261–270 of 300 posts
Yahoo management lacks vision. They had the most popular brand names in social media space, still couldn't innovate. 1. Messenger 2. Mail 3. Flickr 4. Tumblr
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is cleverer than people are giving them credit for. It delivers immediate value to shareholders; it delivers opportunities for long term growth to shareholders; it creates one valuable Asian property that can acquire other properties and continue to deliver shareholder value; it creates a US company that is easier to acquire than it used to be, without the Alibaba share, and thus could be bought by a big media c…
What core assets are those? Yahoo seems like Real Networks: a former big name that continues to exist (and get press) for no reason beyond inertia. It's not clear to me that it actually does anything worth paying for at this point.
> It's not clear to me that it actually does anything worth paying for at this point.
Few users of Google and Facebook actually "pay" for those services, they're primarily all advertising funded companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An outsider to Yahoo, not Silicon Valley. This feeds into point 2. She didn't make Yahoo a media company, it was already one when she got there. The smart part is meant as not gambling on a Carly Fiorina-type merger to "save" the company. Her deals were smaller and focused, and my contention is she didn't blindly throw capital around (at least in a way that makes headlines) to try to save the company. Value is decide…
What I consider her accomplishments, 1. Firefox deal 2. NFL Live on Yahoo! 3. negotiating out of the search agreement with MSFT is considered as accomplishment by some (not by me) If Ms.Mayer is able to sell Yahoo! assets to Google in a profitable way for shareholders, that would be a WIN, without it, her regime is a failure not a total failure, but a failure none the less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's so bad about it? The end result is the same as the original plan - one company with a stake in Alibaba, and another company with Yahoo's core businesses and the Yahoo Japan stake.
Maybe they rename Yahoo "Aabaco" and the spin-off, Yahoo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But (much like Reddit) the smaller communities were a lot more sane. And (much like Reddit) it was easy to create new communities - groups with memberships in the dozens or hundreds were infinitely better and actually useful for getting feedback and sharing your work with people who gave a damn.
So, the mass groups were pretty shit, but there is a thriving mass of smaller communities there that are quite pleasant and useful. (Again, much like Reddit!) - and competing services largely haven't cloned this or offered an alternative.
500px doesn't do small niche communities - there isn't really a concept of a "community" besides "the whole userbase", and as a result commentary on photos there is exactly like the big Flickr groups - all noise.
Smugmug targets specifically portfolio hosting and presentation, which it does very well, but it has minimal social components.
The only service - oddly enough - that seems to have attracted small photography communities is Google+. Weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I consider her accomplishments, 1. Firefox deal 2. NFL Live on Yahoo! 3. negotiating out of the search agreement with MSFT is considered as accomplishment by some (not by me) If Ms.Mayer is able to sell Yahoo! assets to Google in a profitable way for shareholders, that would be a WIN, without it, her regime is a failure not a total failure, but a failure none the less.
They could also try sell to private equity, or someone like John Malone & Liberty Media. I think even a separate capital stock of the core assets would force more value recognition than what shareholders are seeing now, even as a low priced issue. I'm not sure that Google would want anything here that they couldn't build themselves or don't already have the lead on, but if there's any interest, Yahoo should solicit t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What core assets are those? Yahoo seems like Real Networks: a former big name that continues to exist (and get press) for no reason beyond inertia. It's not clear to me that it actually does anything worth paying for at this point.
Just to list a few of the valuable properties off-hand: Homepage, Mail, Search, Tumblr, Flickr, Finance, News, Sports, Fantasy sports (including daily fantasy). Some of the bigger ones are billion+ dollar properties. Others are hundreds of millions. > It's not clear to me that it actually does anything worth paying for at this point. Few users of Google and Facebook actually "pay" for those services, they're primaril…
I didn't mean that users would pay for them; I meant that I don't see how one could use them to make money, or at least enough money that it would be worth bothering to acquire them.
Yahoo had to do this. They had been hanging onto the belief that the IRS wouldn't tax their Alibaba spin out, a belief that they and their tax accountants alone believed. Most telling is that Yahoo was up after the markets closed on this news. Heck Bloomberg just sent me a note saying the sentiment of the news on Yahoo was very positive, even the machines like this news:) Sadly this probably means 3 things are going…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an even older millennial (35)... cough Dude, give up the skinny jeans :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X "Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the Western Post–World War II baby boom. Demographers and commentators use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s."
I have variously seen the upper boundary for Gen X as 1976, 1979, and 1982. Having been born toward the end of 1980 and comparing myself to those born in 1970 and 1990 (squarely in the middle of their respective generations), I find myself having far more in common with the latter. Hence why I consider myself a millennial. But never will I give up the skinny jeans!
With that said, it's been my observation that people born within a few years of the line in each direction -- as far as '77 to '88 -- tend to share the same values and have characteristics of both Millenials and Xers (born in '84 here, and I'll gladly apply that description to myself). I've also seen people, particularly those in the S&H community, use the term "Generation Y" specifically to refer to this cusp and not to Millennials as a whole.
Gen-X stereotypes tend to be more true for people born '76 and earlier, and Millennial stereotypes tend to be more true for people born '89 and later.