Apple and Others Considering Bids for Yahoo? [Archive]

MacRumors

Feb 4, 2008, 01:14 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One reports lists (http://business.scotsman.com/business/Microsoft-to-face-rivals-in.3738732.jp) Apple amongst possible companies that are considering rival offers for Yahoo after Microsoft issued a public bid of $44.6 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/01/microsoft-makes-44-6-billion-bid-to-acquire-yahoo/) for the company last week. Part of the hesitation is reportedly Yahoo CEO, Jerry Yang, being reluctant to join Microsoft.
It is believed [Yang] would be particularly open to a rescue bid from Steve Jobs' Apple Corp, having openly expressed his admiration for the firm in the past. Yang last year invited Jobs to Yahoo's headquarters in Sunnyvale to give a motivational talk to staff.
While Apple does have $16 billion in the bank, representatives from other companies have already expressed reluctance (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04yahoo.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin) to place a bid for Yahoo against Microsoft, who could easily top their bids. Meanwhile, it appears Google has been playing an active role in trying to hinder this move. Google CEO Eric Schmidt personally phoned Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang to offer assistance in fending off a Microsoft acquisision.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/04/apple-and-others-considering-bids-for-yahoo/)

paddy

Feb 4, 2008, 01:15 PM

Anything would be preferential to microsoft i spose...

mmccaskill

Feb 4, 2008, 01:15 PM

No Apple. Please keep your $16 billion in the bank. Let Google settle this one.

elppa

Feb 4, 2008, 01:17 PM

This might be an attempt to force up the price MS will eventually have to pay.

I think the Yahoo/Apple cultures would work better together, as they have already collaborated. What it would mean for the Apple/Google special relationship is unclear.

cgc

Feb 4, 2008, 01:17 PM

Although I really like Yahoo, I wouldn't want Apple to buy them. I always thought Google and Apple would be the best match due to innovation, attention to details, etc.

AdeFowler

Feb 4, 2008, 01:18 PM

what a waste of money

nomar383

Feb 4, 2008, 01:19 PM

Eduardo1971

Feb 4, 2008, 01:19 PM

As someone with both a .mac subscription and paid subscription to Yahoo! email I too would welcome Yahoo! being bought by anyone else (well except to the Chinese company being mentioned in the article). I'm weary of Microsoft radically making Yahoo! less Apple friendly.

Avicdar

Feb 4, 2008, 01:20 PM

Apple deplete its cash reserves (and go into debt) to acquire Yahoo?

lol!

Small White Car

Feb 4, 2008, 01:20 PM

Ha...Yahoo would LIKE Apple to buy them instead of Microsoft.

This makes Apple a possible buyer?

I thought Apple had to actually care for them to be possible buyers.

Papajohn56

Feb 4, 2008, 01:20 PM

If google bought Yahoo there'd be antitrust lawyers going crazy

danielwsmithee

Feb 4, 2008, 01:22 PM

I don't think it would require Apple to purchase Yahoo it could just be a merger and Apple could keep a large portion of what they have in the Bank. Apple is worth about 3X what Yahoo is. Microsoft couldn't afford a takeover of both Apple and Yahoo. That being said I don't see what real advantage that would provide Apple other then keeping Microsoft from gaining a dominating position on the web. Google on the other hand will gain a lot from keeping MS from taking over Yahoo.

Small White Car

Feb 4, 2008, 01:23 PM

Google on the other hand will gain a lot from keeping MS from taking over Yahoo.

Why? Seems to me that watching their 2 biggest competitors f--- everything up and shoot themselves in the foot would be a really GOOD thing for Google!

MarlboroLite

Feb 4, 2008, 01:24 PM

NO!!!!!

Apple should not buy this for the same reasons that Microsoft should not buy it. A total waste of money on a dying brand that will never be able to take on Google. And what does Apple gain by going toe to toe against Google, a company that Apple cooperates with for some great stuff?

Google is not going down for a long time, and Yahoo doesn't have what it takes, no matter who is in change.

elgruga

Feb 4, 2008, 01:25 PM

I hope Microsoft do buy Yahoo.
They will ******* up Yahoo and their percent of the search business will drop.

Reality is that M$ should not be allowed to buy Yahoo - it makes the 'net less open and competitive.
Something tells me that this story is far from finished.

Apple will NOT buy Yahoo - there is no upside for them.

ppc_michael

Feb 4, 2008, 01:25 PM

crees!

Feb 4, 2008, 01:25 PM

You all know, Yahoo can say no.

riversky

Feb 4, 2008, 01:25 PM

Haha, I don't think Apple would want Yahoo because they are not in the search business.

But if they did buy Yahoo I would love to see them rebrand it .Mac!!!

nomar383

Feb 4, 2008, 01:27 PM

That being said I don't see what real advantage that would provide Apple other then keeping Microsoft from gaining a dominating position on the web.

What does Apple do Web-wise? I mean besides iWeb and .Mac? They don't have a search engine or anything and MS already owns most of the Computers running the any search engine anyways. Who cares if MS takes Yahoo? (minus the Yahoo users lol)

evilyankeefan

Feb 4, 2008, 01:27 PM

Please stay away Apple and let the dinosaurs have each other.

nomar383

Feb 4, 2008, 01:28 PM

You all know, Yahoo can say no.

I think "hostile" means they can't lol

Unspeaked

Feb 4, 2008, 01:28 PM

Haha, I don't think Apple would want Yahoo because they are not in the search business.

But if they did buy Yahoo I would love to see them rebrand it .Mac!!!

It would probably go the other way around. The Yahoo! brand is a lot more valuable than .Mac, which most non-Apple users have never heard of (and even a lot of Apple users haven't heard of!)...

Mac-Addict

Feb 4, 2008, 01:28 PM

gphoto

Feb 4, 2008, 01:28 PM

fivepoint

Feb 4, 2008, 01:30 PM

You all know, Yahoo can say no.

Not true. This is a move towards a hostile takeover. All microsoft (or whoever decides to buy) has to prove is that the stockholders of Yahoo! would be better off if it were purchased. Yahoo! and it's board may not have a choice.

This has happened many times in the past. Wikipedia it.

Jodeo

Feb 4, 2008, 01:31 PM

Think of all the companies that the Borg (M$) have assimilated.
How many times did Apple intervene?

Yahoo's the next victim, only this time I think it does more to hurt M$ than it hurts Yahoo.

And that's even if the acquisition is ever approved.

Let Yahoo! go. Let Apple focus on Machines, devicies and OSX.

Small White Car

Feb 4, 2008, 01:31 PM

Not true. This is a move towards a hostile takeover. All microsoft (or whoever decides to buy) has to prove is that the stockholders of Yahoo! would be better off if it were purchased. Yahoo! and it's board may not have a choice.

This has happened many times in the past. Wikipedia it.

And MS is offering roughly 160% of the current stock price. It's going to be hard for the average Yahoo stock-holder to look at that and say "yeah, I don't want a 60% gain overnight."

I don't think Yahoo has much choice either.

FakeWozniak

Feb 4, 2008, 01:32 PM

This forum is a little biased, but I think it is safe to say that People Hate Microsoft. I am waiting to see a pie chart on CNN which says what percent of people hate Microsoft. In a way, it's similar to the lack of love for your electric company. People just don't like "utilities"! :)

I have used Yahoo! practically forever and always thought they were a little MS biased, but put up with it. Similar to FoxNews and CNN. I liked FoxNews better, but since you had to have WMV to watch video on Fox for the longest time, I just watch CNN with my Liberal filter set to high. I would drop my Yahoo! homepage and email in a blink if MS took control.

I really doubt that the SEC would ever let MS or Google purchase Yahoo! It would have to be third party folks like Apple or VZ or ATT or eek AOL :). Personally, I'd like to see Apple stay out of it because they have a great relationship with Google.

I fear this will be a milestone in the history of the Internet. I hope things are less "giant company owned" in the future!

From a schadenfreud (sp?) standpoint, it would be interesting to see how quick MS can reduce an iconic 14,000 person company to insignificance... :(

danielwsmithee

Feb 4, 2008, 01:33 PM

What does Apple do Web-wise? I mean besides iWeb and .Mac? They don't have a search engine or anything and MS already owns most of the Computers running the any search engine anyways. Who cares if MS takes Yahoo? (minus the Yahoo users lol)The only concern with MS gaining a dominating position on the web is that after they do you absolutely know that more and more websites will only work when they are viewed from Vista PCs. More competition on the web means a more open computer industry. Apple & Google both prefer that MS not acquire YHOO, Google because they are direct competitors and Apple only benefits indirectly. As is both YHOO and MS are dying on the web.

MacTheSpoon

Feb 4, 2008, 01:35 PM

Man, this has got to make Microsoft even more hated in the Valley than ever, if that were possible.

I don't know if an Apple merger makes sense... what would they do, fold Yahoo into .Mac?

If Yahoo and Apple did merge they would have to work out a way for Yahoo to integrate without become competitors to Google. I don't know how that's possible.

What a bummer the whole thing is...

twoodcc

Feb 4, 2008, 01:35 PM

No Apple. Please keep your $16 billion in the bank. Let Google settle this one.

might be the right choice for this. looking forward to finding out what's going to happen though

surferfromuk

Feb 4, 2008, 01:37 PM

Apple would be better offering an 'open invitation' to yahoo employee's to apply 'en-mass' for newly created Internet engineering division for anyone in Yahoo who wants to leave.

Rather than spend $44.4 billion they could spend a quarter of that over the next few years by creating a dedicated 'Internet R&D' division within Apple and let 500 of the best Yahoo engineer's and teams work their magic on some new Apple centric internet technologies.

Google can mop up the rest - Let's see what kind of 'hot property' Microsoft acquires when 70% of it's best talent simply 'walks' to the open arms of Apple and Google..

There is nothing fundamentally about Yahoo that Apple could not re-create in a year with a ton of talented engineers.

BUT there are certainly a ton of companies Apple would be better buying before Yahoo.

whatever

Feb 4, 2008, 01:37 PM

At the rate that Google's stock is dropping (in three months going from $742.00 down to under $496.00) maybe MS should wait a few months and buy them instead.

PlaceofDis

Feb 4, 2008, 01:39 PM

this is to just dissuade microsoft. nothing more than rumors.

m4rc

Feb 4, 2008, 01:39 PM

If google bought Yahoo there'd be antitrust lawyers going crazy

There is no indication that Google want to buy Yahoo, mainly because it would never be allowed but also it isn't worth buying. Instead the talks are about collaboration, putting their heads together and sharing technologies with, I would guess, both doing what they are best at. Yahoo has a lot of skills but has just been left behind and often tries to do too much, with Google handling the search and taking a few other elements off their hands Yahoo could concentrate on its strengths.

I personally doubt Apple have any interest in Yahoo, I can't see what it would add to the business, the markets are not really compatible and if Apple really wanted any of the elements of the business (other than search) it could probably go into them with relative ease.

I think this is a non-story, mainly designed to make MS increase their offer, I really doubt Apple even considered a purchase for more than a few seconds.

elppa

Feb 4, 2008, 01:39 PM

It would be great to have Flickr built into OS X but i just dont think its a thing Apple would do. Not forgetting Google Maps and Youtube are on the iPhone/iPod Touch so it seems Apple already has relationships with Google.

