4 ms·

I meant each site is as good as yahoo! not that you would have to go to each one, but I don't really care about sports. The finance sites are all drop in replac

I meant each site is as good as yahoo! not that you would have to go to each one, but I don't really care about sports. The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. As for sports, if you want the same information but the caveat you seem hung up on is that it must come from different domains, just go to a reddit like aggregator. I get it, you like yahoo. Yahoo does a good job, and I also like yahoo. My point is it is patently rediculous to claim there is no other space on the internet that is close enough to Yahoo sports or finance. Companies don't survive being ~10% better than the competition, and the stuff you are talking about sounds like it is moire about habit than anything tangible.

kristianc 11y ago
It's also going to get more difficult for Yahoo to differentiate itself as a curator/creator as it gets more difficult to survive on the Internet producing differentiated content. Within sports, Grantland tried producing content that was different, and died. GigaOM tried focusing on enterprise tech, and died. FiveThirtyEight served policy wonks, and is struggling to attract a meaningful audience. The verdict is out on Vox, but they also may go within 18 months. Yahoo has tried to solve this problem by hiring 'star names' but it doesn't seem to have moved the needle. People are happy to take the commodity churn article from Bleacher Report. Oh, and to top all that off, it's unclear that there's really any serious money to be made from online content / eyeballs anyway. Which is to say that even if they could execute on the 'trusted source of content' business model, it may not be enough to save them anyway.
xiaoma 11y ago
> The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. I completely disagree with that. I tried for over a year to switch from Yahoo to Google for finance and found it completely lacking, despite the nicer UI. The only site that can match Yahoo finance in my opinion is the Motley Fool. I still use both.

kristianc 11y ago

It's also going to get more difficult for Yahoo to differentiate itself as a curator/creator as it gets more difficult to survive on the Internet producing differentiated content. Within sports, Grantland tried producing content that was different, and died. GigaOM tried focusing on enterprise tech, and died. FiveThirtyEight served policy wonks, and is struggling to attract a meaningful audience. The verdict is out on Vox, but they also may go within 18 months. Yahoo has tried to solve this problem by hiring 'star names' but it doesn't seem to have moved the needle. People are happy to take the commodity churn article from Bleacher Report. Oh, and to top all that off, it's unclear that there's really any serious money to be made from online content / eyeballs anyway. Which is to say that even if they could execute on the 'trusted source of content' business model, it may not be enough to save them anyway.

xiaoma 11y ago

> The finance sites are all drop in replacements and better than yahoo finance. I completely disagree with that. I tried for over a year to switch from Yahoo to Google for finance and found it completely lacking, despite the nicer UI. The only site that can match Yahoo finance in my opinion is the Motley Fool. I still use both.