with 1 gig of ram.

It's decent, but not a reason to upgrade from XP.

[dick_darlington]

They turned us down at $33 a share."

Yahoo shares fell $2.01 to $11.95 in morning trading Friday.


are they fucking high?

[Whiffleball]

1VatVWRp5g8

From the WSJ: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122697024336935679.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)

Yahoo (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=yhoo) Inc. co-founder and Chief Executive Jerry Yang will step down after the company finds a replacement, closing a tumultuous and short tenure during which Yahoo rejected an offer from Microsoft (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=msft) Corp.'s to buy it.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and Mr. Yang, who will stay on as a senior executive and board member, have been discussing for weeks the possibility the CEO might step aside, said people familiar with the matter. His impending exit leaves much unresolved for the Internet company, which has been fighting a battle to remain independent for months. The move could pave the way for Yahoo to complete a deal with Microsoft.

For his role in those talks, Mr. Yang has been taking a beating from investors for months as concerns from inside and outside the company that he wasn't the right person to help Yahoo make painful strategic choices continued to mount. Activist investor Carl Icahn said he would replace Mr. Yang as CEO if his proxy campaign succeeded. After Yahoo agreed to a truce with Mr. Icahn, allowing him to join the board, shareholder resentment lingered. Mr. Yang received the support of only 66% of shareholder votes cast at the company's recent annual meeting. He stayed on, arguing that he was the best person to help Yahoo turn itself around.

That became increasingly difficult as the board was unwilling to abandon the notion that a deal with Microsoft could yet be struck, said people familiar with the matter. And while Mr. Yang is not opposed to a deal, and recently said publicly that he thought Microsoft should try to buy Yahoo, his relationship with Microsoft has been strained by months of tense negotiations.

A person familiar with Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer's thinking said that the Microsoft chief is still interested in buying Yahoo's search business, which could help the software company with the critical task of ratcheting up its market share against Google (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=goog) Inc. But Mr. Ballmer is in no rush, this person said, and will likely wait until a new Yahoo chief executive is named before making any new entreaty.

The current economic turmoil might strengthen Microsoft's hand because Yahoo is dependent on advertising revenue, which has fallen. Microsoft has a broader range of businesses with which to weather rough economic waters. News that the board had begun a search to replace Mr. Yang was first reported Monday evening by AllThingsD, a Web site owned by Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

In recent weeks, Yahoo's plummeting stock price has continued to send alarm bells to the board, said people familiar with the matter. On Monday, Yahoo shares closed at $10.63 a share, down 1.76% on the Nasdaq Stock Market. However, in after-hours trading, the shares jumped 4.42%. Microsoft had offered $31 a share on Jan. 31, which Yahoo's board rejected.

Meanwhile, Mr. Yang's strategy of keeping Yahoo independent has faced a number of new roadblocks. Google abandoned a pending search deal with the company amid regulatory concerns. And talks over a possible merger with Time Warner (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=twx) Inc.'s AOL -- which are ongoing -- failed to progress.
Yahoo's board members have chosen executive-search firm Heidrick & Struggles International (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=HSII) Inc. to find Mr. Yang's successor. The board is likely to consider Susan Decker, Yahoo's president, who is well-liked by some board members, said people familiar with the matter.

But some large investors could resist the choice, as they have previously expressed concerns that Ms. Decker, who was formerly Yahoo's chief financial officer, lacks the management experience for the job.

Microsoft's Mr. Ballmer has repeatedly said in public in recent weeks that his company has no interest in acquiring Yahoo and that the two aren't engaged in talks about a transaction. However, Mr. Ballmer did signal at an event last month that a more narrow deal between the companies, perhaps involving a Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo's search engine, could make sense.

People familiar with Microsoft's thinking have said support remains within the company for a Yahoo search deal, but that other factors, such as the souring economy and an expected change in the ranks of antitrust officials with the new presidential administration next year, could affect the timing of any Microsoft actions. If Microsoft decides to make a new run for all or part of the company, Mr. Yang's departure clears one hurdle. Microsoft executives viewed him as the main stumbling block to getting a deal done.

Following Microsoft's initial bid for Yahoo, Mr. Yang responded a month later with a note to his shareholders that said Microsoft's bid "substantially undervalues" the company. With that he let Microsoft to stew as the software giant tried to entice him into talks.

When those talks started in earnest -- weeks later in mid-April -- Mr. Yang played his cards close to the vest, telling Mr. Ballmer and other Microsoft executives at a meeting in Portland, Ore., that he wasn't authorized to cut a deal.

In following weeks, Yahoo's board authorized Mr. Yang to sell the company, and in early May, he and his co-founder David Filo met Mr. Ballmer in Seattle to discuss the details. Soon after Mr. Yang returned to California late the same day, Mr. Ballmer called to say he was dropping Microsoft's offer. People familiar with the matter say Mr. Yang was stunned.

As the two retreated to their respective corners this summer, Mr. Ballmer largely blamed Yahoo and Mr. Yang for the companies' failure to reach an agreement, say people familiar with his thinking.

A spokesman for Microsoft said the company had no comment on the change in Mr. Yang's role.

[shnider]

fuck off