9 ms·

Yahoo lays off 1,700 and is up for sale

115 points by Shofo 11y ago

chuhnk 11y ago
Is it actually for sale? Everyone is saying that it's basically for sale but the language used in the earnings call was very corporate, actually skating over the issue completely, talking about sale on "non-strategic" assets.
- Shofo 11y ago
  It is unofficially up for sale is what I take from the info released, i.e. they are actively working on the sale, but not making it official. I'd say it is due to Marissa currently trying to redevelop their internal working structures. How can you get unmotivated staff to be passionate and transition to new work methods if you say you are trying to dump the company.
  - chuhnk 11y ago
    Very true. There's no easy way to handle it. To be honest, I think Yahoo would probably thrive as a private company with time to focus on long term vision as opposed to quarterly returns.
michaelmcdonald 11y ago
Seems like a sensationalist headline designed to generate page-views. The company has not announced it's "for sale"; instead people are reading between the lines and coming to that as a conclusion based on corporate speak.
- ubercore 11y ago
  Vox has been increasingly shrill in their headlines.
- gtrubetskoy 11y ago
  It's been "for sale" since the IPO, any public company is "for sale", so it's not like they can announce "we are for sale", it would make no sense. But I think what the people are reading between the lines is "if you decide to buy the majority share we will cooperate".
  - henrikschroder 11y ago
    Noone's gonna take over Yahoo by buying shares right now, since the price of those shares is just a proxy for Alibaba. If Yahoo gets rid of the stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, then YHOO would properly reflect the value of core Yahoo, and someone with a few billions lying around could gobble it up.
- binarybits 11y ago
  Given the context and the way corporate boards generally communicate, I'd say an offer to "engage on qualified strategic proposals" is a pretty clear signal that they're interested in acquisition offers.
eatonphil 11y ago
Yahoo is "focusing on its most successful products — including its search engine". I don't understand this. Isn't their search engine just Bing?
- Shofo 11y ago
  Does anyone actually use their search engine? I always found it terrible the rare time I have used it (if some dingus has it set to homepage). I know for me the only thing that makes me stumble across Yahoo, is if I use their answer site. Only other reason, I'd imagine, is if you used their mail. Beyond that though there must be no way of driving traffic to Yahoo search. Seems impossible to try upend Google's grasp, without a serious transition of product positioning (like the DuckDuckGo position). Such a poorly managed company. It seems Marissa is some strategist...
  - babuskov 11y ago
    It's the default for Firefox on some devices. I wonder what this Yahoo situation means for Firefox in the long run.
- vidoc 11y ago
  They had a new buzzword for new strategic products during the earnings call: "Mavens".
legitster 11y ago
The crazy thing about Yahoo! was that they were actually in a pretty decent position just a few years ago. Alibaba exploded, Yahoo! is still the third most popular website in the world, and their finance and sports centers are still incredibly popular. I think what we've seen is a complete failure to execute on any level. Compare that to someone like AOL who saw their brand tanking noticeably but intelligently diversified their business model.
- disposition2 11y ago
  > and sports centers are still incredibly popular I only used their Fantasy Football (US) and only for 2 seasons but it was head and shoulders above all others..including the NFL's own fantasy league.
  - javiramos 11y ago
    I agree here. They should have pushed these popular products. In particular, they could have become a financial platform that could have rivaled Bloomberg...
    - GFischer 11y ago
      And a sports platform to rival DraftKings and FanDuel, etc.. They also have valuable properties like Flickr, Tumblr, etc., further down the page there are some very interesting propositions on how to make them work better, they might be better as spinoffs.
gerbilly 11y ago
I see this as propaganda to push the concept that Yahoo has negative value, which, I'm guessing would be beneficial for some group of shareholders to promote this view. Personally I don't give a crap what those shareholders want. There is more to a corporation that just shareholder value, and I don't particularly relish thousands of people losing their jobs so some people can make a quick buck.
- mythz 11y ago
  > I see this as propaganda to push the concept that Yahoo has negative value How is it propaganda? YHOO has a current Market Cap of 27.7B with assets including a 25B stake in Alibaba, 8B Stake in Yahoo Japan and ~4B cash. If it wasn't for tax implications of selling their investments, Yahoo's core business clearly holds a negative value. Accounting for tax implications puts it around 0-2B. > There is more to a corporation that just shareholder value Shareholders are who collectively owns a Corporation of which maximizing Share Holder value is its primary purpose and what the board gets elected to do.
  - kaonashi 11y ago
