3 ms·

Microsoft is 2000 times less effective than Google; Yahoo Board seems to be insane

19 points by __ 19y ago

mynameishere 19y ago
The interesting question is why a company that claims to know how to program would pay anything for Yahoo, much less a P/E ratio of more than 60. Huh? Sounds like someone needs to cut back on the sauce. We can infer from this offer that Microsoft expects its own programmers to be only 1/2000th as effective, dollar for dollar, as Google’s. We can infer that, if we're near the bottom of a Chivas bottle. The chance of a Yahoo shareholder ever getting more than $31/share, adjusted for inflation and risk, seems remote Hey, I know a place where you can put money down on such predictions. Good luck! Microsoft is to Yahoo as Time Warner is to (correct answer) AOL. Except...the purchase was in the opposite direction. despite the fact that the $31/share bid was higher than Yahoo has typically traded since mid-2006 Here's the thing...if Ballmer logged into his Ameritrade account and started buying YHOO at 10000 shares per second every second until it was all bought up, the share prices would probably hit about 50000 dollars. When Microsoft makes an offer, it's understood that that is equivilent to skyrocketing demand.
- xirium 19y ago
  Likewise, if Ballmer steadily sold Microsoft shares then they'd be worth almost nothing by the time he finished. 1 million * $1 share != $1 million
dcurtis 19y ago
I would hardly call Google's interface designers "tasteful." It seems more likely that they knew they were bad designers so they just went with the simplest possible design. Yahoo doesn't get enough credit. They are doing some pretty awesome and forward-looking stuff. The reason they're falling behind, I think, is because the "yahoo" brand is so large and complex that it's hard to find anything by going to their site. It probably doesn't help that AOL.com ripped off the design almost to the pixel (I'm extremely surprised there has not been a lawsuit there).
- pg 19y ago
  It seems more likely that they knew they were bad designers so they just went with the simplest possible design. Yes, I think that is exactly it. But even that level of performance is quite rare. In design, merely simple is version 1 of good.
  - eusman 19y ago
    it wasnt exactly the 1st version. their logo and appearance was much bulgier http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-04-21-n63.html http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-04-21-n63.html
    - pg 19y ago
      What I said that simple was version 1 of good. I.e. a metaphor. I wasn't claiming that the current G frontpage was their first version.
- eusman 19y ago
  ui is not always about being good looking as it about being functional. UI/experience design is totally differnt from graphic design and i see a lot of people confusing it still. (which is why u dont want a graphic designer design your ui but instead a hacker with a good taste can build a better ui)
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
- watmough 19y ago
  I've switched my search from Google to Yahoo, but Yahoo mail still sucks too much to use over GMail. Also, there doesn't seem to be a Yahoo documents. If Microsoft want to beat Google, they need to start pushing out on-line document editing, Excel, etc., under the MS brand but through Yahoo infrastructure and internet know-how.
  - 19y ago
anewaccountname 19y ago
More Greenspun hyperbole: "Google unseated Yahoo at a cost of about $20 million in financing" That completely ignores major things such as, oh I don't know, the Google Pagerank patent. It isn't like Google just won on simple UI; if their search hadn't worked way better than anything else, they never would have taken off.
Raphael 19y ago
Microsoft has decided to buy another Microsoft instead of making a Google.

19 points by __ 19y ago

The interesting question is why a company that claims to know how to program would pay anything for Yahoo, much less a P/E ratio of more than 60. Huh? Sounds like someone needs to cut back on the sauce. We can infer from this offer that Microsoft expects its own programmers to be only 1/2000th as effective, dollar for dollar, as Google’s. We can infer that, if we're near the bottom of a Chivas bottle. The chance of a Yahoo shareholder ever getting more than $31/share, adjusted for inflation and risk, seems remote Hey, I know a place where you can put money down on such predictions. Good luck! Microsoft is to Yahoo as Time Warner is to (correct answer) AOL. Except...the purchase was in the opposite direction. despite the fact that the $31/share bid was higher than Yahoo has typically traded since mid-2006 Here's the thing...if Ballmer logged into his Ameritrade account and started buying YHOO at 10000 shares per second every second until it was all bought up, the share prices would probably hit about 50000 dollars. When Microsoft makes an offer, it's understood that that is equivilent to skyrocketing demand.

xirium 19y ago
Likewise, if Ballmer steadily sold Microsoft shares then they'd be worth almost nothing by the time he finished. 1 million * $1 share != $1 million

dcurtis 19y ago

I would hardly call Google's interface designers "tasteful." It seems more likely that they knew they were bad designers so they just went with the simplest possible design. Yahoo doesn't get enough credit. They are doing some pretty awesome and forward-looking stuff. The reason they're falling behind, I think, is because the "yahoo" brand is so large and complex that it's hard to find anything by going to their site. It probably doesn't help that AOL.com ripped off the design almost to the pixel (I'm extremely surprised there has not been a lawsuit there).

pg 19y ago
It seems more likely that they knew they were bad designers so they just went with the simplest possible design. Yes, I think that is exactly it. But even that level of performance is quite rare. In design, merely simple is version 1 of good.
- eusman 19y ago
  it wasnt exactly the 1st version. their logo and appearance was much bulgier http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-04-21-n63.html http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-04-21-n63.html
  - pg 19y ago
    What I said that simple was version 1 of good. I.e. a metaphor. I wasn't claiming that the current G frontpage was their first version.
eusman 19y ago
ui is not always about being good looking as it about being functional. UI/experience design is totally differnt from graphic design and i see a lot of people confusing it still. (which is why u dont want a graphic designer design your ui but instead a hacker with a good taste can build a better ui)
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
watmough 19y ago
I've switched my search from Google to Yahoo, but Yahoo mail still sucks too much to use over GMail. Also, there doesn't seem to be a Yahoo documents. If Microsoft want to beat Google, they need to start pushing out on-line document editing, Excel, etc., under the MS brand but through Yahoo infrastructure and internet know-how.
- 19y ago

anewaccountname 19y ago

More Greenspun hyperbole: "Google unseated Yahoo at a cost of about $20 million in financing" That completely ignores major things such as, oh I don't know, the Google Pagerank patent. It isn't like Google just won on simple UI; if their search hadn't worked way better than anything else, they never would have taken off.

Raphael 19y ago

Microsoft has decided to buy another Microsoft instead of making a Google.