Flickr on Apple TV. Yahoo Mail on iPhone. Yahoo search of Safari (for Windows). Apple works with both companies. Jerry Yang helped launch the iPhone.

MacSamurai

Feb 4, 2008, 01:39 PM

At the rate that Google's stock is dropping (in three months going from $742.00 down to under $496.00) maybe MS should wait a few months and buy them instead.

LOL that would be kind of wierd seing as google's ceo is on apple's board of directors

MacTO

Feb 4, 2008, 01:41 PM

What use could Yahoo! possibly be to Apple if it were ever acquired? :confused:

I mean, Apple is doing fantastic already, so...?

Cheers! :apple:

FakeWozniak

Feb 4, 2008, 01:41 PM

At the rate that Google's stock is dropping (in three months going from $742.00 down to under $496.00) maybe MS should wait a few months and buy them instead.

Love the thought! Is that even POSSIBLE?

DTphonehome

Feb 4, 2008, 01:43 PM

No, no, no, no, a million times no. MS is buying YHOO because they are losing in the online advertising race to GOOG, not because YHOO has any magical intellectual property MS wants. AAPL is not in the online ad biz, and has absolutely NO reason to get into it.

supremedesigner

Feb 4, 2008, 01:43 PM

I honestly don't care about Yahoo or Microsoft. I only care about Yahoo online game: Chess :D Whoever buy Yahoo - I hope they don't shut down the chess game.

Otherwise, google will need to make chess game so I can play online!!! where is the google's games??? :eek:

supremedesigner

Feb 4, 2008, 01:44 PM

I hope that GOOG and APPL will buy YHOO together and that will blow MSFT away :D;):rolleyes:

yellow

Feb 4, 2008, 01:45 PM

It seems to me that Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo so it's craptacular search engine tech and online free email junk won't fall further and further behind. If they bought Yahoo, boom, there they are on the tail of Google again.

IMO, Microsoft (the corp, not a particular person) suffers badly from neighbor envy.

FakeWozniak

Feb 4, 2008, 01:47 PM

What use could Yahoo! possibly be to Apple if it were ever acquired? :confused:

Cheers! :apple:

It is perfectly reasonable to think that Apple could expand is innovation into a web portal. Think of .Mac, but with tighter integration to OS X and the iPhone. I can imagine some slick features. Apple could simplify a whole lot of aspects of my life taking on a bigger Internet presence...

Remember, there were MP3 players before the iPod! :D

It's possible Apple has considered this, but as another person already mentioned, the cost to hire away Yahoo! employees and create a new division is much cheaper.

If Apple were to do it and upset Google, they better hurry up and find an alternative for YouTube and Maps on the iPhone!

grumpy

Feb 4, 2008, 01:48 PM

Also the loss of Zimbra as a growing Exchange competitor, and other properties removed from the landscape.

Though, I'm sure Zimbra engineers could get jobs at GOOG or APPL.

ebouwman

Feb 4, 2008, 01:52 PM

Apple deplete its cash reserves (and go into debt) to acquire Yahoo?

lol!

Well to be fair usually having a cash reserve isn't that great for a company. Basically the way lots of people or investors see it is that if you spend money, you make money. Basically all that money is sitting in the bank collecting dust when it should be being spent trying to make more money.

While i agree that Apple shouldn't buy Yahoo (that would be a disaster) i really think they should put that money to some use. Even if it's just some promotion or charity, at least then they gain some more exposure.

ebouwman

Feb 4, 2008, 01:54 PM

actually i'd like to see MSFT buy yahoo and f up their company even more (this is of course coming from someone who has never used or cared about yahoo though)

surferfromuk

Feb 4, 2008, 01:55 PM

It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens ;

One thing's for sure it re-enforces the pact between Apple and Google and the MS-YAHOO merger sets a precedent for a search engine/OS-TECH company tie up.

If it's successful I genuinely seriously wonder for the first time how long it will be before Apple and Google join forces and merge.

Mitch1984

Feb 4, 2008, 01:55 PM

Google deserve their success, if Microsoft tie up with Yahoo, their success will be down to forcing IE users to search via a Yahoo toolbar.
80% of the internet use Internet Explorer.

(P.S I use Safari)

DTphonehome

Feb 4, 2008, 01:56 PM

It is perfectly reasonable to think that Apple could expand is innovation into a web portal. Think of .Mac, but with tighter integration to OS X and the iPhone. I can imagine some slick features. Apple could simplify a whole lot of aspects of my life taking on a bigger Internet presence...

Remember, there were MP3 players before the iPod! :D

It's possible Apple has considered this, but as another person already mentioned, the cost to hire away Yahoo! employees and create a new division is much cheaper.

If Apple were to do it and upset Google, they better hurry up and find an alternative for YouTube and Maps on the iPhone!

AAPL would be foolish to compete with GOOG. They have a great working relationship, and GOOG OWNS internet services (and there's really no alternative to YouTube). AAPL can currently enjoy the fruits of GOOG's labor with a good relationship, or they can try it themselves for billions of $, huge efforts of manpower, and probably come up with a product not as good as GOOG's. So why would they even bother trying? Let AAPL stick to what it knows, and GOOG stick to what it knows. No need to step on each others' toes.

Google deserve their success, if Microsoft tie up with Yahoo, their success will be down to forcing IE users to search via a Yahoo toolbar.
80% of the internet use Internet Explorer.

That may be all they need to do to salvage their online ad biz. As IE vs Netscape demonstrated, all you have to do is make yours the default service, and it'll win by sheer volume.

iSee

Feb 4, 2008, 02:00 PM

I just can't think of any reason Apple would want to buy a slumping Yahoo. So far, Apple seems to have no interest in the web advertising market.

Why would they start with Yahoo?

darwen

Feb 4, 2008, 02:00 PM

THAT IS AWESOME!

Google wants to help fend off Microsoft!?!? Could you imagine if google just gave Yahoo money to support themselves? It is like promoting the competition.

Of course, Google has incentives to not let Microsoft partner with a search engine. 90-95% of all computers suddenly use Yahoo as a default search? Thats not good for Google.

It would be very cool if Google helped out Apple and Apple got its own search engine. Yay for ad revenue! I might actually start using Yahoo! Dont know how it would really help them but with a push for mobility it couldn't hurt to have an engine at their disposal.

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2008, 02:00 PM

It would probably go the other way around. The Yahoo! brand is a lot more valuable than .Mac, which most non-Apple users have never heard of (and even a lot of Apple users haven't heard of!)...

Microsoft's bid for Yahoo is supposed to be $44 billion. To put this into perspective, that is the revenue that Apple would make from selling 110 million iPhones. For $44 billion, Apple can give a free Mac Pro to every Mac user. Or buy the complete music recording industry. Why would they want to spend that money on Yahoo?

CWallace

Feb 4, 2008, 02:00 PM

I'd rather see Apple use the money (not just their cash, but the stock and debt they'd have to issue to match, much less beat, Microsoft's offer) on new products and enhancements to existing products.

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2008, 02:03 PM

Of course, google has incentives to not let Microsoft partner with a search engine. 90-95% of all computers suddenly use yahoo as a default search? Thats not good for Google.

90-95% of all computers in Europe would be forced to run Linux because the EU would come down on Microsoft so hard. :p

There is no way that Microsoft ships a single copy of Windows with a Microsoft-owned Yahoo search engine set as default.

tgildred

Feb 4, 2008, 02:06 PM

Apple and Google should join forces, buy out Yahoo, and call the resulting conglomeration Aplyahoogle.

timmillwood

Feb 4, 2008, 02:07 PM

I really hope Apply buy Yahoo! then Google, then Adobe.

The the world! ha ha ha!

DTphonehome

Feb 4, 2008, 02:11 PM

Of course, Google has incentives to not let Microsoft partner with a search engine. 90-95% of all computers suddenly use Yahoo as a default search? Thats not good for Google.

It's only indirectly about the search-engine business. While it does drive online advertising, it is the actual advertising contracts MS wants. GOOG currently controls ~40% of the online ad biz. MS has ~15%, and YHOO ~25% (numbers from Friday's NY Times, roughly). A merged MS-YHOO will give them about as much of a share as GOOG, and make them a viable competitor. People will still go to Google, because it's the default search engine in most peoples' minds. But MS will earn a lot more money from their ad biz than they do now.

slu

Feb 4, 2008, 02:15 PM

nien0029

Feb 4, 2008, 02:17 PM

I'm sure Yang wants to be courted by Apple rather than MSFT, but it will never happen. Nathalie Thomas wrote a ridiculous article and should be fired by the editors. Period.

numbsafari

Feb 4, 2008, 02:23 PM

Let Yahoo! go. Let Apple focus on Machines, devicies and OSX.

The network IS the computer... and Apple's net strategy is kinda limp.

Belly-laughs

Feb 4, 2008, 02:27 PM

Like other's have said, this is all rumor to raise the price for MS.

That being said, Apple will never buy Yahoo for one reason: Apple is a hardware company that produces software/services mainly to drive hardware sales. Acquiring Yahoo does nothing to add to this strategy.

I guess we´ve all forgot about good ´ol Sherlock. Not that it matters much.

MS´ strategy could also be to rattle the market, make it´s competitors do hasty and bad decisions. Or is destroying push-mail for the iPhone that important?

:/

numbsafari

Feb 4, 2008, 02:29 PM

Also the loss of Zimbra as a growing Exchange competitor, and other properties removed from the landscape.

Though, I'm sure Zimbra engineers could get jobs at GOOG or APPL.

Zimbra competes with Google Apps... so I have a hard time seeing that... I could possibly see APPL taking the Zimbra piece from MS as part of a spin off to make anti-trust concerns go away... but I don't know that APPL wants to get into the server application market... so far their offerings are kinda paltry...

Was Jobs quoted as telling an employee that if he's interested in the enterprise market he should find a job at another company?

I'd say MS buying Yahoo would suck for Zimbra employees and customers.

numbsafari

Feb 4, 2008, 02:30 PM

90-95% of all computers in Europe would be forced to run Linux because the EU would come down on Microsoft so hard. :p

There is no way that Microsoft ships a single copy of Windows with a Microsoft-owned Yahoo search engine set as default.

Why not? MSN Search is already the default... what's the difference?

numbsafari

Feb 4, 2008, 02:31 PM

I really hope Apply buy Yahoo! then Google, then Adobe.

The the world! ha ha ha!

How about Apple merge with Adobe and get it over with?

Silentwave

Feb 4, 2008, 02:32 PM

For $44 billion, Apple can give a free Mac Pro to every Mac user. Or buy the complete music recording industry. Why would they want to spend that money on Yahoo?

I think you've got a pretty good point here :D
Buy the music recording industry! DRM free music for 50 cents!

kitki83

Feb 4, 2008, 02:43 PM

I feel that Yahoo still has strong roots. Let me remind you that Yahoo was the Google of the 90s and as Yahoo, Google can become what is of the company.

Anyway I think Microsoft taking over Yahoo is pointless it will only give them 25% of the web market. Which is nothing compared to Google. But Yahoo has lots of investments, as in Flckr, and other Web Ad Agencies. Just because Yahoo is doing bad doesn't mean its going to sell, it can totally recover selling an investment.

Although partnering Yahoo and Apple will be good, like Google and AOL now partnered up.

