Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Crosses The Line

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#21

Post by jimbokun »

gizmo wrote: post #14
TweedHeads wrote: post #3

I still can't believe how ballmer is the head of microsoft, all he brings to the company is embarrassment and failure, not a single victory in a decade. Any resemblance to our president is just a mere coincidence.

Ballmer and gates are both extremes. Gates always wasted heaps of money, starting up projects and killing them again... have different groups build the same software (then kill the least successful project)... buy companies on a whim, and so on. Being wasteful is not the end of the world if your revenue grows with 500% each year, but it doesn't make the shareholders happy. So with this tactic Microsoft started to dom…

Alternatively, perhaps it is time to treat MSFT like the dividend stock that it is, acknowledge that it has probably peaked as an industry force, and channel the slowly ebbing value accumulated into shares of MSFT into grand philanthropic ventures.

I think Bill chose this route.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#22

Post by rw »

gizmo wrote: post #16
LogicHoleFlaw wrote: post #10

My knowledge of business at this level is incomplete. What would be the implications of replacing Yahoo's board of directors?

Depends on the people you appoint. If you get a combination of technical people and business people who both want Yahoo to thrive as an underdog all will be good. Yahoo will stay independent and will probably do some great things in the next few years. Without Yang the new board will have to prove itself, so you can expect the new board to spend a lot of money in research/acquisitions. When a company is fighting for…

"Okay, it doesn't work out for the employees who become redundant, but that's to be expected." This is actually, you know, a really bad thing for them. They have families and no trust funds.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#23

Post by aneesh »

raganwald wrote: post #2

Microsoft/Ballmer's behaviour has been entirely consistent with their reputation as take-no-prisoners bullies. Bullying is all about destroying and humiliating people. It is all about intimidating a crowd of people by making an example of someone. I seriously doubt anyone, even Microsoft shareholders, are cheering Ballmer on. Actually, I revise this: I especially doubt Microsoft shareholders are cheering Ballmer on.…

Yahoo! has a brand and name recognition, and many Yahoo! users are non-techie people who are barely even keeping up with what's going on. I doubt the exodus of Yahoo! VPs or whatever Icahn does will affect their choice of search engine. Microsoft is buying Yahoo! for it's users and brand, not for its employees or technology. So in a sense, "destroying Yahoo!" is just fine with Microsoft if it doesn't drive users and advertisers away.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#24

Post by mattmaroon »

raganwald wrote: post #2

Microsoft/Ballmer's behaviour has been entirely consistent with their reputation as take-no-prisoners bullies. Bullying is all about destroying and humiliating people. It is all about intimidating a crowd of people by making an example of someone. I seriously doubt anyone, even Microsoft shareholders, are cheering Ballmer on. Actually, I revise this: I especially doubt Microsoft shareholders are cheering Ballmer on.…

I agree with much of that assessment provided Arrington's version of what really happened is true. That seems to be a big if though.

I doubt anyone knows what really happened on both ends. Pretty much the only thing we know for sure is that Yahoo's board did not act in the best interest of its shareholders.

Also, say what you want about it from a moral standpoint, but ensuring that people either take you seriously or suffer tremendously for not doing so is good business. They're ensuring that in the future, any potential acquirees will be very fearful of pissing off Microsoft, which is very good for them. It's more than just an ego-driven Ballmer being a douche bag, it's sound strategy.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#25

Post by aston »

byrneseyeview wrote: post #15
gruseom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, that's good. What other words mean both X and the exact opposite of X?

We have formed an oversight committee to avoid repeating that egregious oversight. Edit: Here's a collection! http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html

Unlike most antagonyms, "literally" only took on its opposite meaning when it was used hyperbolically--that is, when it was meant to be interpreted ironically/sarcastically. I guess now we've given up on the distinction, though.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#26

Post by gizmo »

rw wrote: post #22
gizmo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the people you appoint. If you get a combination of technical people and business people who both want Yahoo to thrive as an underdog all will be good. Yahoo will stay independent and will probably do some great things in the next few years. Without Yang the new board will have to prove itself, so you can expect the new board to spend a lot of money in research/acquisitions. When a company is fighting for…

"Okay, it doesn't work out for the employees who become redundant, but that's to be expected." This is actually, you know, a really bad thing for them. They have families and no trust funds.