    > Share Holder value is its primary purpose No, it isn't. Corporations are given a public charter which declares its purpose. Increasing share-holder value is a nice side-effect at most.
    - mythz 11y ago
      > Increasing share-holder value is a nice side-effect at most. Rubbish, the board works for its shareholders who wants ROI on their investment. Who do you think is forcing their expenses / 15% workforce cut? and putting pressure on Marissa to waste her time/focus on re-structuring Yahoo to maximize their Alibaba investment? Shareholders are the primary benefactors.
      - gerbilly 11y ago
        > Rubbish, the board works for its shareholders who wants ROI on their investment. Sure, but honestly most shareholders would prefer not to take a share of the profits. Dividends are so passé. Today's modern investor wants growth, and the easiest way to get growth, without all the hard work , is to find another investor willing to believe in your portrayal of the value of the stock you hold[1], and to convince them to buy it from you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
dragonbonheur 11y ago
My thoughts: 1. Activist investment firms use Yakuza tactics. They buy a small share and the company bends over backwards so the 'investors" get an extra percentage point instead of focusing on long term strategies. 2. If Yahoo had expanded on their Pipes and Konfabulator products and capitalized on people's uproar after iGoogle was shut down they could have been great competitors to Google's App Engine, Azure or Amazon Web services. Instead they focused on making the investors an extra percentage point by throwing the baby (great products) out with the bathwater (smart engineers that worked hard to deliver great products). 3. Investors and venture capitalists really don't know diddly squat (to put it mildly) about technology these days...
- vidoc 11y ago
  While Pipes was a really cool product, I doubt it would have changed anything. Reminds me google wave, great appeal to engineers but hard to sell to the masses :/ Yahoo has indeed had a product problem for a while, but I think it's more of a consequence of its internal culture of technical mediocrity and IBM-like middle management.
- tuna 11y ago
  Pipes was really cool. Their email still sought after (at least in latin america) for corporate customers. Perhaps a SaaS spin off with email, pipes, ecommerce search/recommendation and other cool tools they release all these years ?
- cylinder 11y ago
  "Give me money* or I'll buy your whole company and fire you." * We just call it a dividend, or share buyback, or sell me your real estate in bulk so I can sell each piece individually and take the spread.
  - Riod 11y ago
    Investors want management to be efficient capital allocators. Not surprising.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
AlexWest 11y ago
Yahoo is profitable, right? Am I missing something?
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  Yes, but it's not growing, therefore it is a complete failure and should be wiped off the face of the Earth, according to certain investor logic.
  - billyhoffman 11y ago
    If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure. I have $1. I can do many things with it. Why would I give my $1 to someone in exchange for a piece of their business if that business is not growing when I could instead give that $1 to someone who is growing? I want my $1 to become worth more. Yes, yes yes, I know companies that pay dividends or profit sharing, etc. However what's the return on those? It is higher than somewhere else? Divorce yourself from thinking about what the company does or ever how much money it is making. For many investors, they are looking for opportunities to put in some money, get an asset, and then sell that asset for a profit. Growth is key to forecasting returns and thus comparing different investment opportunities.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      "If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure." Then those investors should go invest in something else, and quit trying to push a bunch of shortsighted crap on a company.
      - billyhoffman 11y ago
        I get what you are saying, and even agree to an extent. The fact that Dell had to take itself private to be able to save itself is a good recent example of how the super short term thinking of stock market investors can hurt a company. That said, if a company doesn't want to be exposed to that sort of investor, then it shouldn't have done IPO and become a publicly traded company.
stevebmark 11y ago
This is linkbait. There's only one relevant sentence: > in the same press release, the chairman of Yahoo's board announced that the board is going to "engage on qualified strategic proposals" — that is, consider offers to sell the company. Yahoo is not up for sale. With the alarmist linkbait title and the URL "yahoo-marissa-mayer-fail", this is possibly a sting piece with motives other than journalism. I have no political ties to Yahoo (nor Vox) but this is not good reporting.
- spaced_out 11y ago
