Comment by WisNorCan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WisNorCan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No.

Yahoo got lucky with the Alibaba stake. That wasn’t what Microsoft was after. Microsoft was desperate to be relevant in Internet consumer services and compete with Google.

Yang and the board believed they could fix Yahoo. None of their predictions came true.

—-

“In an email to Yahoo employees after the board's rejection of the Microsoft offer was made public, Chief Executive Jerry Yang maintained that the company is well-positioned to grow, citing the Internet powerhouse's efforts to improve its standing in online advertising and build an alliance with newspapers.

"We have accomplished a great deal in a very short time," Yang said. "Yahoo is a faster-moving, better-organized, more nimble company well on its way to transforming the experiences of its users, advertisers, publishers and developers."

He said the company aims to "grow visits to key Yahoo starting points and properties by approximately 15% per year over the next several years."

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/yahoo-rejects-bid-micr...

To be fair, I think Microsoft would have also fumbled Yahoo at the time.

This was the era of Vista and IE and windows live/hotmail. My maybe-controversial(?) opinion is they just would have MSNd Yahoo in some directionless brand “synergy” at a time where Microsoft still seemed to be figuring out what its own future identity/company vision would be.

I think Yahoo knew that. And while Yahoo had many of the same challenges internally at the time (which it eventually succumbed too, whereas there was no clear consensus that Microsoft would successfully reinvent itself), at least it was in control of its own destiny

100% agree. I believe Microsoft would have made a mess of the acquisition. Microsoft had the same issues internally with their MSN/Live strategy at the time. Integrating Yahoo + MSN/Live was unlikely to succeed.

That is separate from saying that Yahoo shareholders would have benefited from selling to Microsoft.

There's a difference between what the board believed (we'll probably never know,) and what they communicated. No one would email their workers saying "we're waiting for payday, at the expense of you".

That is fair.

However I don’t think that applies here. if the board truly believed it, they would have sold the “pure Yahoo” piece to Microsoft for far more than $4.5B and spun out the Alibaba stake. They didn’t and ended up losing billions in shareholder value.

Maybe that wasn't on the table. We won't know until some executive would retire and end up writing a tell all.

You can just read the statements from Ballmer and others on what they were excited about. I wasn’t on the deal team, but I worked with them on parts of it. The statements below are reflective of the belief.

Occam’s razor would suggest that Microsoft and Yahoo’s exec teams both talking about the value of the Yahoo Internet services as the rationale for the deal probably is the truth. And Microsoft would have paid much more than 10% of the $45B to get it.

——

Microsoft sees Yahoo as a way to compete with arch-rival Google Inc GOOG.O in the Internet search and advertising arena, but it has limits to what it is willing to pay to get a deal done.

“We’re prepared to move forward without a merger with Yahoo,” Ballmer said. “We think the best way to move forward quickly (and gain critical mass against Google) is to come together with Yahoo.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSMAT00810920080423

No.

... I don't actually have an argument. I just wanted to keep the 'No' chain going. Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com