Ryanr14

Feb 4, 2008, 02:53 PM

That's really funny. "For sure"

I agree! I don't think Apple has any interest in Yahoo!
Don't do it

megfilmworks

Feb 4, 2008, 02:55 PM

No Apple. Please keep your $16 billion in the bank. Let Google settle this one.

I couldn't agree more!!

Ryanr14

Feb 4, 2008, 02:55 PM

Apple and Google should join forces, buy out Yahoo, and call the resulting conglomeration Aplyahoogle.

I agree, just for the combined names of the three companies. This will be an interesting turnout

Shervin

Feb 4, 2008, 02:57 PM

Apple should just leave them alone...

I do have an email from yahoo and i pay £12 a year for it and totally happy but right now YAHOO is not a big deal for Apple at all...

Google can buy Yahoo! they can kinda merge and big up the internet industry!

and finally if MS buys YAHOO, they will mess up and share market will not be happy!!!

kingtj

Feb 4, 2008, 03:01 PM

Microsoft doesn't even have enough cash to complete this merger at the offered price. They offered 50% stock and 50% cash in this deal, which actually poses a problem for MS because their stock dropped in the last few days of trading. (So they're offering Yahoo a deal worth less money than it was when the idea first came up.)

This seems to be all about Steve Balmer believing MS would benefit from all the ad revenue Yahoo generates (over $5 billion a year compared to MSN's $1.2 billion or so).

The thing is, I doubt MS could leave Yahoo's assets alone after a takeover. They'd have an immediate conflict of interest in several key areas (EG. They'd own both Hotmail and Yahoo email services, requiring some sort of migration to get everyone under one "roof".) It's far from a guarantee that Yahoo's current yearly ad revenue would stay in the same place after MS takes them over.

Most likely, Yahoo stockholders won't see the benefit to MS doing this takeover, nor will most MS stockholders. So this won't go through. MS will have to up the ante to be successful, and right now - they can't really afford to do it (their stock is too depressed right now).

Microsoft just seems to have money to burn. I feel like there was a board meeting and someone was like "Hey, we should try and do a hostile takeover of something this week." And someone else was like "For sure." Then they took out a newspaper and threw a dart at the stock page landing on YHOO. "Done deal, take her down." lol

Popeye206

Feb 4, 2008, 03:02 PM

I really hope Apple is not this silly to buy Yahoo... it's not their cup or tea and would definitely defocus them from the great things they are already doing. Let MS do that to themselves!

SkippyThorson

Feb 4, 2008, 03:03 PM

Apple + Google > Apple + Yahoo > Microsoft + Yahoo

I think Google would be a much better choice in terms of a partnership. Of course could Apple realistically bid, buy, and then sell to Microsoft at a higher price? I don't see why not - but anything of the sort would hurt any chances of them with Google.

asdavis10

Feb 4, 2008, 03:04 PM

Apple doesn't need Yahoo!. Acquiring Yahoo! wouldn't make Apple that much better. It would differentiate them even more than other computer manufacturers but its not what Apple needs. They make quality hardware, develop the best OS, and have industry leading support services. They don't have enough money to buy Yahoo! unless Yahoo! takes a lot less money just to spite Microsoft. I think Microsoft will eventually buy them out and then everyone that uses Yahoo! mail can anxiously wait to having those accounts converted to Windows Live mail accounts.

DTphonehome

Feb 4, 2008, 03:05 PM

Microsoft doesn't even have enough cash to complete this merger at the offered price. They offered 50% stock and 50% cash in this deal, which actually poses a problem for MS because their stock dropped in the last few days of trading. (So they're offering Yahoo a deal worth less money than it was when the idea first came up.)

This seems to be all about Steve Balmer believing MS would benefit from all the ad revenue Yahoo generates (over $5 billion a year compared to MSN's $1.2 billion or so).

The thing is, I doubt MS could leave Yahoo's assets alone after a takeover. They'd have an immediate conflict of interest in several key areas (EG. They'd own both Hotmail and Yahoo email services, requiring some sort of migration to get everyone under one "roof".) It's far from a guarantee that Yahoo's current yearly ad revenue would stay in the same place after MS takes them over.

Most likely, Yahoo stockholders won't see the benefit to MS doing this takeover, nor will most MS stockholders. So this won't go through. MS will have to up the ante to be successful, and right now - they can't really afford to do it (their stock is too depressed right now).

I agree with most of what you said, but not the last point. YHOO shareholders may not like the idea of MS running the show, but they will LOVE the idea of a 60% premium on their stock price, and will HATE the idea of losing it in a flash if the deal is voted down. The few shareholder who have genuine loyalty to the brand probably don't have enough power to prevent a "yes" vote.

Much Ado

Feb 4, 2008, 03:07 PM

Why would Apple buy Yahoo when they can let MS buy it and proceed to crumble?

jne381

Feb 4, 2008, 03:12 PM

I call BS on this story. There is no reason Apple would jeopardize its good relations with Google in order TRY save a failing Yahoo, and possibly be taken down by it.

I think it is a mistake for Microsoft as well, but Microsoft may be able to use some of their vast resources to make a go of it.

Virgil-TB2

Feb 4, 2008, 03:13 PM

It is perfectly reasonable to think that Apple could expand is innovation into a web portal. Think of .Mac, but with tighter integration to OS X and the iPhone. ... I don't think you are thinking straight here. Or perhaps you have never used .Mac?

Yahoo offers absolutely nothing that Apple wants, need, or doesn't already have in the .Mac service. How much "tighter integration" to OS-X can there be? .Mac already has it's own preference panel, is central to some of the Mac's basic services, integrates tightly with all the iLife applications and some of the iWork ones as well.

This whole thread is a waste of time if you think about it even for a second. One of the primary rules of acquisitions is that you don't buy a company unless it has something you need. Buying Yahoo just to "stop Microsoft" would be foolhardy in the extreme and the board would reject it (and possibly fire whomever suggested it.)

This is just Yahoo simultaneously pumping up the price and desperately seeking anyone but Microsoft to buy them.

At the very least, if Apple decided it *did* want something that Yahoo had that they did not (online advertising clout?, Yahoo Maps?), they would have to pare off all the duplicate services and thus gut or throw away three quarters (or more), of Yahoo. I can't see this as anything but dumb.

Data

Feb 4, 2008, 03:13 PM

I see no reason why apple would want this, nor should want this, there are much better things to spend that kind of money on, like R & D for future products .

GFLPraxis

Feb 4, 2008, 03:13 PM

There is no way that Microsoft ships a single copy of Windows with a Microsoft-owned Yahoo search engine set as default.

And yet, they ship every copy of Windows with a Microsoft-owned MSN search engine as default...

seashellz2

Feb 4, 2008, 03:14 PM

GOOGLE has a ....'classier' and feel and template to it than.....
YAHOO-i mean-
I get a mental image of 'Ma get the fritters a'cookin while me and Jethro and pappy go brew us up a batch of corn whisky...'

dmelgar

Feb 4, 2008, 03:15 PM

Doesn't seem like that impossible an idea.

Steve Jobs like integration. Thats one of the reasons why Apple products are successful. Apple writes the software and makes the hardware. They already extended into content business with iTunes. Why not extend Apple onto the web itself. Replace .Mac with Yahoo for Mac.

Remember Google is talking to Yahoo about how to fend off an attack. One approach might be to break Yahoo up into pieces. Apple could buy or get into an agreement with one of the pieces. Search is a dead business. Google has it covered. But what about online email, IM?

whatever

Feb 4, 2008, 03:18 PM

Love the thought! Is that even POSSIBLE?

I think it would be actually. Unlike companies like Apple and MS, most of Google's value is tied to it's stock. I'm not positive of this, but many of their services are free and the Internet Ad business, although very lucrative, is not making Google billions of dollars a year. So a lot of their value maybe on paper only. With over three times the net revenue of Google, MS could buy them.

jouster

Feb 4, 2008, 03:25 PM

I think it would be actually. Unlike companies like Apple and MS, most of Google's value is tied to it's stock. I'm not positive of this, but many of their services are free and the Internet Ad business, although very lucrative, is not making Google billions of dollars a year....

Google's revenue last year was a shade under $12bn.

While their market cap may be a little skewed compared to revenues, they most certainly do generate billions of dollars per year.

BlakTornado

Feb 4, 2008, 03:26 PM

I'm weary of Microsoft radically making Yahoo! less Apple friendly.

I'm wearing of Microsoft making Yahoo! more like Microsoft :P

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 03:28 PM

Apple would be better offering an 'open invitation' to yahoo employee's to apply 'en-mass' for newly created Internet engineering division for anyone in Yahoo who wants to leave.

This is very important. Conventional wisdom holds that what Microsoft is buying is 100% user-eyeballs and habits. The engineers at Yahoo, what few good ones are left, will leave for greener pastures. There's absolutely no sense in being stuck on a likely-sinking ship, even if you are optimistic that five years from now they might be able to pull it out. MS will kill Yahoo culture, and it will take at least five years for a new culture to take hold and the level of innovation regain its previous levels.

As a counter to that, though, I offer this: I've been seeing a lot of really good candidates coming in the door looking for a new job, who are leaving Yahoo because they're sick of the place. That seemed to peak last fall, and has descended to a slow trickle in the last month or so. From speaking with the guys leaving Yahoo, almost all of the "real" talent has already left the ship. And, yes, a lot of them apparently went to Apple or Google. Go figure.

Which is important as a counter because what is left there are the folks who have a high tendency towards "hunkering down" and riding out storms, even when they appear interminable.

All that being said, there are a few bright stars in the user-community bits of Yahoo, most notably Flickr. The community there has only fairly recently recovered from the Yahoo buy-out. I'm not sure how it will fare once Microsoft gets its grubby hands on it. For my pictures, I'm moving to Google's Picassa site instead. I just hope Apple TV "Take 3" will allow streaming from that site instead of deep inside the Borg mother ship!

For those wondering is Microsoft-ownership is really that bad, take the poster child of "successful" Microsoft integration: hotmail. Even setting aside the years of turmoil and strife and looking at it today, it is an abomination of a service. The editor sucks. The interface has more bugs than features. It doesn't play well with local mail clients (without upgrading to "Windows Live Mail Plus!" ... what is Microsoft's fascination with "Plus" and the exclamation point?) My wife needed to send an email out to a large group of people (she volunteers in the local girls' softball league and needed to email all the parents in one division); Hotmail wouldn't do more than a handful of addresses at a time (requiring eight separate emails to be sent out), and also wouldn't allow a particular email to be resent (the "back" button, for instance, clears out the composed email), so she ended up composing the email twice (the second time in a separate application so she could just paste it into the Hotmail window the next seven times). So, we moved her over to a GMail account, in the hopes of using the "forwarding" feature of Hotmail (which is right there under "Options") to send all the replies that way instead. Except, oops, "forwarding" only allows you to forward to now-defunct Microsoft-operated mail domains (hotmail.com, msn.com, live.com)! How useless!

Anyway, I for one am not hoping for Apple to swoop in here on a white horse. The real assets have already left the building, or will leave the building once the mother ship descends (meaning, six months afterwards, as there are likely to be retention bonuses for anyone willing to stick it out 6 months). It is possible that the useful bits will end up being jettisoned out in any case (I've read a few times opinions stating that Flickr would get sold off or spun out). The current stock is already overvalued, and Microsoft's preemptive hostile bid has sent it soaring far beyond any conceivably rationalizable value. Apple jumping in now would be a waste of their money.