  The title is somewhat sensationalist, but there have been articles coming out for months, including from more respected papers like WSJ and NYT, claiming they have info from sources inside the company that there are discussions about selling their core businesses assets. These were of course unsubstantiated, but now Yahoo reports another bad quarter, a bunch of layoffs, and also says this: >The Board also believes that exploring additional strategic alternatives, in parallel to the execution of the management plan, is in the best interest of our shareholders. Separating our Alibaba stake from our operating business continues to be a primary focus, and our most direct path to value maximization. In addition to continuing work on the reverse spin, which we've discussed previously, we will engage on qualified strategic proposals." That does seem like a dodgy way of asking for offers.
Agustus 11y ago
Listening to Marissa Myer this morning talk about the company she could not identify a core function within the company or a future. She had a number of buzzwords laid out and did not give any idea of what they were going for. I need her to say things like: 1. We are working to create a cross-platform experience that outdoes Google and Apple within their app system. The best photo sharing program across app and web for me is Flickr and we are going to become the anti-facebook by guaranteeing your content privacy. 2. What is Yahoo? As it stands now, it is an amalgamation of multiple properties that bring in revenue streams. If this is the case, then if I were an investor, I would be trying to find a way to squeeze assets out.
- vidoc 11y ago
  Was there a lot of purple blood in URL ?
vidoc 11y ago
Anyone has details regarding the severance package given to those that were let go?
newscracker 11y ago
It is saddening to see names like Yahoo going through so much trouble, but there seems to be an inevitability here that many knew about for a long time. Yahoo, after Marissa Mayer took over, also seems to have focused more on revenue from graphical ads compared to getting any revenue directly from users. * Although mail may be a good product for Yahoo (as this article states), it's not really improved over time and has in fact gotten worse. * The previous Yahoo Mail Plus, which was $20 a year for an ad-free experience with some extras (like POP email) was replaced with a who-would-even-want-this $50 a year ad-free option. Frankly, I doubt if many people even bothered to get this one, more so because among the people who started email with the likes of Hotmail and Yahoo, multiple email addresses were the norm (they continue to be so). For such users who stuck with Yahoo, there's no way to justify spending more than a hundred dollars a year for email. * With no sign of IMAP in the paid option while Google has been giving free IMAP for years, Yahoo's offering in email was really substandard. * Yahoo mail is still quite slow. Not the interface, but the backend. Sending a mail to oneself (by a CC when replying or emailing someone) still takes several minutes to show up in the inbox. In Gmail, this would be in the inbox in a second or two. * Yahoo mail's spam filtering is many a times as bad as a coin toss. Emails that you mark as Not Spam for specific senders continue to go to the spam folder for subsequent mails from the same sender. Many emails that are true spam and have been marked as such don't seem to put similar mails in the spam folder. * The vertical graphical ads on the right side, in an attempt to avoid ads from going off screen while scrolling through emails, are really annoying. * Flickr, providing an astonishing 1TB of storage for "free" (with ads). The next paid option is $50 a year just to remove ads (double of what Flickr Pro used to cost). What??? * Any value assigned to user experience before was completely eliminated through these "more ads" move, where Yahoo was sure that almost nobody would opt for the paid options. I wonder what would've happened if Yahoo had instead lowered the prices even more for an ad-free option, added some useful features (like IMAP in email) in a tiered pricing structure and made the product better (like handling email delivery quickly). Perhaps it's too late to wonder about these though. If Yahoo isn't bought by one of the top five tech companies, its products will likely disappear within the next decade.
justaman 11y ago
Yahoo was only ever a power play by Google when they sent M.M. there.
- cylinder 11y ago
  GOOG was happy to get rid of MM, she's a hack.
  - vidoc 11y ago
    I have no idea whether she is or isn't, I think it's irrelevant here. The key thing is that expecting for a one person's turnaround of a 20y+/10k+ organization is a little bit like waiting for Xenu's ride to Syrius, it's ludicrous at best. It's funny how some people always refer to how Steve Jobs did it at Apple, without acknowledging that something like this is extremely rare. In other words, they are always hoping/betting on an exceptional rather than likely outcome. Interesting ..
halis 11y ago
It's Yahoo who cares...
rdiddly 11y ago
"...its most successful products — including its search engine..." LOL!
tmaly 11y ago
I should probably start moving my accounts associated with my yahoo email off to another email. Not sure what guarantee I would have of a new company handling my web mail with same privacy regard.
mattbgates 11y ago
Lays off thousands of workers... still doesn't profit.
jgalt212 11y ago
Marissa Miller should be ashamed not because here tenure at Yahoo has largely been a failure (like most of her recent predecessors), but that she has been paid so much for accomplishing so little (like most of her recent predecessors).

