6 ms·

I'm sure there's some alternative universe where Yahoo bought Netflix and ruined that instead. It's not that they bought the wrong company, it's that they just

I'm sure there's some alternative universe where Yahoo bought Netflix and ruined that instead. It's not that they bought the wrong company, it's that they just don't get it.

MonkeyIsNull 3y ago
The exodus of technical staff when she came aboard was astonishing. There was something definitely wrong with Yahoo back then .... wait, there's STILL something really wrong with them.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  Is Yahoo still Yahoo? Didn't Yahoo! have like a bunch of stocks in Alibaba, worth more than their actual business? So they sold the online "stuff" to Verizon and Yahoo Inc. became Altaba. Through it's history Yahoo! had the opportunity to buy a lot of successful companies, but they lacked the foresight to do so and trusted too much in their existing business. For a brief period they did manage to attract really talented people though.
- usrusr 3y ago
  Was it different before she came? Yahoo never made any sense to me, not now, not when I considered altavista.digital.com king of the hill.
  - MonkeyIsNull 3y ago
    Douglas Crockford used to work there and several other JS programmers that were doing really interesting work. In a span of about 3 months they all left. I remember thinking WTH is going on there that they all bailed that quick?
itronitron 3y ago
Knowing Yahoo, they would probably have bought Qwikster instead.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Seems to me Netflix did just fine at ruining itself. How could Yahoo have done worse?
- hipadev23 3y ago
  > Netflix did just fine at ruining itself You're objectively incorrect in that opinion. They just reported 247M global paid memberships. Highest they've ever had.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Subjectively, their content selection sucks now, and it used to be pretty good.
    - dyeje 3y ago
      I don’t think you can really blame Netflix for the change in content over time. In the beginning nobody understood how big streaming would be so Netflix could license whatever for cheap. They were successful and everybody said “oh shit we need to build our own streaming service” so now we have this nightmare land of needing a bunch of different services to watch what you want.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Objectively Netflix worth $191.24 Billion USD. Objectively Yahoo is worth $27.32 Billion USD, 1/7th as much as Netflix.
- sdflhasjd 3y ago
  Well, Yahoo bought Tumblr only, er, 10 years ago. Netflix had some great years since then and and my suspicion would be that Yahoo wouldn't have provided the investment needed to not be completely crushed by the competition.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  netflix could, for instance, not be worth 10x what it was worth 10 years ago
cfr2023 3y ago
That's my impression, there's no existing staff or technical asset that can help you if you JUST DON'T GET IT. Watching Tumbler and Twitter die because individuals essentially decided they didn't want us to have them anymore has been informative.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Sadly Twitter is too big to fail and its best competitor is invite only. Mastodon wasn't ready for the windfall that would result, not even close. Tumblr yeah. The general format of traditional blogging was already in trouble and Yahoo simply chopped off what that audience appreciated.
  - solumunus 3y ago
    I’m willing to bet that in a decade there will be a Twitter alternative more mainstream relevant than Twitter.
    - bruceb 3y ago
      How much and how would you measure which is bigger and in what parameters? I would put $250 on Twitter side.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Interesting. I'm not optimistic but I also wouldn't take that bet. On one hand I don't think Twitter was ever profitable, so there's not much inventive to compete. But on the other hand, I don't think even Twitter can survive a decade of implosion. Bluesky may not be as big in 2030 as Twitter was at its peak, but if Twitter is legitimately dead it doesn't matter. My cynical take is that microblogging also becomes a niche and "content creation" on Instagram/TikTok et. All takes over as refugees retrofit a different medium entirely to what they desire to do.
    - usrusr 3y ago
      More mainstream relevant than Twitter will be in a decade? Seems inevitable. Even remotely as mainstream relevant as Twitter was in its heyday? I don't expect that to repeat, ever.
zeruch 3y ago
That was my first thought as well. Yahoo's internal culture was already scrambled beyond real repair (at least not in any timeframe the board would have likely accepted) and any acquisition they made they would have bolloxed.
nostrademons 3y ago
It occurs to me that the issue with broken incentive structures is that it allows the wrong people to rise to the top. Eventually the company is run by people that are good at getting into the positions that run the company, rather than those who are good at running the company. Switching CEOs doesn't fix this: they're still at the mercy of their executive team to implement their plans, and the existing executive team hold all the relationships with the people actually doing the work. New strategic visions don't fix this: they get implemented by the same people who are more concerned with preserving their place in the power structure than with actually delivering business value. You pretty much have to fire the entire executive team, everyone from VP level on up, and then replace them with the "magnets" from below - line managers, directors, and even ICs that are well-respected by rank & file but have no actual power. I guess this is why they say a turnaround CEO's job is to "get the wrong people off the bus and the right people on the bus", and why "turnarounds seldom turn".
- namanyayg 3y ago
  You bring up a very good point and HN is the best place to ask -- what are the correct incentive structures, what are some examples of companies that do the same? I want to avoid making these mistakes for my startup.
  - wavemode 3y ago
    Companies end up this way because they become large and bureaucratic. The distance between the customer's mouth and the business leaders' ears becomes too great, and filled with too much noise. Every company, when starting out, tries to avoid going down this path (recall Google's "don't be evil" or Amazon's "it's always day 1") but they all eventually lose the spark, after becoming large enough. Large companies who have lost this spark eventually start hiring consultants and agile coaches in a desperate gasp to regain it (much like estranged couples hiring marriage counselors). This usually goes about as well as you might expect. I've never found a counterexample to this principle. I think the only real way to avoid it is to stay small.
    - 3y ago
dehrmann 3y ago
The more reflective and insightful thing for her to say would have been she shouldn't have taken the job at Yahoo! for this reason. Anyone can look back at investments they considered and say they should have bought the one that did well.