Sorry, Yahoo. The company has been sorely mismanaged over the past several years, and I am afraid it is terminal. No sense throwing good money down after bad.

eRondeau

Feb 4, 2008, 03:32 PM

Apple would be stupid to acquire Yahoo. In 2008 Yahoo is all but irrelevant. I can't think of one thing Yahoo does, that isn't being done much better by somebody else. Apple has done so many things right up until now, it would be a real shame to see them throw it all away on a 90's-era search engine. Stay the course, Steve. Keep producing the best hardware coupled with the best software and eventually you'll kick Microsoft in the a$$. :apple:

jezrourke

Feb 4, 2008, 03:32 PM

Actually, I think it's a smart move for Microsoft, a company I detest for their complete lack of innovation in the computer industry and technology. If the world really relied on Microsoft (as some believe), we'd be using DOS still today. The only way Microsoft can stay relevent into the future is to acquire a company that will always be relevent and innovative. Thus, the takeover of Yahoo. Nobody else really needs Yahoo. Apple certainly doesn't need Yahoo to stay relevent, Apple creates innovations. Since Microsoft apparently is unable to do so it is smart on their part to acquire something that will enable them to. Yahoo will always be relevent and it's a safe smart choice. Very Microsoft-like choice. Let's hope they buy it turn it into garbage like everything else they touch and leave Google and Apple alone. It's weird too... Microsoft hasn't stolen anything from Apple in a long time. They may not be losing ground in terms of cash, but they most definitely are not thought of by ANYONE to be innovative or relevent anymore. In 5 years they could be completely irrelevent at the speed technology moves.

Unspeaked

Feb 4, 2008, 03:33 PM

Microsoft's bid for Yahoo is supposed to be $44 billion. To put this into perspective, that is the revenue that Apple would make from selling 110 million iPhones. For $44 billion, Apple can give a free Mac Pro to every Mac user. Or buy the complete music recording industry. Why would they want to spend that money on Yahoo?

Um, I'm not sure if you were directing this to someone else, but I never said anything along the lines of "Apple should buy Yahoo!"...

whatever

Feb 4, 2008, 03:33 PM

Google's revenue last year was a shade under $12bn.

While their market cap may be a little skewed compared to revenues, they most certainly do generate billions of dollars per year.

There net income was around 4.2 billion, compared to MS which were around 14.02 billion.

x86isslow

Feb 4, 2008, 03:33 PM

Please stay away Apple and let the dinosaurs have each other.

That's a strange way of thinking about it, considering 's older than MS, Y! and Google.

Apple would be better offering an 'open invitation' to yahoo employee's to apply 'en-mass' for newly created Internet engineering division for anyone in Yahoo who wants to leave.

Rather than spend $44.4 billion they could spend a quarter of that over the next few years by creating a dedicated 'Internet R&D' division within Apple and let 500 of the best Yahoo engineer's and teams work their magic on some new Apple centric internet technologies.

That'd be amazing. MS shareholders would demand Ballmer's head.

billystlyes

Feb 4, 2008, 03:37 PM

This article is bogus. Apple doesn't have close to the money to outbid Microsoft for Yahoo. Dream on guys, it's business 101!

MacTO

Feb 4, 2008, 03:47 PM

It is perfectly reasonable to think that Apple could expand is innovation into a web portal. Think of .Mac, but with tighter integration to OS X and the iPhone. I can imagine some slick features. Apple could simplify a whole lot of aspects of my life taking on a bigger Internet presence...

Remember, there were MP3 players before the iPod! :D

It's possible Apple has considered this, but as another person already mentioned, the cost to hire away Yahoo! employees and create a new division is much cheaper.

If Apple were to do it and upset Google, they better hurry up and find an alternative for YouTube and Maps on the iPhone!

I get that. However...

AAPL would be foolish to compete with GOOG. They have a great working relationship, and GOOG OWNS internet services (and there's really no alternative to YouTube). AAPL can currently enjoy the fruits of GOOG's labor with a good relationship, or they can try it themselves for billions of $, huge efforts of manpower, and probably come up with a product not as good as GOOG's. So why would they even bother trying? Let AAPL stick to what it knows, and GOOG stick to what it knows. No need to step on each others' toes.

Exactly. I am sure that Steve Jobs and people at Apple have thought of jumping into it more than we can imagine. However, when the working relationship with others, such as Google for one with iPhone, pays off both ways, why would we think that Steve Jobs wants to throw the balance...? Even though .Mac is not as appealing as they hope, I am sure, if they knew how, they would've acted more aggressively. But who knows? They might in the near future. That's my 2 cents. :cool:

Cheers! :apple:

GlossyIsBad4U

Feb 4, 2008, 03:48 PM

Agree, Apple doesn't have the cash to buy Yahoo.

In fact if Apple designed a portal/yahoo like service it would immediately be the best online and cost a fraction of it would be to buy Yahoo.

Plus Safari web browser and games would work correctly on a Mac for a change.

X38

Feb 4, 2008, 04:01 PM

If Apple wants to spend their $16B on a high profile aquisition, wouldn't it make more sense for them to buy Adobe?

ktlx

Feb 4, 2008, 04:06 PM

Unlike companies like Apple and MS, most of Google's value is tied to it's stock. I'm not positive of this, but many of their services are free and the Internet Ad business, although very lucrative, is not making Google billions of dollars a year. So a lot of their value maybe on paper only.
No. Google's advertising business is a cash machine. For FY 2007, they net'ed $4.2B on $16.6B in sales with $14.2B in cash on hand. Those are B's as in billions.

sterlingindigo

Feb 4, 2008, 04:12 PM

Apple would be better offering an 'open invitation' to yahoo employee's to apply 'en-mass' for newly created Internet engineering division for anyone in Yahoo who wants to leave.

Rather than spend $44.4 billion they could spend a quarter of that over the next few years by creating a dedicated 'Internet R&D' division within Apple and let 500 of the best Yahoo engineer's and teams work their magic on some new Apple centric internet technologies.

Google can mop up the rest - Let's see what kind of 'hot property' Microsoft acquires when 70% of it's best talent simply 'walks' to the open arms of Apple and Google..

There is nothing fundamentally about Yahoo that Apple could not re-create in a year with a ton of talented engineers.

BUT there are certainly a ton of companies Apple would be better buying before Yahoo.

This is hilarious, I love it. Instead of fixing, start a new one ground up. Wonder about those non-compete clauses tho. If GOOG did this, it would be antitrust.

joemama

Feb 4, 2008, 04:17 PM

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 04:26 PM

This is hilarious, I love it. Instead of fixing, start a new one ground up. Wonder about those non-compete clauses tho. If GOOG did this, it would be antitrust.

Non-compete clauses are illegal in the state of California*. Not an issue.

BTW, what do you think happens to people with massive experience in an industry like, say, web services, who decide to leave their jobs? Are they supposed to move to Montana and get in on the ground floor of Alpaca raising?

[Edit: * There are exceptions, but they deal with substantial owners of privately-held companies and partnerships, not standard employees.]

ionos

Feb 4, 2008, 04:29 PM

I think 44B is a huge waste to pay for Yahoo. Do they even make any money? If Apple was even remotely thinking in this area, Google would be the only logical buy or partnership. If any.

Peace

Feb 4, 2008, 04:29 PM

APPL isn't going to buy Yahoo. Alone or with Rupert. Google can't buy them there would be way too many anti-trust questions.

what's going to happen is either NewsCorp will buy them or MS will.

I'm leaning toward NewsCorp because Rupert Murdoch is giving most of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Yahoo really has no choice since it's a public corporation. Any purchase/offer must go through the stockholders.

Apple and Google are too busy trying to buy up that 700Mhz auction. ;)

SeaFox

Feb 4, 2008, 04:30 PM

If Apple buys Yahoo, maybe .Mac mail would get a little more reliable. :p Apple would also get Flickr then.

Apple could also bid just to get Microsoft to bid more. Run up the price of Yahoo so Microsoft wastes more money on it. :D

NAG

Feb 4, 2008, 04:31 PM

hagjohn

Feb 4, 2008, 04:36 PM

hagjohn

Feb 4, 2008, 04:44 PM

FakeWozniak

Feb 4, 2008, 05:05 PM

I am sure that Steve Jobs and people at Apple have thought of jumping into it more than we can imagine. However, when the working relationship with others, such as Google for one with iPhone, pays off both ways, why would we think that Steve Jobs wants to throw the balance...? Even though .Mac is not as appealing as they hope, I am sure, if they knew how, they would've acted more aggressively. But who knows? They might in the near future. That's my 2 cents. :cool:

Cheers! :apple:

Three ideas keep me from dropping the dream...
1. You can't just say Google is the 800lb gorilla, so you can never challenge them. I remember when Yahoo! was that gorilla and Google came from nowhere.
2. Again, the MP3 player argument. Apple could make a better Yahoo! or Google IMHO.
3. Name brand recognition. Apple did it's own browser. It's taken about 5 years to get to 7% market share. Yet they still try. .Mac still virtually unknown to non-mac folks (I still can't iChat with anyone but Mac people :(). But if Apple bought a name, which is kinda new territory for them, well that changes everything.

And three ideas keep me from dreaming deeper...
1. Bad investment
2. Bad investment
3. Bad investment
The value in that name is high, but not $44B

So the simple question to ask yourself is, would iYahoo! sell more iMacs, iPhones, iPods, etc.?

JG271

Feb 4, 2008, 05:07 PM

jfull15

Feb 4, 2008, 05:20 PM

Although I really like Yahoo, I wouldn't want Apple to buy them. I always thought Google and Apple would be the best match due to innovation, attention to details, etc.

I definitely agree, and I don't think that Apple needs to go around buying other companies out, especially fully established ones such as Yahoo!. Apple when they buy out companies, tend to go for the more young, innovative organizations that can prove a benefit to their product line. Adding Yahoo! to Apple, is like throwing a monkey wrench in the situation. Apple doesn't need Yahoo, and Yahoo doesn't need Apple. If Microsoft want's to screw with Yahoo!, go ahead, but it just doesn't make sense for Apple to make a move like this. Since '97, they have been strictly dedicated on their specific product lines, and I hope they continue to do that, because it's really working for them. Yahoo! would be random, unless they're going to somehow make it to where it will improve .Mac or something like that, which I highly doubt. & Yahoo seems to be preferred by Windows users, and have strong relations with the Windows Community. Yeah, I doubt this will ever happen.

baby duck monge

Feb 4, 2008, 05:20 PM

Microsoft just seems to have money to burn. I feel like there was a board meeting and someone was like "Hey, we should try and do a hostile takeover of something this week." And someone else was like "For sure." Then they took out a newspaper and threw a dart at the stock page landing on YHOO. "Done deal, take her down." lol

Honestly, I think it's more like this than most people suspect, but Yahoo! is a legitimate target. Personally, I believe a lot of this is being done for (1) tax reasons and (2) because the dollar isn't performing as well as in the past. This is a great way to take some reserves out of cash while the market is low (so you get more for your weakened dollar). It also converts your cash into a capital asset, which has some huge potential benefits for a corporation (though not as much as it would have for an individual). This doesn't even take into account the other beneficial tax implications of such a buyout.

I can definitely see this being more of a tax adviser/accountant decision with a sensible target than a purely business decision.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 05:21 PM

Does google even have the money to take over yahoo? I read somewhere that google don't make as much money as yahoo (although still a lot), despite having such a large market share.

