Live data from Hacker News

Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

bloomberg.com

141–150 of 186 posts

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other sources [1] estimate the impact on Yahoo's core business, after subtracting out Alibaba's stock movements, at about $1.3B. On a $4.8B deal, that's about 27%. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-12-15/yahoo-s...

Other sources [0] say Yahoo's core business is negatively valued. How much worse could this make it? [0] http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/070215/why-yahoos... from April, but the prices haven't moved too much since.

If buying IP means that you're buying a codebase so full of security holes that it'll likely result in a billion dollars worth of lawsuits in the future, a billion dollar drop in valuation is rational even if the existing valuation is negative.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#142
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it an important community? I thought it was a blogging platform? Can't users just migrate to wordpress?

It's a social network, not a blogging platform. You have a consistent identity across the entire site, including everyone else's blogs that you comment on. It's closer to Facebook (with a larger focus on writing original posts) than it is to WordPress. If you were around for LiveJournal, it's more like that. Tumblr has a huge community and there are a large number of niche topics that have their biggest communities o…

> If you were around for LiveJournal, it's more like that.

LiveJournal is a good comparison here - it never went away, is still popular in some communities (Runet), and is not worth very much money because most Internet users in the United States that advertisers care about decided to move on to other social networks.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#143
post #138
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming that other costs apart from salaries are negligible and that firing 80% of the staff will have negligible effect on revenue. They are pretty big assumptions to make.

First assumption, other costs are negligible: no, I'm not. Every dollar spent on salary is a dollar that doesn't go to profit. Second assumption: letting 80% of staff go won't hurt. For that, I simply have to describe what I've heard from friends / coworkers / scuttlebutt about working at yahoo. But there are a lot of eng doing maybe a couple hours of work per day. from https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/YHOO/financials…

By that logic, businesses would never employ people because it's a cost that doesn't go to profit.

And the fat on that OPEX you linked is the writeoff from the Tumblr purchase.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#144
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First assumption, other costs are negligible: no, I'm not. Every dollar spent on salary is a dollar that doesn't go to profit. Second assumption: letting 80% of staff go won't hurt. For that, I simply have to describe what I've heard from friends / coworkers / scuttlebutt about working at yahoo. But there are a lot of eng doing maybe a couple hours of work per day. from https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/YHOO/financials…

By that logic, businesses would never employ people because it's a cost that doesn't go to profit. And the fat on that OPEX you linked is the writeoff from the Tumblr purchase.

For companies where employees add little/no value (yahoo!), then yes.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really important point. Yahoo!'s troubles help make a quantitative point to people who care only about money. Having been in the role of advocating investing in security the typical questions are; * "Will the product run faster?", * "Will the customers get better service?", * "Will someone choose us over a competitor because of this?" Generally 'no', 'no', and 'hard to quantify' so the answer to the funding…

Isn't the answer to "will the customer get better service" a definitive "yes"? I mean, obviously it depends on the UX of said security feature(s), but generally speaking, more secure == better. Right?

Not really. Passwords are a pain in the ass - and every new complication adds bugs. Things were a hell of a lot easier when you could just put something up and not worry about security.

That said, the alternatives are much worse than the price of security.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really important point. Yahoo!'s troubles help make a quantitative point to people who care only about money. Having been in the role of advocating investing in security the typical questions are; * "Will the product run faster?", * "Will the customers get better service?", * "Will someone choose us over a competitor because of this?" Generally 'no', 'no', and 'hard to quantify' so the answer to the funding…

Isn't the answer to "will the customer get better service" a definitive "yes"? I mean, obviously it depends on the UX of said security feature(s), but generally speaking, more secure == better. Right?

Not necessarily, lets say its just "security debt." Start with something like "we built this system with MD5 passwords in the user rows of a database that includes a bunch of other information" And 10 years go by and you (the guy who worries about security) realizes that hey, rainbow tables can be really really big these days, perhaps MD5 isn't the answer anymore.

So you go to the annual planning meeting and you pitch to the execs ,,, We want to take 5 engineers to first fix the password encryption we are using, second to update all the databases, third to build and test a system that makes swapping out the encryption method of passwords easier and less disruptive in the future, and finally updating the build system to do some sort of regression test on passwords to insure we aren't creating new services with weak algorithms.

The person after you pitches ... we'd like to take 5 engineers to build an algorithm to identify viral videos on the web and then put them into an iframe on our properties, thus increasing the length of time someone spends on our web pages which early A/B testing with some hand picked videos suggests increases revenue per page by .5%.

They give the 5 engineers to the kitten project it makes for more revenue.

A year goes by, the security guy pitches and the second pitch is "Our videos are doing great but we have discovered that people really hate that it takes three clicks to change their preferences on page layout. We want the 5 engineers to tweak the portal pages to make customization easier and we'll add a frictionless ad portal where they can just click on a product that appears and it will order it for them."

The updated portal gets the 5 engineers.

Now they are at a due diligence meeting with a potential suitor who discovers that millions of passwords were breached and later compromised because for years they knew they were using an insecure way of storing them but had not done anything about it. This materially affects what they consider the 'value' of the company to be.

The challenge is that if the security guy is really good the customers don't "see" anything, just their password is better protected than it was, and future projects start with strong password management systems. So from the people visiting the web property "nothing" changes. From the executive planning group's perspective they have spent 5 precious head count on a feature that they will have no way of "reporting" its success either in their own resumes or to their bosses. Kittens and better click through? Easy to measure and report and you can point at dollars in the bank as the benefit.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#149
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair it's a post Snowden world and it's clear everyone is doing this. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and everyone else who operates in the USA are giving the NSA everything. If you care about your data you are basically only able to secure it if you host it yourself.

or how about ... "if you care about your data, don't put it on the Internet. If you do, use E2E encryption." It's important that people also don't fall into the illusion that their Infosec skills can match that of google/apple engineers. These guys are some of the best there is.

no matter how good you are, if someone (NSA) got their hands on your hardware at the source there is not much you can do.

Re: Verizon Explores Lower Price or Even Exit from Yahoo Deal

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really important point. Yahoo!'s troubles help make a quantitative point to people who care only about money. Having been in the role of advocating investing in security the typical questions are; * "Will the product run faster?", * "Will the customers get better service?", * "Will someone choose us over a competitor because of this?" Generally 'no', 'no', and 'hard to quantify' so the answer to the funding…

Don't quantify security. Just do it. If people ask, just doing my day job' edit: care to explain the downvotes?

I didn't down vote but lots of devs don't have that sweet luxury to not be held accountable for what they're working on in quantitative business terms.
Post reply on HN