115 points by Shofo 11y ago

Is it actually for sale? Everyone is saying that it's basically for sale but the language used in the earnings call was very corporate, actually skating over the issue completely, talking about sale on "non-strategic" assets.

Shofo 11y ago
It is unofficially up for sale is what I take from the info released, i.e. they are actively working on the sale, but not making it official. I'd say it is due to Marissa currently trying to redevelop their internal working structures. How can you get unmotivated staff to be passionate and transition to new work methods if you say you are trying to dump the company.
- chuhnk 11y ago
  Very true. There's no easy way to handle it. To be honest, I think Yahoo would probably thrive as a private company with time to focus on long term vision as opposed to quarterly returns.

michaelmcdonald 11y ago

Seems like a sensationalist headline designed to generate page-views. The company has not announced it's "for sale"; instead people are reading between the lines and coming to that as a conclusion based on corporate speak.

ubercore 11y ago
Vox has been increasingly shrill in their headlines.
gtrubetskoy 11y ago
It's been "for sale" since the IPO, any public company is "for sale", so it's not like they can announce "we are for sale", it would make no sense. But I think what the people are reading between the lines is "if you decide to buy the majority share we will cooperate".
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  Noone's gonna take over Yahoo by buying shares right now, since the price of those shares is just a proxy for Alibaba. If Yahoo gets rid of the stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan, then YHOO would properly reflect the value of core Yahoo, and someone with a few billions lying around could gobble it up.
binarybits 11y ago
Given the context and the way corporate boards generally communicate, I'd say an offer to "engage on qualified strategic proposals" is a pretty clear signal that they're interested in acquisition offers.

eatonphil 11y ago

Yahoo is "focusing on its most successful products — including its search engine". I don't understand this. Isn't their search engine just Bing?

Shofo 11y ago
Does anyone actually use their search engine? I always found it terrible the rare time I have used it (if some dingus has it set to homepage). I know for me the only thing that makes me stumble across Yahoo, is if I use their answer site. Only other reason, I'd imagine, is if you used their mail. Beyond that though there must be no way of driving traffic to Yahoo search. Seems impossible to try upend Google's grasp, without a serious transition of product positioning (like the DuckDuckGo position). Such a poorly managed company. It seems Marissa is some strategist...
- babuskov 11y ago
  It's the default for Firefox on some devices. I wonder what this Yahoo situation means for Firefox in the long run.
vidoc 11y ago
They had a new buzzword for new strategic products during the earnings call: "Mavens".

legitster 11y ago

The crazy thing about Yahoo! was that they were actually in a pretty decent position just a few years ago. Alibaba exploded, Yahoo! is still the third most popular website in the world, and their finance and sports centers are still incredibly popular. I think what we've seen is a complete failure to execute on any level. Compare that to someone like AOL who saw their brand tanking noticeably but intelligently diversified their business model.

disposition2 11y ago
> and sports centers are still incredibly popular I only used their Fantasy Football (US) and only for 2 seasons but it was head and shoulders above all others..including the NFL's own fantasy league.
- javiramos 11y ago
  I agree here. They should have pushed these popular products. In particular, they could have become a financial platform that could have rivaled Bloomberg...
  - GFischer 11y ago
    And a sports platform to rival DraftKings and FanDuel, etc.. They also have valuable properties like Flickr, Tumblr, etc., further down the page there are some very interesting propositions on how to make them work better, they might be better as spinoffs.

gerbilly 11y ago

I see this as propaganda to push the concept that Yahoo has negative value, which, I'm guessing would be beneficial for some group of shareholders to promote this view. Personally I don't give a crap what those shareholders want. There is more to a corporation that just shareholder value, and I don't particularly relish thousands of people losing their jobs so some people can make a quick buck.