I don't think apple would really be interested in this, nor would they have enough money to do it on their own. Too large a step to take if they were to venture into the web-based market in a larger way. They would probably buy up smaller companies first, in my opinion.

No, google makes some $16 billion in advertising a year. Much more than Yahoo could say. However, for people to think Apple has $44.4 billion dollars in the bank to outbid Microsoft is a huge mistake. Microsoft, likely Apple's biggest competitor would NEVER let that happened. They got outbid on the bid for YouTube. They got outbid for Myspace. They won't get outbid this time. Especially considering how ridiculously much money is exchanging hands here. And we know no one has deeper pockets than Microsoft in this regard.

baby duck monge

Feb 4, 2008, 05:22 PM

I agree with most of what you said, but not the last point. YHOO shareholders may not like the idea of MS running the show, but they will LOVE the idea of a 60% premium on their stock price, and will HATE the idea of losing it in a flash if the deal is voted down. The few shareholder who have genuine loyalty to the brand probably don't have enough power to prevent a "yes" vote.

Well the really interesting thing is that after the offer was announced most of that premium disappeared. YHOO was up almost 50% after the announcement. Of course, if the deal goes away, so may the gain, but the premium is no longer anywhere near where it was initially.

MacsAttack

Feb 4, 2008, 05:25 PM

Haha, I don't think Apple would want Yahoo because they are not in the search business.

But if they did buy Yahoo I would love to see them rebrand it .Mac!!!

Think Apple would be better served spending a mere $1b on adding features to .Mac and promoting that...

Let MicroSoft have Yahoo! When the dust settles it isn't going to be chairs getting thrown out...

Virgil-TB2

Feb 4, 2008, 05:26 PM

No, google makes some $16 billion in advertising a year. Much more than Yahoo could say. However, for people to think Apple has $44.4 billion dollars in the bank to outbid Microsoft is a huge mistake. Microsoft, likely Apple's biggest competitor would NEVER let that happened. They got outbid on the bid for YouTube. They got outbid for Myspace. They won't get outbid this time. Especially considering how ridiculously much money is exchanging hands here. And we know no one has deeper pockets than Microsoft in this regard.True.

You what would be a hilarious outcome here though? If the price keeps going up and up and Microsoft has to partially bankrupt themselves to purchase it. Then, if it turns out (like many suppose), that the merger doesn't give them much of a boost over Google and Apple at all, this might be the biggest financial blunder in history.

It would be ironic and yet strangely fitting for Microsoft to end up destroying itself through the exact same corporate behaviour that they have kept themselves alive with all this time. :)

bluebomberman

Feb 4, 2008, 05:27 PM

I'm sure all the big players are contemplating a rescue of Yahoo! from the jaws of Microsoft, but I think it's as much an emotional reaction as anything else. Yahoo!, despite being a bit hapless, is coming off as the victim here while Microsoft looks incredibly evil, incredibly stupid, or both.

ezekielrage_99

Feb 4, 2008, 05:27 PM

I seriously doubt Apple would go down this line, I think the Yahoo! purchase on behalf of Microsoft has unnerved a few competitor (as it should).

I really think many companies are just testing the water and trying to see how deep the pockets of Microsoft really are before making an informed decision on what to do.

This is very similar in what just recently happened with the Rio Tinto buy in for BHP, BHP looked like the only possible player in the buy in however two days ago Alcoa beat BHP to the post in injecting some capital into to Rio Tinto.

IMHO the Yahoo! buyout war has just begun and there are plenty of big non-M$ companies out there who have very deep pockets and would love to get an organisation like Yahoo! into their portfolio. It really wouldn't surprise me if Newscorp make an offer.

anti-microsoft

Feb 4, 2008, 05:27 PM

GQB

Feb 4, 2008, 05:33 PM

Why are there positive ratings? The article with Microsoft buying Yahoo was all negatives, with everyone going "ew Yahoo" and now that Apple and Yahoo are mentioned in the same sentence, everyone's happy?

The whole ratings thing is goofy anyway.
What is 'postive' supposed to mean?
-the article made me feel warm and fuzzy?
-the article was accurate?
-the article taught me something?
-the article reinforced my preconceptions?

Not sure of the point, other than a wizzy feature for feature's sake.

FakeWozniak

Feb 4, 2008, 05:34 PM

I don't think you are thinking straight here. Or perhaps you have never used .Mac?

Yeah, you got me. The thought I didn't convey clearly was that if you took Yahoo! and made it more Mac OS X like, then it might be a nice web portal. I didn't mean to suggest that .Mac wasn't OS X focused as it obviously is.

deathshrub

Feb 4, 2008, 05:36 PM

Nobody wants yahoo, least of all Apple.

xheliosx

Feb 4, 2008, 05:39 PM

Yes, forty-someting billion, bid, microshaft..whatever, whatever. Wake me up when the new macbook pros come out.

GQB

Feb 4, 2008, 05:42 PM

Does google even have the money to take over yahoo? I read somewhere that google don't make as much money as yahoo (although still a lot), despite having such a large market share..

OK, I have to ask this, not as a picky grammar-police thing, but as a British vs American English thing.

I seem to have noticed recently a UK thing of considering company names as plural. In fact, now that I've noticed that, I seem to be seeing it everywhere in UK posts...
Why "Google don't" instead of "Google doesn't". Google is A company.

Just thought I'd ask. Really curious.
:)

MacTO

Feb 4, 2008, 05:43 PM

Three ideas keep me from dropping the dream...
1. You can't just say Google is the 800lb gorilla, so you can never challenge them. I remember when Yahoo! was that gorilla and Google came from nowhere.
2. Again, the MP3 player argument. Apple could make a better Yahoo! or Google IMHO.
3. Name brand recognition. Apple did it's own browser. It's taken about 5 years to get to 7% market share. Yet they still try. .Mac still virtually unknown to non-mac folks (I still can't iChat with anyone but Mac people :(). But if Apple bought a name, which is kinda new territory for them, well that changes everything.

And three ideas keep me from dreaming deeper...
1. Bad investment
2. Bad investment
3. Bad investment
The value in that name is high, but not $44B

So the simple question to ask yourself is, would iYahoo! sell more iMacs, iPhones, iPods, etc.?

First, I do not disagree with you on the first three ideas you mentioned.

Yes, I am sure that nobody expected back in 1999 that the day of Yahoo! being on the verge of being acquired by MS would've come to this day (Whoever could foresee any longer than 9 years). So, who knows what's going to happen to Google in another 8 or 9 years. Seriously.

Apple innovates itself over and over again, and I believe that's how it stands where it stands today. Yes, it sort of revolutionized how we purchase music nowadays, but as we all know, this isn't the only way for Apple to stay on top in terms of music (and hopefully movie rental and whatnot) business. How it will hold its market shares in the specific field as strong as it's been in the next few years is any body's guess, considering that fact that everybody is jumping on board on this DRM-Free MP3 music download.

The reason why .Mac isn't as successful as it should, IMHO, is that it is only limited to Mac, like you pointed out. Look at iTunes. Because it's allowed to be installed on PC as well, it is one of the popular tools for downloading music. Question is would Steve Jobs make .Mac available for everyone? I doubt it. At least not until, as we all hope, Mac is ubiquitous.

If I am not mistaken, based on one of those Steve Jobs interviews that I watched, he is not keen on attacking (or crushing) other companies in order to expand Apple's market shares. (Or at least that's how it appeared so.) His genuine ideas come from true innovation. Otherwise, I don't think he would stay on pay roll of $1 per year. (His shares in stock and whatnot is still just numbers on paper. Until he liquidates them all.) Of course, when such innovation is successful, revenues and profits will increase, and it'll make its shareholders and investors happy campers.

Once again, I do not disagree with you at all. I just think that Apple is a kind of company that looks for innovative ways to move forward. That's all.

Cheers! :apple:

P.S. I can't imagine, really, iYahoo! at all. :D

BWhaler

Feb 4, 2008, 05:52 PM

Nope.

Not Apple.

Newscorp thinks it's too rich.

Only ones considering it are equity dudes at firms like KKR, etc. But the debt market is too ugly.

Microsoft is going to get to buy Yahoo as long as the governments allow it.

And this is the end of Yahoo & Microsoft. It'll kill both companies.

So sad. Yahoo could really turn around with real leadership.

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2008, 05:54 PM

I seem to have noticed recently a UK thing of considering company names as plural. In fact, now that I've noticed that, I seem to be seeing it everywhere in UK posts...
Why "Google don't" instead of "Google doesn't". Google is A company. )

I've seen Americans use the singular for companies. How strange. Google is a company.

There are plenty of plural-only words in English. Like trousers, glasses, scales. And companies. Trousers have two legs. Glasses have two glasses. Scales used two have two scales. "Company" means among other things "a number of individuals gathered together, esp. for a particular purpose".

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 06:04 PM

First, I do not disagree with you on the first three ideas you mentioned.

Yes, I am sure that nobody expected back in 1999 that the day of Yahoo! being on the verge of being acquired by MS would've come to this day (Whoever could foresee any longer than 9 years). So, who knows what's going to happen to Google in another 8 or 9 years. Seriously.
Alot of people liken Google to the likes of Microsoft before they tech burst. They can't possibly maintain this rate of growth.

Apple innovates itself over and over again, and I believe that's how it stands where it stands today. Yes, it sort of revolutionized how we purchase music nowadays, but as we all know, this isn't the only way for Apple to stay on top in terms of music (and hopefully movie rental and whatnot) business. How it will hold its market shares in the specific field as strong as it's been in the next few years is any body's guess, considering that fact that everybody is jumping on board on this DRM-Free MP3 music download.
Now this is where I can't agree with you. While I would be the first one to congratulate Apple on it's iPod, thats really the only innovation we got out of Apple. In fact, I would contribute 100% of its success on that one product. Without it, Apple would not have 1/10th of the brand recognition (which in turn funded the Mac Business) without the iPod. Not to discredit Apple, but, its still riding that success. Now the iPhone, not so much. Yes, it has a fantastic interface, but in terms of the phone business, it went backwards. No Camera zoom? No picture/video messages? No 3G? The only advantage it offers is... The interface. Again, not to discredit Apple, but the iPhone was hardly as revolutionary as the try to make it out to be. The phone business is much more mature than the MP3 business was when the iPod came out. For consumers to think Apple can capitalize that fast on a mature business is stupid.

The reason why .Mac isn't as successful as it should, IMHO, is that it is only limited to Mac, like you pointed out. Look at iTunes. Because it's allowed to be installed on PC as well, it is one of the popular tools for downloading music. Question is would Steve Jobs make .Mac available for everyone? I doubt it. At least not until, as we all hope, Mac is ubiquitous.
100% truth. Now not to sound like a Microsoft fanboy, but Apple's success is largely dependent on its compatibility with Windows.

If I am not mistaken, based on one of those Steve Jobs interviews that I watched, he is not keen on attacking (or crushing) other companies in order to expand Apple's market shares. (Or at least that's how it appeared so.) His genuine ideas come from true innovation. Otherwise, I don't think he would stay on pay roll of $1 per year. (His shares in stock and whatnot is still just numbers on paper. Until he liquidates them all.) Of course, when such innovation is successful, revenues and profits will increase, and it'll make its shareholders and investors happy campers.
Huh? What did he do to the MP3 player business? He cut them off when iTunes became such a huge success, and has no plans on changing it. And while Steve Job's $1 salary is official, its silly to think thats the only money h recieves from Apple. I bet he is constantly accepting "rewards" and bonuses.

