71–80 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yahoo lost $650 million last quarter, why do you think anyone would take the deal in the first place?
IP. Yahoo!'s patents are valued between $4B and $8B, depending on who you ask.
Yahoo controls 8% of search traffic and costs $4bn. Google controls 64% of search traffic and costs $558bn. That's a 17-fold difference in the price for 1% of the traffic. Even more if you take US search traffic only (to exclude Yahoo Japan). Verizon can get rid of the costly parts of Yahoo (mostly its media business) and have its own small Google to make cash. That was $1.8bn per year in 2015, while Yahoo's overall…
That's like saying Apple is worth $600 billion, Motorola is worth "only $12 billion", but has 1/10 of Apple's market share, so therefore it must be a great deal to buy Motorola. Wait, actually that's exactly what Google thought - and they quickly saw the error in that sort of thinking after they purchased it. Do you see how that argument is flawed? Leaders in a market tend to be worth much more and have much higher p…
One benefit of these incidents at Yahoo! is that they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. CIOs and security directors will be able to point to this deal as evidence that poor security can have material impact on the business and destroy massive shareholder value, even years after the fact. A 6.5% intra-day dip sends a clear message. Even a CFO can now see that information secur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh search sure, but I thought they would get more views on things like DoubleClick ads embedded in other pages.
For Q3 2016 Google earned over 70% of its revenue and 80% of its advertising revenue from "Google websites" [1]. Google websites include search as well as YouTube, Gmail, et cetera . AdSense, AdMob or DoubleClick revenues make up the bulk of the other 20%. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204416... pages 31, 33
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it's Flickr that I would be annoyed losing. Not so much for my own photo hosting which is easily moved elsewhere. Everything is local on Lightroom anyway and I basically never use the social aspect of Flickr any longer. But Flickr is a great repository of other content, including a great deal of Creative Commons and public domain, that AFAIK isn't available with nearly the quantity or curation elsewhere. Mayb…
interesting...forgot about flickr. to be honest imgur and even reddituploads pretty much killed it for me.
I really haven't found anything else quite like it, and I would hate to see it go away. I've been paying for my pro account for the last eight years.
Yahoo controls 8% of search traffic and costs $4bn. Google controls 64% of search traffic and costs $558bn. That's a 17-fold difference in the price for 1% of the traffic. Even more if you take US search traffic only (to exclude Yahoo Japan). Verizon can get rid of the costly parts of Yahoo (mostly its media business) and have its own small Google to make cash. That was $1.8bn per year in 2015, while Yahoo's overall…
However, they are hemorrhaging money. You don't generally buy for revenue unless you're buying a small startup, where the growth rate is exponential and you'll become profitable once you hit economies of scale.
Yahoo has already ostensibly hit economies of scale, is stagnant in terms of growth, and is losing both money and eyeballs. What part of that is attractive to the balance sheet? You might not even be able to milk it to its demise, as it's currently unprofitable.
OK, what's it going to take to keep tumblr running? That's literally all I care about here. Everything else in Yahoo can be gotten or done elsewhere, but tumblr's a social network, so there's value in preserving those connections.
Why is there value? Honest question, just curious. Do myspace friends, for instance, still have value in today's day and age?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, it's Flickr that I would be annoyed losing. Not so much for my own photo hosting which is easily moved elsewhere. Everything is local on Lightroom anyway and I basically never use the social aspect of Flickr any longer. But Flickr is a great repository of other content, including a great deal of Creative Commons and public domain, that AFAIK isn't available with nearly the quantity or curation elsewhere. Mayb…
interesting...forgot about flickr. to be honest imgur and even reddituploads pretty much killed it for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting...forgot about flickr. to be honest imgur and even reddituploads pretty much killed it for me.
I use Flickr's API to drive some arts related websites. I also appreciate that Flickr stores (and exposes, with your permission) EXIF data. It doesn't overcompress images, and you can access the full resolution that you upload to. I really haven't found anything else quite like it, and I would hate to see it go away. I've been paying for my pro account for the last eight years.
But, yeah, it was popular for a time to dump on Flickr because they hadn't really moved forward. But truth be told, it pretty much does the job for me the way it is and I don't want a whole bunch of social stuff dumped on it.
Yahoo controls 8% of search traffic and costs $4bn. Google controls 64% of search traffic and costs $558bn. That's a 17-fold difference in the price for 1% of the traffic. Even more if you take US search traffic only (to exclude Yahoo Japan). Verizon can get rid of the costly parts of Yahoo (mostly its media business) and have its own small Google to make cash. That was $1.8bn per year in 2015, while Yahoo's overall…