4 ms·

Yahoo seems to be a company that should've gone under when the dotcom bubble burst, but didn't for whatever reason. It never really had a coherent plan to be a

• new299 10y ago
  That doesn't seem reasonable. They had the same routes to profitability as Google, but just didn't execute well.
  • ronilan 10y ago
    Yep. Exactly the same. And they settled for peanuts[1]. Hindsight. it rules. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-yahoo-bury-the-legal-hatchet/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-yahoo-bury-the-legal-hatche...
• adventured 10y ago
  That's absurd. I'm guessing you don't know much about their actual operating history. 1999: $591m sales, $47m net income 2002: $953m sales, $42m net income 2003: $1.6b sales, $237m net income 2004: $3.5b sales, $839m net income And you think they should have just called it a day after the dotcom bubble - despite the six fold growth in sales and 18 fold growth in net income five years post dotcom bubble peak.
• Tempest1981 10y ago
  I think they still have almost 1 billion "active users (monthly)", right?
• tomhoward 10y ago
  As adventured points out with figures, this couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, their problem was that they were too profitable for their own good, leading to arrogance and complacency, which allowed Google to ambush them.