Once again, I do not disagree with you at all. I just think that Apple is a kind of company that looks for innovative ways to move forward. That's all.
I have to disagree with you again. If you haven't noticed, Apple only tends to compete in markets with high profit margins. Unless Apple thinks the only room for innovation in the world is in markets will high profit margins, then Apple looks for money to look forward. Not Innovation.

Cheers! :apple:

P.S. I can't imagine, really, iYahoo! at all. :D
Me either. Can Apple dig deep enough in its to make such a huge acquisition anyway? Were talking about Yahoo! here, not some no-name company like Apple's other cheap (but hugely valuable) acquisitions. Apple tends to make safe bets, and its not guaranteed that Yahoo! will show such a huge return. Microsoft think its will. And with their deep pockets, they can afford to gamble that.

GQB

Feb 4, 2008, 06:13 PM

I've seen Americans use the singular for companies. How strange. Google is a company.

There are plenty of plural-only words in English. Like trousers, glasses, scales. And companies. Trousers have two legs. Glasses have two glasses. Scales used two have two scales. "Company" means among other things "a number of individuals gathered together, esp. for a particular purpose".

Yeah, but trousers, glasses and scales are demonstrably plural. They end in 's'.
Implicit in the pluralization of a single entity is that one is referring to the collection of people who constitute it. But a corporation is a discreet, single entity.
Now to make the other side of the argument, the US supreme court, in perhaps its most hideously damaging decision, long ago declared corporations to be individuals, along with the rights that allow them to have the best of both worlds. The rights of individuals, but punitive limitations to only $$ damages. Also freedom of speech, meaning they have a LOT more freedom of speech than the rest of us.

oops.... political diatribe. Sorry.

Also of interest, as Civil War scholar Shelby Foote said, before the civil war, one said 'The United States are...'. After the war, it changed to 'The United States is...'.

BlakTornado

Feb 4, 2008, 06:33 PM

What I would like to see is Apple and Google go halves. Now THAT would be good.

Apple, Google AND Yahoo! all against Microsoft, all in one big partnership. Yahoo! could be the official binding between Apple and Google. Three very big companies with a lot of presence in the world being brought together.

Apple has iPod and Mac (One of them a LOT more popular than the other), Google has the most popular search engine in the world. Yahoo! has Flickr and the second most well known search engine in the world. I don't use Yahoo! but I've known about it for years and years.

Now imagine all of those combined together... Microsoft could be defeated.

Flickr with Mac only software to let you do editing on your Mac - or even an integrated iPhoto system like iMovie and Youtube. Yahoo! search improved to make it as powerful as Google's... and so on. In the end, Microsoft would eventually become so powerless.

People will think "Well, I can do ____ on a Mac for free, but I can't on a PC... so why should I buy the next version of Windows when I can buy a Mac Mini for the same price?" or whatever. Or maybe if Apple DOES take over Microsoft eventually, they would allow companies like Dell to create Macs too, like previously... then Microsoft would have absolutely NO power at all. All these companies are already dying to run OS X on their machines (Dell even openly admitted it). Imagine a world with no Microsoft because they have no significant place in the market anymore... and now that Bill's gone, it's likely that Ballmer will fudge it up even worse and make Microsoft fall into a grave - he's already impulsively tried to buy Yahoo! to try and get a bigger market share in something that Microsoft doesn't even specialize in! Really, what would have made sense would have been to buy out something of more use - something that more people use. How many people use Windows Live! search? Not many, that's for sure. Microsoft is already wasting it's money. Who'll be next?

Really, let's hope Apple does get involved with this because it could lead to so much... or even if Google decides to buy Yahoo!, Apple will still benefit. It is obvious from these current affairs that Google does not like Microsoft.

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 06:38 PM

I'm fearing Yahoo! accepting the partnership with Microsoft for many reasons:

1. My email account is BT Yahoo!
2. Flickr is owned by Yahoo!
3. Apple has integrated Yahoo! services in their products like:

Flickr in the tv and Mail, weather and search on the iPhone/iPod touch.

Thats why I think apple should buy Yahoo!

Ummm ... much cheaper to dedicate one engineer for two weeks to move the :apple:TV calls to a non-Flickr API (Picassa?) and the weather and search calls to Google's variants instead.

Really, these "integrations" with web services are very simple to move around from the client perspective. It took me all of about fifteen minutes to grok and adjust the original 10.4.0 Yellow Pages widget to call Google's mapping service (instead of MapQuest) way back when ... I'm sure the intern that wrote the widget would be able to swap over to a different company's API much faster!

JGShort

Feb 4, 2008, 06:43 PM

Apple would be better offering an 'open invitation' to yahoo employee's to apply 'en-mass' for newly created Internet engineering division for anyone in Yahoo who wants to leave.

Rather than spend $44.4 billion they could spend a quarter of that over the next few years by creating a dedicated 'Internet R&D' division within Apple and let 500 of the best Yahoo engineer's and teams work their magic on some new Apple centric internet technologies.

Google can mop up the rest - Let's see what kind of 'hot property' Microsoft acquires when 70% of it's best talent simply 'walks' to the open arms of Apple and Google..

There is nothing fundamentally about Yahoo that Apple could not re-create in a year with a ton of talented engineers.

BUT there are certainly a ton of companies Apple would be better buying before Yahoo.

That's a thought - If the best Yahoo engineers quit and were offered jobs working for Jobs at Apple, then there would be nothing of value left for MS to buy. I think this is the best idea: MS spends its money buying Yahoo, the best Yahoo engineers quit and help make Apple into a stronger and more innovative Internet presence. I do not think this idea would have to threaten Google either. We would all benefit from more innovation on the web.

Just some thoughts :) :apple:

EagerDragon

Feb 4, 2008, 06:43 PM

I know there been rumors about Apple and Yahoo before. But Yahoo in in a line of business that does not mesh well with Apple main bread and butter. I just don't see the synergy, yes one can twist things to come up with synergy, but the two don't complement or compete really.

As Apple don't have 60 billions to compete and outbid M$, they would have to go for a deal based on shares and Apple shares are still kinda low.

Sorry I bet this is not going to happen.

ariza910

Feb 4, 2008, 06:49 PM

A lot of people are focused on the portal/search/email/flickr side of Yahoo! but whats MS is really going after is all the advertising revenue Yahoo is generating.

Apple keeps moving closer and closer into media delivery and with that they will eventually need to look at ways of selling advertising through their delivery methods be it iTunes, AppleTV or wifi iPhone/iTouch. I think an Apple partnership with Yahoo will help Apple with this - but then again I'm sure they are already working on it with Google.

Interesting times - Yahoo, MS, Google and Apple are all positioning themselves as media delivery companies that will be able to tap into all the advertising dollars currently going to Network TV and broadcast Radio.

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 06:50 PM

(Note that the second-level up quote was the reverse of this first line; gnasher wasn't just saying this rudely out of the blue :) )

I've seen Americans use the singular for companies. How strange. Google is a company.

There are plenty of plural-only words in English. Like trousers, glasses, scales. And companies. Trousers have two legs. Glasses have two glasses. Scales used two have two scales. "Company" means among other things "a number of individuals gathered together, esp. for a particular purpose".

So, to beat a dead horse, you'd logically say "That flock of geese are flying south" and "This flower arrangement are pretty!", right?

I don't think that "composed of multiple parts" == "plural" is really an observed rule on your side of the pond, although I may be wrong. It seems a gray area, of sorts, where British speakers fell one way and American speakers fell the other.

The American way of thinking seems to draw the line at action. When a group acts as a group it is refered to as a singular entity; when all the parts of a group are acting individually, they are plural (although, it is very hard to craft a single sentence using the group as a subject and describing various individual actions of such a group ...)

This is why natural language is hard to code. There are lots of rules, which are often inconsistent, and emphatic grammar police tend to populate the gray areas.

bluefido

Feb 4, 2008, 06:51 PM

This forum is a little biased, but I think it is safe to say that People Hate Microsoft. :(

I'm a Mac fan but don't really hate Microsoft. In fact, I'm probably more scared of Google than Microsoft. To me, Google has more potential to be an Apple killer in the future than Microsoft in its current state. Many of the things Google is doing to invade the desktop are only going make OSes more obsolete over time. Maybe that's a good thing, but to someone that is nostalgic for the smiling Mac, Google represents an unknown future with Apple playing a minor role it.

EagerDragon

Feb 4, 2008, 06:54 PM

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 06:56 PM

It's not hostile unless Yahoo says no and MS still goes after Yahoo.

True that this is technically not a hostile takeover, yet. However, MS's offer is outlandish enough that any board refusal on the part of Yahoo will be little more than a token gesture. The shareholders will approve the merger given the publicized terms.

It's like getting a bill passed by more than 2/3rds of Congress. The President can veto it if he wants, but it is just a token gesture unless he's also campaigning for folks to reverse their votes on the veto override.

ebouwman

Feb 4, 2008, 06:59 PM

I have to disagree with you again. If you haven't noticed, Apple only tends to compete in markets with high profit margins. Unless Apple thinks the only room for innovation in the world is in markets will high profit margins, then Apple looks for money to look forward. Not Innovation.

I'd be interested to know what kind of margins are in computer, iPod, and iPhone sales.

I know that the iPhone makes a ton of money, but everything else? At least the retail margins aren't good, that i know for sure.

One example could be the iPod nano, cost for a retailer this xmas was about $153 CAD retail $155 CAD so what is that, less than a 2% margin!

So really if apple was making a ton of money off of their products, don't you think they'd let businesses in on it?

The only apple product that i saw that had a decent margin for retailers this xmas was the iPod touch! And that never made any money anyways because it was almost constantly on sale!

bluefido

Feb 4, 2008, 07:03 PM

People don't hate Microsoft, Microsoft forces people to hate them. Many companies also been forced by Microsoft to hate them but they have to buy Microsoft software so they don't speak out.

I don't hate Microsoft, but would lose zero sleep if they went out of business tomorrow, I can say the same for a lot of other companies.

Microsoft is in some ways needed to offset Google. There is a reason Microsoft is scared silly of Google, and it ain't just because of one search engine (despite it playing a major role in Microsoft's fear). The amalgamation of web apps that Google is creating are deemphasizing the desktop. Google Docs, Gmail, search, and Google's mobile OS are all ways to chip away at traditional OSes and apps. Again, who knows if this is ultimately a good thing. But don't think for a second that Apple doesn't view Google with a bit of trepidation too.

uNext

Feb 4, 2008, 07:06 PM

If apple had 90% market share they would be doing the same thing.
APPLE IS NOT OUT TO BE YOUR BEST FRIEND WAKE UP PEOPLE.
they are in it for money we are moving $ signs to them.

(the devils greatest tool was to make you believe he did not exist)

Both apple and google are monopolies in their own way. (ipod & itunes) (search & ads)
Of course their approach will not be like Microsoft's because thats already been done and is holding to this day. They have to approach differently.

Apple is more closed then windows, apple does not give you the choice of anything..they sell you what they think is enough while charging a premium for it.