mythz 11y ago
> I see this as propaganda to push the concept that Yahoo has negative value How is it propaganda? YHOO has a current Market Cap of 27.7B with assets including a 25B stake in Alibaba, 8B Stake in Yahoo Japan and ~4B cash. If it wasn't for tax implications of selling their investments, Yahoo's core business clearly holds a negative value. Accounting for tax implications puts it around 0-2B. > There is more to a corporation that just shareholder value Shareholders are who collectively owns a Corporation of which maximizing Share Holder value is its primary purpose and what the board gets elected to do.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  > Share Holder value is its primary purpose No, it isn't. Corporations are given a public charter which declares its purpose. Increasing share-holder value is a nice side-effect at most.
  - mythz 11y ago
    > Increasing share-holder value is a nice side-effect at most. Rubbish, the board works for its shareholders who wants ROI on their investment. Who do you think is forcing their expenses / 15% workforce cut? and putting pressure on Marissa to waste her time/focus on re-structuring Yahoo to maximize their Alibaba investment? Shareholders are the primary benefactors.
    - gerbilly 11y ago
      > Rubbish, the board works for its shareholders who wants ROI on their investment. Sure, but honestly most shareholders would prefer not to take a share of the profits. Dividends are so passé. Today's modern investor wants growth, and the easiest way to get growth, without all the hard work , is to find another investor willing to believe in your portrayal of the value of the stock you hold[1], and to convince them to buy it from you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

dragonbonheur 11y ago

My thoughts: 1. Activist investment firms use Yakuza tactics. They buy a small share and the company bends over backwards so the 'investors" get an extra percentage point instead of focusing on long term strategies. 2. If Yahoo had expanded on their Pipes and Konfabulator products and capitalized on people's uproar after iGoogle was shut down they could have been great competitors to Google's App Engine, Azure or Amazon Web services. Instead they focused on making the investors an extra percentage point by throwing the baby (great products) out with the bathwater (smart engineers that worked hard to deliver great products). 3. Investors and venture capitalists really don't know diddly squat (to put it mildly) about technology these days...

vidoc 11y ago
While Pipes was a really cool product, I doubt it would have changed anything. Reminds me google wave, great appeal to engineers but hard to sell to the masses :/ Yahoo has indeed had a product problem for a while, but I think it's more of a consequence of its internal culture of technical mediocrity and IBM-like middle management.
tuna 11y ago
Pipes was really cool. Their email still sought after (at least in latin america) for corporate customers. Perhaps a SaaS spin off with email, pipes, ecommerce search/recommendation and other cool tools they release all these years ?
cylinder 11y ago
"Give me money* or I'll buy your whole company and fire you." * We just call it a dividend, or share buyback, or sell me your real estate in bulk so I can sell each piece individually and take the spread.
- Riod 11y ago
  Investors want management to be efficient capital allocators. Not surprising.
forgetsusername 11y ago

AlexWest 11y ago

Yahoo is profitable, right? Am I missing something?

henrikschroder 11y ago
Yes, but it's not growing, therefore it is a complete failure and should be wiped off the face of the Earth, according to certain investor logic.
- billyhoffman 11y ago
  If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure. I have $1. I can do many things with it. Why would I give my $1 to someone in exchange for a piece of their business if that business is not growing when I could instead give that $1 to someone who is growing? I want my $1 to become worth more. Yes, yes yes, I know companies that pay dividends or profit sharing, etc. However what's the return on those? It is higher than somewhere else? Divorce yourself from thinking about what the company does or ever how much money it is making. For many investors, they are looking for opportunities to put in some money, get an asset, and then sell that asset for a profit. Growth is key to forecasting returns and thus comparing different investment opportunities.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "If its not growing, for from many investors, yes, that is a failure." Then those investors should go invest in something else, and quit trying to push a bunch of shortsighted crap on a company.
    - billyhoffman 11y ago
      I get what you are saying, and even agree to an extent. The fact that Dell had to take itself private to be able to save itself is a good recent example of how the super short term thinking of stock market investors can hurt a company. That said, if a company doesn't want to be exposed to that sort of investor, then it shouldn't have done IPO and become a publicly traded company.

stevebmark 11y ago

This is linkbait. There's only one relevant sentence: > in the same press release, the chairman of Yahoo's board announced that the board is going to "engage on qualified strategic proposals" — that is, consider offers to sell the company. Yahoo is not up for sale. With the alarmist linkbait title and the URL "yahoo-marissa-mayer-fail", this is possibly a sting piece with motives other than journalism. I have no political ties to Yahoo (nor Vox) but this is not good reporting.

spaced_out 11y ago
The title is somewhat sensationalist, but there have been articles coming out for months, including from more respected papers like WSJ and NYT, claiming they have info from sources inside the company that there are discussions about selling their core businesses assets. These were of course unsubstantiated, but now Yahoo reports another bad quarter, a bunch of layoffs, and also says this: >The Board also believes that exploring additional strategic alternatives, in parallel to the execution of the management plan, is in the best interest of our shareholders. Separating our Alibaba stake from our operating business continues to be a primary focus, and our most direct path to value maximization. In addition to continuing work on the reverse spin, which we've discussed previously, we will engage on qualified strategic proposals." That does seem like a dodgy way of asking for offers.

