I'm not sure I quite understand. The article puts Yahoo's Alibaba stake at 31bn. Google finance is reporting Yahoo's market cap as 32.75bn. Does this mean that Yahoo's non-Alibaba value is a rounding error?
"Yahoo's ... share price ... values the whole company at $33 billion. Now, Yahoo has a 15 percent shareholding in the Alibaba Group, worth around $34 billion, a shareholding in Yahoo Japan worth about $8 billion, plus almost $6 billion in cash. In other words, Yahoo has around $48 billion of obvious value, which is $15 billion more than the whole thing is worth."
http://www.zdnet.com/article/now-is-the-time-to-break-up-yah...
I wonder what will happen to their fantasy football product. It's wayyyy better than their competitors
It is odd that Yahoo's stake of the fantasy sports market constantly goes unmentioned while daily fantasy startups like Draft Kings is currently bathing in VC cash and media coverage.
You know, that is strange. Yahoo has a much much larger share of the traditional fantasy market, as well as a daily fantasy product. Not sure how the money aspect of it compares with FanDuel or DraftKings, but you would think they'd be able to leverage that in some way. Maybe a smaller spinoff company would be more likely to do something with that
I wonder what will happen to their fantasy football product. It's wayyyy better than their competitors
It is odd that Yahoo's stake of the fantasy sports market constantly goes unmentioned while daily fantasy startups like Draft Kings is currently bathing in VC cash and media coverage.
> daily fantasy startups like Draft Kings is currently bathing in VC cash and media coverage.
They're currently bathing in legal battles and will probably be out of business in very short order. It's a liability for Yahoo, not an asset to brag about.
Agree with the others re: our first experiences on the internet. But even now Yahoo is still hanging on to some valuable things we're likely to lose in this change. I'm still a heavy user of Flickr for example - and though many others have tried, it's still IMO the best photography community out there (sorry 500px). It's been a perennial money-loser for Yahoo, kept around because what self-respecting tech giant doesn…
I'll agree with flickr having a lot of good photography, but did they actually fix the community? When I used it, all I remember is that 90% of comments were sparkling banners saying "YOUR PHOTO HAS BEEN AWARTED BEST FLICKR OCEAN SUNSET AWARD MAY 2010! CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR GROUP! JOIN JOIN JOIN!" to the point where it interfered with anyone trying to have an actual conversation. Which was a shame because outside of…
I just tired of most of the community aspect of flickr aside from folks I already knew IRL. I found a lot of groupie-ism and, as you note, group stuff that was at least spam-ish. As with other things about flickr, I guess I'm not really sure what the "right" flickr looks like and how you achieve that at profitable scale. And, to be honest, I've never had a lot of interest in community photo meetings and so forth locally either.
Guessing we are either going to see major changes in pricing structure, or a shutdown of Flickr. Pretty bummed.
If you look at the landscape of "flickr-like" companies, it looks as if you can make a business out of it (Smugmug, 500px) but it's probably not a huge opportunity business given how many such efforts have been shuttered or allowed to largely languish over the past 15 years or so. The reality is that most people are just fine with uploading their camera phone pics to Facebook and be done with it. The number who are w…
Part of this may be related to the lack of direct monetization opportunities from Flickr. If you take the example of Instagram, the enormous number of users they have have created, "Instagram celebrities" out of thin air, with people securing modeling contracts or product endorsement deals simply by being popular on the network. I'm sure some photographers are getting business opportunities by posting their work as well, although that has a lot to do with how good they are at getting themselves exposure.
I can't speak for chollida1, but for me as an "older millennial" (28) Yahoo was how I came to discover the internet. Between the chats, instant messenger, search before Google, multiplayer games online with strangers (albeit simple ones like chess and poker), and Geocities it was my first taste of the types of things I do online to this day. I think it's okay to mourn a bit for how we remember the company.
As an even older millennial (35), I have very fond memories of Yahoo. I remember receiving a two-disk copy of Netscape Navigator from a local ISP at a computer show in early 1995 and setting the home-page immediately to Yahoo. At the time I remember seeing hard copies of "The Internet Yellow Pages" at the local Barnes and Noble, but most search was through Yahoo or Alta Vista. Back then AV had several fewer orders of…
Fwiw, stocks were all priced in 8ths. A few remain that way today. But the newspaper quotes are still a quaint memory regardless.
Paul Graham's What happened to Yahoo [0] is probably just as relevent now as when he wrote it in 2010. > One of the weirdest things about Yahoo when I went to work there was the way they insisted on calling themselves a "media company. That was a bad decision then, but at the time content and media were newer on the internet and had value. They don't anymore. Yahoo finance and fantasy sports are nice things to provid…
Wish I could find the article I read this in (googling around has failed me), but I believe around 2010 they also started bringing in execs and business people from Hollywood/MSM and there was a big clash of cultures.
Terry Semel himself was from Hollywood, and he took over in 2001.