Some of you act like ipod and itunes is not a monopoly.
I BET THAT IF MICROSOFT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST WITH THE ZUNE AND WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER LOCKED IN. they would be getting sued and complains left and right.

One thing about the mac community i truly dislike is how the majority of people are stuck in having double standard views. If your going to comment on something comment on it as a business point of view not as a "i love mac they are great they innovate and move forward" what have they really done that is so innovative? besides revolutionising the music industry which by the way was bound to happen whether apple or somebody else did it.

Thinner laptops?- check history
small computers? check history
all in one? check history

i MEAN COME ON ALREADY GOOGLE BITCHED AB OUT microsoft and their search software claiming it was a monopoly but google is teh default search on firefox and on safari which by the way you cant change in a user firnedly way.

They are all monopolies without that they would not have he power they have. This rule applies to both business and goverment how do you think the us got to be so powerful? by being your friend? get off the high horse apple will be/is a monopoly in the making.

if apple reaches the #1 spot...guess what it will do anything it can to maintain it (monopoly) if google ever edges out microsoft on everything then your beloved apple will most likely take shots at google etc.

Can you really hate a company thats out to make money to maintain its status? if anything it brings out fierce competition. Some of you are loking at the wrong way.

joeshell383

Feb 4, 2008, 07:07 PM

rtdunham

Feb 4, 2008, 07:08 PM

It would be great to have Flickr built into OS X but i just dont think its a thing Apple would do. Not forgetting Google Maps and Youtube are on the iPhone/iPod Touch so it seems Apple already has relationships with Google.

well, if there's more apple wants from google, this might be a good time to negotiate with them.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 07:11 PM

What I would like to see is Apple and Google go halves. Now THAT would be good.

Apple, Google AND Yahoo! all against Microsoft, all in one big partnership. Yahoo! could be the official binding between Apple and Google. Three very big companies with a lot of presence in the world being brought together.

Apple has iPod and Mac (One of them a LOT more popular than the other), Google has the most popular search engine in the world. Yahoo! has Flickr and the second most well known search engine in the world. I don't use Yahoo! but I've known about it for years and years.
Well ignoring that this would be the monopolistic company 10-fold, and would never happen, I will respond. Microsoft has the 3rd and 5th most visited sites with MSN and Windows Live (who knew?) They have the Zune, Windows, Xbox, and some of the strongest brand recognition in the world.

Now imagine all of those combined together... Microsoft could be defeated.

Flickr with Mac only software to let you do editing on your Mac - or even an integrated iPhoto system like iMovie and Youtube. Yahoo! search improved to make it as powerful as Google's... and so on. In the end, Microsoft would eventually become so powerless.
Not so Fast! In response, Microsoft and ExxonMobil would partner to cut off gas supplies to Cupertino, Googleplex, and where ever Yahoo is located and they would not be able to get to work! After using all their energy walking 5+ miles to work, they would be too tired to leave!

People will think "Well, I can do ____ on a Mac for free, but I can't on a PC... so why should I buy the next version of Windows when I can buy a Mac Mini for the same price?" or whatever. Or maybe if Apple DOES take over Microsoft eventually, they would allow companies like Dell to create Macs too, like previously... then Microsoft would have absolutely NO power at all. All these companies are already dying to run OS X on their machines (Dell even openly admitted it). Imagine a world with no Microsoft because they have no significant place in the market anymore... and now that Bill's gone, it's likely that Ballmer will fudge it up even worse and make Microsoft fall into a grave - he's already impulsively tried to buy Yahoo! to try and get a bigger market share in something that Microsoft doesn't even specialize in! Really, what would have made sense would have been to buy out something of more use - something that more people use. How many people use Windows Live! search? Not many, that's for sure. Microsoft is already wasting it's money. Who'll be next?
Next, Microxxon Mobil will partner with the Germans to deliver a powerful blow to their headquarters where they are all stranded (remember, they are too tired to walk home) and seal their fate. Microxxon Mobil will then bribe the US into talks about controlling their nuclear facilities. With that kind of power, they could rule the world!!!

Really, let's hope Apple does get involved with this because it could lead to so much... or even if Google decides to buy Yahoo!, Apple will still benefit. It is obvious from these current affairs that Google does not like Microsoft.
Imagine the possibilities!

blairwillis

Feb 4, 2008, 07:12 PM

Maybe Google should by Yahoo, then give it to Apple in a tech-giant "Na ne na na boo boo" strategic move. If I were Google, I'd do that just to tick off Microsoft.

bluefido

Feb 4, 2008, 07:12 PM

If apple had 90% market share they would be doing the same thing.
APPLE IS NOT OUT TO BE YOUR BEST FRIEND WAKE UP PEOPLE.
they are in it for money we are moving $ signs to them.

I agree. To label a company as an enemy is a bit weird. I am a Mac fan, but Apple doesn't hold some mythical stranglehold over innovation. I think having Microsoft out there is a good thing. Otherwise, what incentive does Apple have to make a better product?

Although I sound like I hate Google, I really don't. I just found it odd that people had such a strong dislike for Microsoft but can't foresee the same issues arising with an 800 lb. Google on the back of the technology industry.

joeshell383

Feb 4, 2008, 07:15 PM

Not so Fast! In response, Microsoft and Exxon Mobile!

It's ExxonMobil.

The two brands that comprise XOM are Exxon and Mobil. Not Mobile.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 07:19 PM

It's ExxonMobil.

The two brands that comprise XOM are Exxon and Mobil. Not Mobile.

Such little details such as these will not stop their plans... :)

Burgess07

Feb 4, 2008, 07:21 PM

I don't hate Microsoft, but would lose zero sleep if they went out of business tomorrow.

I would. All night Party!!:D

EagerDragon

Feb 4, 2008, 07:25 PM

Microsoft is in some ways needed to offset Google. There is a reason Microsoft is scared silly of Google, and it ain't just because of one search engine (despite it playing a major role in Microsoft's fear). The amalgamation of web apps that Google is creating are deemphasizing the desktop. Google Docs, Gmail, search, and Google's mobile OS are all ways to chip away at traditional OSes and apps. Again, who knows if this is ultimately a good thing. But don't think for a second that Apple doesn't view Google with a bit of trepidation too.

Google is pushing toward thin clients so they are a thread to M$.

Regardless of balance, I can still not care for M$ one way or the other. Just like I do not care one way or another for Yahoo. I do my best to not provide them money directly or indirectly and don't use their stuff if i can help it.

To bad there is no "I do not care one way or the other" voting button so I can vote.

rtdunham

Feb 4, 2008, 07:28 PM

...what do you think happens to people with massive experience in an industry like, say, web services, who decide to leave their jobs? Are they supposed to move to Montana and get in on the ground floor of Alpaca raising?...]

oh, great. you and your big mouth. I just heard MS is planning to buy the Alpaca industry.

kresh

Feb 4, 2008, 07:34 PM

It's not hostile unless Yahoo says no and MS still goes after Yahoo.

Yahoo has protection from a hostile takeover. Almost every company does since the corporate raider days in the 90's.

The board can vote to issue preferred stock to board members under anti-take over clauses.

They can bleed Microsoft to death by issuing 100 Million preferred stocks to to the board members. (or whatever number it requires to kill the deal) I saw the talking heads on Bloomberg talking about it.

The down side is that it dilutes the stock price severely over time, just like when Governments prints money to pay their bills.

Thankfully companies have taken steps to thwart these kinds of take overs. You don't see them much these days, but they were rampant in the 90's.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 07:36 PM

I agree. To label a company as an enemy is a bit weird. I am a Mac fan, but Apple doesn't hold some mythical stranglehold over innovation. I think having Microsoft out there is a good thing. Otherwise, what incentive does Apple have to make a better product?
Ahh, a sensible person on these boards... Our numbers are few. (im joking...!)

Although I sound like I hate Google, I really don't. I just found it odd that people had such a strong dislike for Microsoft but can't foresee the same issues arising with an 800 lb. Google on the back of the technology industry.
Truthfully, Google could (I said could) be a bigger threat than that of Microsoft. Take a read at this (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/14/080114fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=6).

This statement from Google's CEO just scares me for some reason:

If the phones use Google software to sell advertising, Schmidt thinks that over time it is “mathematically possible for Google to become a one-hundred-billion-dollar corporation.” Two vital markets are television, which is “easily attainable,” and mobile phones, which are “more personable” and more “targetable” than most advertising. To achieve this goal, Google would need to claim ten per cent of all global advertising, which now amounts to just under a trillion dollars.

barijazz

Feb 4, 2008, 07:39 PM

barijazz

Feb 4, 2008, 07:42 PM

Although I hate microsoft, but I agree that it is needed to pose competition to apple.

When microsoft was at the top of it's game with 90% market share it didn't have to release an iphone to keep in business. I love apple, but realize that it needs microsoft to keep up the innovation.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 07:46 PM

That's exactly how they made vista too. What a coincidence, hhmmmmmm.
lol
Hey, they do whatever works. Apparently it did, because Vista overtook Mac OS X in 8 months... :D If Apple could do that, I bet they would too.

stracky

Feb 4, 2008, 08:02 PM

for jettredmont, gnasher, GQB etcetc

for the original statment, it should have been..
Does google even have the money to take over yahoo? I read somewhere that google doesn't make as much money as yahoo (although still a lot), despite having such a large market share..

it has to be this way cause the sentence is talking in present tense, and as the event in question is current, it makes sense. If the sentence had started with "Did..." and in the middle "don't" it would imply that the event happened in the past.

too mix the two together changes the tense of the sentence which is wrong. and which is why when you read it, it just doesn't sound quite right.

The english tend to over use the word "don't", say "don't it.." in a heavy english accent and you will understand, but its okay cause americans spell badly ... color/colour... humor/humour... and they "ize" instead of "ise" in words, you know its true, thats why you can select "american" in your spell checkers instead of english.

the grammar police have spoken ;)

BACK ON TOPIC.. nobody outside america uses yahoo!! they dont offer anything drastically different to the other players in the market, apple would be better off making there own search engine/ ad system than buying yahoo,

skeep5

Feb 4, 2008, 08:18 PM

Google would rule all the more if MS bought Yahoo. Yahoo isn't bad now, but it will suck once MS gets their hands on it.

MacAddict1978

Feb 4, 2008, 08:42 PM

funny, i was curious what yahoo is actually worth (microsuck is offering a $9 premium per share if i recall correctly, yahoo isn't worth $46-48 billion)

what comes up first in my search results?

What is George W. Bush's net worth vs. John Kerry's net worth?

LOL. yahoos net worth, gotta love it

and I think it would be an awful move for Apple to buy Yahoo. If they wanted into web services, AOL would fetch a much cheaper price (if they wanted to rebrand it), but America Off-Line does have FAR less appeal. It's just no Apple's thing. Though, the way of the future I think will very much be web based apps and less physical software on a HD, but I still think that age if far enough off that now isn't a time to invest in such things.

MacTO

Feb 4, 2008, 08:51 PM

Alot of people liken Google to the likes of Microsoft before they tech burst. They can't possibly maintain this rate of growth.

Personally, I do not know much of what Google's future plans are in store in order to stay as strong as it is today. I just remember what Bill Gates said (forgot when he said it), and that is "no company can stay in business any longer than certain period of time. There were a lot of great companies that came and went. And it's natural to think that Microsoft would be remembered as one of them one day. That's why we (Microsoft) focus on innovation. In order to stay in business, we move forward." Or something along the line.

