I don't think any of the items you've mentioned really mattered. They were moonshots but the issue with Yahoo, in my mind, is that the investors have different

I don't think any of the items you've mentioned really mattered. They were moonshots but the issue with Yahoo, in my mind, is that the investors have different ideas about what they want and how valuable the company really is. And I don't think anything she, or anyone else, did would have made a bit of difference. There are basically two camps: The founder camps that want to try and prop up the value in order to keep their stake high, and the shark investor camp that are betting on some kind of acquisition (leveraged around the value of Y! Japan and Alibaba) for them to cash in their stake. The first is the one pushing for all the moonshots (and were the ones moving to hire her in the first place) and the second group would love for her to fail so they can move on with selling the company and get their stake back. All of the "moonshots" you've mentioned are basically just late game hail mary's that were likely not going to work. IMO, the only way for any CEO to get the business turned around would be to pay off all the shark tank shareholders, strip out as much of the non-core business as they can, and then rebuild the brand from the ground up. However, the founder shareholder camp is firmly against that for a number of reasons, including the fact that many of them would be the ones losing their place at the company. If you look at the stories of successful turnarounds, they all had unified investors. In the case of Apple, everyone rallied around Jobs because they knew their stake was worthless if they didn't give up on their pet projects. But because of the other investments, there's a solid floor on the value of the company, so all of the key investors know there's a fairly solid floor price on the shares, and everything else is just house money. Why not bet on moonshots in that case?