Agustus 11y ago

Listening to Marissa Myer this morning talk about the company she could not identify a core function within the company or a future. She had a number of buzzwords laid out and did not give any idea of what they were going for. I need her to say things like: 1. We are working to create a cross-platform experience that outdoes Google and Apple within their app system. The best photo sharing program across app and web for me is Flickr and we are going to become the anti-facebook by guaranteeing your content privacy. 2. What is Yahoo? As it stands now, it is an amalgamation of multiple properties that bring in revenue streams. If this is the case, then if I were an investor, I would be trying to find a way to squeeze assets out.

vidoc 11y ago
Was there a lot of purple blood in URL ?

vidoc 11y ago

Anyone has details regarding the severance package given to those that were let go?

newscracker 11y ago

It is saddening to see names like Yahoo going through so much trouble, but there seems to be an inevitability here that many knew about for a long time. Yahoo, after Marissa Mayer took over, also seems to have focused more on revenue from graphical ads compared to getting any revenue directly from users. * Although mail may be a good product for Yahoo (as this article states), it's not really improved over time and has in fact gotten worse. * The previous Yahoo Mail Plus, which was $20 a year for an ad-free experience with some extras (like POP email) was replaced with a who-would-even-want-this $50 a year ad-free option. Frankly, I doubt if many people even bothered to get this one, more so because among the people who started email with the likes of Hotmail and Yahoo, multiple email addresses were the norm (they continue to be so). For such users who stuck with Yahoo, there's no way to justify spending more than a hundred dollars a year for email. * With no sign of IMAP in the paid option while Google has been giving free IMAP for years, Yahoo's offering in email was really substandard. * Yahoo mail is still quite slow. Not the interface, but the backend. Sending a mail to oneself (by a CC when replying or emailing someone) still takes several minutes to show up in the inbox. In Gmail, this would be in the inbox in a second or two. * Yahoo mail's spam filtering is many a times as bad as a coin toss. Emails that you mark as Not Spam for specific senders continue to go to the spam folder for subsequent mails from the same sender. Many emails that are true spam and have been marked as such don't seem to put similar mails in the spam folder. * The vertical graphical ads on the right side, in an attempt to avoid ads from going off screen while scrolling through emails, are really annoying. * Flickr, providing an astonishing 1TB of storage for "free" (with ads). The next paid option is $50 a year just to remove ads (double of what Flickr Pro used to cost). What??? * Any value assigned to user experience before was completely eliminated through these "more ads" move, where Yahoo was sure that almost nobody would opt for the paid options. I wonder what would've happened if Yahoo had instead lowered the prices even more for an ad-free option, added some useful features (like IMAP in email) in a tiered pricing structure and made the product better (like handling email delivery quickly). Perhaps it's too late to wonder about these though. If Yahoo isn't bought by one of the top five tech companies, its products will likely disappear within the next decade.

justaman 11y ago

Yahoo was only ever a power play by Google when they sent M.M. there.

cylinder 11y ago
GOOG was happy to get rid of MM, she's a hack.
- vidoc 11y ago
  I have no idea whether she is or isn't, I think it's irrelevant here. The key thing is that expecting for a one person's turnaround of a 20y+/10k+ organization is a little bit like waiting for Xenu's ride to Syrius, it's ludicrous at best. It's funny how some people always refer to how Steve Jobs did it at Apple, without acknowledging that something like this is extremely rare. In other words, they are always hoping/betting on an exceptional rather than likely outcome. Interesting ..

halis 11y ago

It's Yahoo who cares...

rdiddly 11y ago

"...its most successful products — including its search engine..." LOL!

tmaly 11y ago

I should probably start moving my accounts associated with my yahoo email off to another email. Not sure what guarantee I would have of a new company handling my web mail with same privacy regard.

mattbgates 11y ago

Lays off thousands of workers... still doesn't profit.

jgalt212 11y ago

Marissa Miller should be ashamed not because here tenure at Yahoo has largely been a failure (like most of her recent predecessors), but that she has been paid so much for accomplishing so little (like most of her recent predecessors).