I'm sure there's some alternative universe where Yahoo bought Netflix and ruined that instead. It's not that they bought the wrong company, it's that they just don't get it.

MonkeyIsNull 3y ago

The exodus of technical staff when she came aboard was astonishing. There was something definitely wrong with Yahoo back then .... wait, there's STILL something really wrong with them.

mrweasel 3y ago
Is Yahoo still Yahoo? Didn't Yahoo! have like a bunch of stocks in Alibaba, worth more than their actual business? So they sold the online "stuff" to Verizon and Yahoo Inc. became Altaba. Through it's history Yahoo! had the opportunity to buy a lot of successful companies, but they lacked the foresight to do so and trusted too much in their existing business. For a brief period they did manage to attract really talented people though.
usrusr 3y ago
Was it different before she came? Yahoo never made any sense to me, not now, not when I considered altavista.digital.com king of the hill.
- MonkeyIsNull 3y ago
  Douglas Crockford used to work there and several other JS programmers that were doing really interesting work. In a span of about 3 months they all left. I remember thinking WTH is going on there that they all bailed that quick?

itronitron 3y ago

Knowing Yahoo, they would probably have bought Qwikster instead.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Seems to me Netflix did just fine at ruining itself. How could Yahoo have done worse?

hipadev23 3y ago
> Netflix did just fine at ruining itself You're objectively incorrect in that opinion. They just reported 247M global paid memberships. Highest they've ever had.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Subjectively, their content selection sucks now, and it used to be pretty good.
  - dyeje 3y ago
    I don’t think you can really blame Netflix for the change in content over time. In the beginning nobody understood how big streaming would be so Netflix could license whatever for cheap. They were successful and everybody said “oh shit we need to build our own streaming service” so now we have this nightmare land of needing a bunch of different services to watch what you want.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Objectively Netflix worth $191.24 Billion USD. Objectively Yahoo is worth $27.32 Billion USD, 1/7th as much as Netflix.
sdflhasjd 3y ago
Well, Yahoo bought Tumblr only, er, 10 years ago. Netflix had some great years since then and and my suspicion would be that Yahoo wouldn't have provided the investment needed to not be completely crushed by the competition.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
netflix could, for instance, not be worth 10x what it was worth 10 years ago

cfr2023 3y ago

That's my impression, there's no existing staff or technical asset that can help you if you JUST DON'T GET IT. Watching Tumbler and Twitter die because individuals essentially decided they didn't want us to have them anymore has been informative.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Sadly Twitter is too big to fail and its best competitor is invite only. Mastodon wasn't ready for the windfall that would result, not even close. Tumblr yeah. The general format of traditional blogging was already in trouble and Yahoo simply chopped off what that audience appreciated.
- solumunus 3y ago
  I’m willing to bet that in a decade there will be a Twitter alternative more mainstream relevant than Twitter.
  - bruceb 3y ago
    How much and how would you measure which is bigger and in what parameters? I would put $250 on Twitter side.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Interesting. I'm not optimistic but I also wouldn't take that bet. On one hand I don't think Twitter was ever profitable, so there's not much inventive to compete. But on the other hand, I don't think even Twitter can survive a decade of implosion. Bluesky may not be as big in 2030 as Twitter was at its peak, but if Twitter is legitimately dead it doesn't matter. My cynical take is that microblogging also becomes a niche and "content creation" on Instagram/TikTok et. All takes over as refugees retrofit a different medium entirely to what they desire to do.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    More mainstream relevant than Twitter will be in a decade? Seems inevitable. Even remotely as mainstream relevant as Twitter was in its heyday? I don't expect that to repeat, ever.

zeruch 3y ago

That was my first thought as well. Yahoo's internal culture was already scrambled beyond real repair (at least not in any timeframe the board would have likely accepted) and any acquisition they made they would have bolloxed.

nostrademons 3y ago

It occurs to me that the issue with broken incentive structures is that it allows the wrong people to rise to the top. Eventually the company is run by people that are good at getting into the positions that run the company, rather than those who are good at running the company. Switching CEOs doesn't fix this: they're still at the mercy of their executive team to implement their plans, and the existing executive team hold all the relationships with the people actually doing the work. New strategic visions don't fix this: they get implemented by the same people who are more concerned with preserving their place in the power structure than with actually delivering business value. You pretty much have to fire the entire executive team, everyone from VP level on up, and then replace them with the "magnets" from below - line managers, directors, and even ICs that are well-respected by rank & file but have no actual power. I guess this is why they say a turnaround CEO's job is to "get the wrong people off the bus and the right people on the bus", and why "turnarounds seldom turn".

namanyayg 3y ago
You bring up a very good point and HN is the best place to ask -- what are the correct incentive structures, what are some examples of companies that do the same? I want to avoid making these mistakes for my startup.
- wavemode 3y ago
  Companies end up this way because they become large and bureaucratic. The distance between the customer's mouth and the business leaders' ears becomes too great, and filled with too much noise. Every company, when starting out, tries to avoid going down this path (recall Google's "don't be evil" or Amazon's "it's always day 1") but they all eventually lose the spark, after becoming large enough. Large companies who have lost this spark eventually start hiring consultants and agile coaches in a desperate gasp to regain it (much like estranged couples hiring marriage counselors). This usually goes about as well as you might expect. I've never found a counterexample to this principle. I think the only real way to avoid it is to stay small.
  - 3y ago

dehrmann 3y ago

The more reflective and insightful thing for her to say would have been she shouldn't have taken the job at Yahoo! for this reason. Anyone can look back at investments they considered and say they should have bought the one that did well.