5 ms·

Maybe Yahoo Shouldn't Have Bought All This Sh*t

25 points by twampss 18y ago

raganwald 18y ago
Hey, I wonder if I know anyone that built something and sold it to Yahoo!?
- netcan 18y ago
  does it still make money?
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Yahoo Stores does.
    - netcan 18y ago
      I know it still operates. I meant do you think it's still profitable? They do have a higher pricing table then most comparable services, so maybe. But it's not an easy biz to be in.
    - chollida1 18y ago
      Cool, where did you get your source for this? I've been trying to find a breakdown of which services make money, as far as I can tell they don't even track it internally at Yahoo for every service, which is why I couldn't find any data for yahoo store.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Sorry I interpreted his question/comment "make money" as "still exists and has revenue" not "has profits" since many companies that are acquired become defunct surprisingly quick (see: Broadcast.com & many of Google's acquisitions). I was only speaking in terms of my own knowledge. The baseball team I used to work for (Toledo Mud Hens) used Yahoo Stores to power our online store.
        netcan 18y ago
        Still gets mentioned whenever someone posts a 'how to start an online shop' post.
huhtenberg 18y ago
> In the typical American fashion, Yahoo bought a bunch of shit it didn't need with money it didn't have. This is priceless ... even if it's not exactly accurate :)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
charaz 18y ago
Wait, did they buy pressflip?
comatose_kid 18y ago
I for one was surprised to learn the author of this post was 23. Based on the writing style, I would have figured 13.
drawkbox 18y ago
A few of their sites are about the only value there, delicious, flickr, finance is about all I use there. They lost my on tv long long ago and I can't remember the last time I searched with Yahoo.
- jamongkad 18y ago
  In fairness to Yahoo Search I have been hearing some commenters in HN actually saying that it gives better search results than Google. Of course there's this thing called brand awareness...
  - gamble 18y ago
    I'm coming around on Yahoo. They've always seemed a bit ghetto since Google came around, but their results are pretty good these days. If you just avoid going to yahoo.com, the experience isn't any worse than Google. I'd guess, though, that the problem for Yahoo is that their results aren't dramatically better than Google. The bulk of searches are for proper nouns, company names, etc. that both of them serve up perfectly well.
- briansmith 18y ago
  I don't use Yahoo products because they refuse make up for helping the Chinese government jail dissidents. Their response was basically "It made sense fiancially to destroy these people's lives, and morals don't trump Chinese law, so let's just forget about it, okay?" Google at least makes an effort to ensure they don't fall into the same trap. I won't be sad when Yahoo is gone.
quasimojo 18y ago
haha thats just the tip of the iceberg. paul graham, seth godin, mark cuban and a hundred other guys you never heard of have milked the yahoo cash cow but good over the years. astoundingly, pg figures low on the grand totem pole of yahoo ripoffs. same for flickr dude. if they had known what yahoo was willing to pay for concept-level garbage, they would have held out for 5x. the list of acquired companies must be over 100 by now. of course it is shareholders financing all of this, not jerry yang.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Sam_Odio 18y ago
This is class uncov flamebait. The author sets up several straw men, and then proceeds to valiantly strike them down. Yahoo, like all companies, has made a number of investments in startups. Some of them work out (viaweb, anyone?), some don't. Unfortunately, this article lacks a concrete analysis of all the investments yahoo has made. Instead, the author makes the argument that yahoo shouldn't have made $2.5bn in investments because three (totaling $0.248BN) haven't turned out well.
- Sam_Odio 18y ago
  The author also fails to provide data that backs up the implied argument that the capital expenditures would've yielded a better return if applied towards the salaries of existing employees. He's making classic "sunk cost" conceptual gaffe: Future decisions should be made independent of past ones. Even if yahoo had that extra $2.5BN, that doesn't mean the company should hold onto underperforming employees.

25 points by twampss 18y ago

raganwald 18y ago

Hey, I wonder if I know anyone that built something and sold it to Yahoo!?

netcan 18y ago
does it still make money?
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Yahoo Stores does.
  - netcan 18y ago
    I know it still operates. I meant do you think it's still profitable? They do have a higher pricing table then most comparable services, so maybe. But it's not an easy biz to be in.
  - chollida1 18y ago
    Cool, where did you get your source for this? I've been trying to find a breakdown of which services make money, as far as I can tell they don't even track it internally at Yahoo for every service, which is why I couldn't find any data for yahoo store.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Sorry I interpreted his question/comment "make money" as "still exists and has revenue" not "has profits" since many companies that are acquired become defunct surprisingly quick (see: Broadcast.com & many of Google's acquisitions). I was only speaking in terms of my own knowledge. The baseball team I used to work for (Toledo Mud Hens) used Yahoo Stores to power our online store.
      - netcan 18y ago
        Still gets mentioned whenever someone posts a 'how to start an online shop' post.

huhtenberg 18y ago

> In the typical American fashion, Yahoo bought a bunch of shit it didn't need with money it didn't have. This is priceless ... even if it's not exactly accurate :)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

charaz 18y ago

Wait, did they buy pressflip?

comatose_kid 18y ago

I for one was surprised to learn the author of this post was 23. Based on the writing style, I would have figured 13.

drawkbox 18y ago

A few of their sites are about the only value there, delicious, flickr, finance is about all I use there. They lost my on tv long long ago and I can't remember the last time I searched with Yahoo.

jamongkad 18y ago
In fairness to Yahoo Search I have been hearing some commenters in HN actually saying that it gives better search results than Google. Of course there's this thing called brand awareness...
- gamble 18y ago
  I'm coming around on Yahoo. They've always seemed a bit ghetto since Google came around, but their results are pretty good these days. If you just avoid going to yahoo.com, the experience isn't any worse than Google. I'd guess, though, that the problem for Yahoo is that their results aren't dramatically better than Google. The bulk of searches are for proper nouns, company names, etc. that both of them serve up perfectly well.
briansmith 18y ago
I don't use Yahoo products because they refuse make up for helping the Chinese government jail dissidents. Their response was basically "It made sense fiancially to destroy these people's lives, and morals don't trump Chinese law, so let's just forget about it, okay?" Google at least makes an effort to ensure they don't fall into the same trap. I won't be sad when Yahoo is gone.

quasimojo 18y ago

haha thats just the tip of the iceberg. paul graham, seth godin, mark cuban and a hundred other guys you never heard of have milked the yahoo cash cow but good over the years. astoundingly, pg figures low on the grand totem pole of yahoo ripoffs. same for flickr dude. if they had known what yahoo was willing to pay for concept-level garbage, they would have held out for 5x. the list of acquired companies must be over 100 by now. of course it is shareholders financing all of this, not jerry yang.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

Sam_Odio 18y ago

This is class uncov flamebait. The author sets up several straw men, and then proceeds to valiantly strike them down. Yahoo, like all companies, has made a number of investments in startups. Some of them work out (viaweb, anyone?), some don't. Unfortunately, this article lacks a concrete analysis of all the investments yahoo has made. Instead, the author makes the argument that yahoo shouldn't have made $2.5bn in investments because three (totaling $0.248BN) haven't turned out well.

Sam_Odio 18y ago
The author also fails to provide data that backs up the implied argument that the capital expenditures would've yielded a better return if applied towards the salaries of existing employees. He's making classic "sunk cost" conceptual gaffe: Future decisions should be made independent of past ones. Even if yahoo had that extra $2.5BN, that doesn't mean the company should hold onto underperforming employees.