I'm not trivializing the matter. Nobody likes to fire and nobody likes to get fired. But a lot of people are let go after every merger - that's just how it works. So if a merger makes sense financially then you have no choice.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#27

Post by raganwald »

mattmaroon wrote: post #24
raganwald wrote: post #2

Microsoft/Ballmer's behaviour has been entirely consistent with their reputation as take-no-prisoners bullies. Bullying is all about destroying and humiliating people. It is all about intimidating a crowd of people by making an example of someone. I seriously doubt anyone, even Microsoft shareholders, are cheering Ballmer on. Actually, I revise this: I especially doubt Microsoft shareholders are cheering Ballmer on.…

I agree with much of that assessment provided Arrington's version of what really happened is true. That seems to be a big if though. I doubt anyone knows what really happened on both ends. Pretty much the only thing we know for sure is that Yahoo's board did not act in the best interest of its shareholders. Also, say what you want about it from a moral standpoint, but ensuring that people either take you seriously or…

"Ensuring that people either take you seriously or suffer tremendously for not doing so is good business. They're ensuring that in the future, any potential acquirees will be very fearful of pissing off Microsoft, which is very good for them."

Very true for future hostile take-overs, but I have a feeling that when Microsoft goes courting friendly take-overs--such as when they want to do an HR acquisition and actually want to get the company with management and R&D intact--they will get a lot of people trying to act like they were out flying their plane when Ballmer knocked on the door.

JM2C

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#28

Post by raganwald »

gizmo wrote: post #26
rw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Okay, it doesn't work out for the employees who become redundant, but that's to be expected." This is actually, you know, a really bad thing for them. They have families and no trust funds.

I'm not trivializing the matter. Nobody likes to fire and nobody likes to get fired. But a lot of people are let go after every merger - that's just how it works. So if a merger makes sense financially then you have no choice.

There's a very specific fiduciary responsibility with public companies. There are widows with some of their retirement savings invested in tech stocks like YHOO, and the board must act in their interests.

I suggest that with YC-scale businesses there's a very different dynamic. Imagine starting such a thing, building it to 100+ employees, and then selling out in such a way that 75+ of your folks are let go by the buying company that just wanted the technology and/or customers.

When you go to start your next venture, the VCs will ask how the last one went, and when they hear about the payday for shareholders, they will shower you with money. Everyone likes a winner.

But when you go to recruit talent, and they ask you how the last one went, what do you plan to tell them?

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#29

Post by mattmaroon »

aneesh wrote: post #23
raganwald wrote: post #2

Microsoft/Ballmer's behaviour has been entirely consistent with their reputation as take-no-prisoners bullies. Bullying is all about destroying and humiliating people. It is all about intimidating a crowd of people by making an example of someone. I seriously doubt anyone, even Microsoft shareholders, are cheering Ballmer on. Actually, I revise this: I especially doubt Microsoft shareholders are cheering Ballmer on.…

Yahoo! has a brand and name recognition, and many Yahoo! users are non-techie people who are barely even keeping up with what's going on. I doubt the exodus of Yahoo! VPs or whatever Icahn does will affect their choice of search engine. Microsoft is buying Yahoo! for it's users and brand, not for its employees or technology. So in a sense, "destroying Yahoo!" is just fine with Microsoft if it doesn't drive users and…

Right, I don't see the average consumer switching from Yahoo to Google because of what they read in the Wall Street Journal.

Re: Microsoft Crosses The Line

#30

Post by mattmaroon »

raganwald wrote: post #28
gizmo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trivializing the matter. Nobody likes to fire and nobody likes to get fired. But a lot of people are let go after every merger - that's just how it works. So if a merger makes sense financially then you have no choice.

There's a very specific fiduciary responsibility with public companies. There are widows with some of their retirement savings invested in tech stocks like YHOO, and the board must act in their interests. I suggest that with YC-scale businesses there's a very different dynamic. Imagine starting such a thing, building it to 100+ employees, and then selling out in such a way that 75+ of your folks are let go by the buy…

Well, ideally your employees who were let go would make a nice chunk off of stock options. Not FU money for the latter half most likely, but a business with 100 employees will generally sell for a pretty good chunk of money.
Post reply on HN