Would Google be able to do that? Is Google doing it right now? I don't know the answer. Hope somebody knows.

Now this is where I can't agree with you. While I would be the first one to congratulate Apple on it's iPod, thats really the only innovation we got out of Apple. In fact, I would contribute 100% of its success on that one product. Without it, Apple would not have 1/10th of the brand recognition (which in turn funded the Mac Business) without the iPod. Not to discredit Apple, but, its still riding that success. Now the iPhone, not so much. Yes, it has a fantastic interface, but in terms of the phone business, it went backwards. No Camera zoom? No picture/video messages? No 3G? The only advantage it offers is... The interface. Again, not to discredit Apple, but the iPhone was hardly as revolutionary as the try to make it out to be. The phone business is much more mature than the MP3 business was when the iPod came out. For consumers to think Apple can capitalize that fast on a mature business is stupid.

First, I see you point. Maybe it is true that it is only limited to iPod products in terms of innovation that led to the 'most known success.' But I was talking about Apple the company itself to begin with. Yes, I gave an example of iPod and iTunes. However, what I meant was to acknowledge the presence of the driving force that got Apple where it is today after all these years.

Personally, I do not own iPhone and am not familiar with it as much as you do, so I am not going to comment anything on it. However, as you know, innovation doesn't always necessarily translate into success.

100% truth. Now not to sound like a Microsoft fanboy, but Apple's success is largely dependent on its compatibility with Windows.

I believe that compatibility is one of the keys to success.

Huh? What did he do to the MP3 player business? He cut them off when iTunes became such a huge success, and has no plans on changing it. And while Steve Job's $1 salary is official, its silly to think thats the only money h recieves from Apple. I bet he is constantly accepting "rewards" and bonuses.

As a former iRiver user (before I switch from PC to Mac) and an iPod nano user, I understand what you're saying. It certainly has been an issue for non-iPod users (or vice versa) in terms of sharing music or whatnot. Now we're moving onto the next chapter of purchasing music (DRM Free), so it shouldn't be a big issue. As we all know, markets always change and are prone to adapt themselves to the next 'it' thing. And consumers always hold the key to it. In spite of whatever products certain companies make, if consumers don't respond, they'll eventually die out. (Some products came and went because they came ahead of time, such as Newton.)

As far as "rewards" and bonuses are concerned, I don't know much of it. I haven't heard of a word about it, although it is not logical to think that such "rewards" do not exist at all at such a publicly traded company like Apple.

But think about this. If you were the person who built a company from scratch and got kicked out by the board and then got rehired, would you really want to have a $1 salary? Seriously. The whole point is that Steve Jobs would rather spend more than $1 on R&D so that Apple can produce more innovative and better quality products. Would you really take $1 salary if you were the person?

I have to disagree with you again. If you haven't noticed, Apple only tends to compete in markets with high profit margins. Unless Apple thinks the only room for innovation in the world is in markets will high profit margins, then Apple looks for money to look forward. Not Innovation.

I am not quite sure if I understood your point.

If I am not mistaken, I thought we've been talking about technology companies, which can be interpreted as companies produce products with high margin. These companies deal with intellectual properties and innovative products, meaning their technology literally lets our world move ahead. If not all innovative, at least Apple is, IMHO.

Apple has been always a front runner in the computer industry and still is in terms of innovation. Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple is the first one brought GUI to computer. In oder to sustain its credibility as an innovator and to compete with other followers/copiers, it is not easy to stay afloat by making little money to begin with. In order to bring a broad appeal, of course, it is natural to think that one should develop and produce more one-size fit all products, instead of only a small number of people would use.

Don't get me wrong. If such a company as Microsoft can do what it does, that's good (regardless of playing almost-monopoly or being named copier or whatever name out there). Because the majority of people will appreciate it anyway.

I don't know if this is a right comparison, but here's what I think. Hollywood exists and we all know what kind of films it produces. Yes... It produces a batch of fun and exciting blockbuster films that a lot of moviegoers appreciate in the company of popcorn and pop (or soda). Then there's the independent film industry that quenches our thirst for something different, creative and unique. Once again, I could be wrong, but as long as you get my point, I think that's close enough. Right?

I do not disagree with anyone's opinions. I just listen. Then I form my own.

Cheers! :apple:

MacAddict1978

Feb 4, 2008, 08:53 PM

this is just poor english

google don't google doesn't is being used as google does not. Don't is used entirely wrong. Don't open that door! Doesn't open that door! They are not interchangeable in UK speak or US speak.

OK, I have to ask this, not as a picky grammar-police thing, but as a British vs American English thing.

I seem to have noticed recently a UK thing of considering company names as plural. In fact, now that I've noticed that, I seem to be seeing it everywhere in UK posts...
Why "Google don't" instead of "Google doesn't". Google is A company.

Just thought I'd ask. Really curious.
:)

jettredmont

Feb 4, 2008, 08:58 PM

If apple had 90% market share they would be doing the same thing.
APPLE IS NOT OUT TO BE YOUR BEST FRIEND WAKE UP PEOPLE.
they are in it for money we are moving $ signs to them.

[ ... blah blah blah slobber seething blah ... ]

if apple reaches the #1 spot...guess what it will do anything it can to maintain it (monopoly) if google ever edges out microsoft on everything then your beloved apple will most likely take shots at google etc.

Can you really hate a company thats out to make money to maintain its status? if anything it brings out fierce competition. Some of you are loking at the wrong way.

The point is that Apple, right now, is NOT in Microsoft's position. They are not the 800 pound gorilla who has somehow forgotten to evolve with the rest of the primates. Apple has been busy making cool stuff while MS has been buying companies and running them into the ground.

If/when Apple starts showing signs of microsoftness, I'll gladly turn on them and towards the next innovator. But, they aren't there now, not yet, perhaps never will be.

MacAddict1978

Feb 4, 2008, 09:00 PM

Proper noun. Google in context is the same as someone's name. Google posted record earnings. Google's web site (as they own it.) Googles would always be wrong.

Trousers is really not plural, but can be taken to be plural in context. "HIs trousers were too tight." "The trousers' riveted buttons were..." vs. Stranger us, "I bought a pair of trousers." God love english!

I've seen Americans use the singular for companies. How strange. Google is a company.

There are plenty of plural-only words in English. Like trousers, glasses, scales. And companies. Trousers have two legs. Glasses have two glasses. Scales used two have two scales. "Company" means among other things "a number of individuals gathered together, esp. for a particular purpose".

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 09:29 PM

Not much worth to respond to the first part of your post, as its hard to disagree, but here's the second part.

If I am not mistaken, I thought we've been talking about technology companies, which can be interpreted as companies produce products with high margin. These companies deal with intellectual properties and innovative products, meaning their technology literally lets our world move ahead. If not all innovative, at least Apple is, IMHO.
Well what I meant by saying that is Apple looks for products that will return a quick profit. Not that this is a bad thing, but its very different from Microsoft, who is willing to loose money at first and look down the line. An example is their Xbox Division. To date, the Xbox Division has lost a total of 6 billion dollars. However, in that time, they raised some serious brand recognition in the U.S., and seriously shook up the business. Sony now had a competitor and it brought Online gaming to consoles. It also created the entertainment behemoth known as "Halo". Nowadays, Microsoft's Gaming Division reported their first profit last quarter, 532 million dollars. But it took 7 long years to get this far. Now, Microsoft could potentially have another cash cow rising in the $17 billion dollar Gaming Industry.

Apple has been always a front runner in the computer industry and still is in terms of innovation. Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple is the first one brought GUI to computer. In oder to sustain its credibility as an innovator and to compete with other followers/copiers, it is not easy to stay afloat by making little money to begin with. In order to bring a broad appeal, of course, it is natural to think that one should develop and produce more one-size fit all products, instead of only a small number of people would use.
Now I agree, back in the day, Apple was quite the innovator. They, along with Microsoft, envisioned the PC. But now, It seems like Apple's formula is just making existing things better. I mean, they invented the PC industry out of nothing... I just can't see how that carried on. They learned early on that taking risks gives them rewards, but now...

I don't know if this is a right comparison, but here's what I think. Hollywood exists and we all know what kind of films it produces. Yes... It produces a batch of fun and exciting blockbuster films that a lot of moviegoers appreciate in the company of popcorn and pop (or soda). Then there's the independent film industry that quenches our thirst for something different, creative and unique. Once again, I could be wrong, but as long as you get my point, I think that's close enough. Right?
Its a good example, but I just can't see Apple filling in that independent film industry role. I see them as taking the traditional formula and just making it simpler/nicer to look at. Thats in contrast to Apple/Microsoft back in the day when they were making progress out of nothing, betting their entire lives on the take off of the PC.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 09:44 PM

The point is that Apple, right now, is NOT in Microsoft's position. They are not the 800 pound gorilla who has somehow forgotten to evolve with the rest of the primates. Apple has been busy making cool stuff while MS has been buying companies and running them into the ground.

If/when Apple starts showing signs of microsoftness, I'll gladly turn on them and towards the next innovator. But, they aren't there now, not yet, perhaps never will be.
The reason you think this is because Microsoft's core products are software, not hardware. While Apple has been making products you can hold in your hand. This does not mean Microsoft is not making progress. Even in the hardware business, Microsoft has Xbox 360, and Zune, which are still young, but have enormous potential [360 more so than Zune right now]. Did you know Xbox Live has more on-demand content than ANY cable provider in the US? Did you know Halo 3 is deemed at the "greatest entertainment launch in history", did you know Microsoft is bringing IPTV to Xbox in Britain? This may not interest you, but Microsoft is doing things...

Also, it may not be as well covered by the media as Apple’s iThis-and-iThat products, but Microsoft’s mobile division makes more money than Apple’s mobile products by licensing the Windows Mobile O/S to dozens of companies that run it on millions of devices [Expecting to ship 20 million in 2008]. Producing products with longevity, which enable others to be innovative, has proven to be the business model that is sustainable. Microsoft enables tens of thousands of partners to be innovative; Apple enables themselves only.

Also, name me a company Microsoft has bought and "ran them into the ground" as you speak?

stephenli

Feb 4, 2008, 10:40 PM

...Also, it may not be as well covered by the media as Apple’s iThis-and-iThat products, but Microsoft’s mobile division makes more money than Apple’s mobile products by licensing the Windows Mobile O/S to dozens of companies that run it on millions of devices ...

Okey, I know what you mean, but i prefer iPhone to Windows Mobile. Could you really say that a platform that "makes more money" would be superior to a platform that make less money?
Same case as Windows vs OSX.

Sorry, this is a bit off-topic.

Syrus28

Feb 4, 2008, 11:12 PM

Okey, I know what you mean, but i prefer iPhone to Windows Mobile. Could you really say that a platform that "makes more money" would be superior to a platform that make less money?
Same case as Windows vs OSX.

Sorry, this is a bit off-topic.
I also prefer the iPhone to Windows Mobile. The platform that makes more money is not guaranteed to be superior, but it is more successful. Which some people can't comprehend. So mostly, I wrote that for the people who claim how Apple is just dominating Microsoft in everything they do.

In the case of Windows vs OS X, I might not be the best person to ask. Yes, I have a MacBook [bought it Leopard Day] but, I can't say I like it more than Windows.

1. My Dashboard doesn't work.
2. My wireless connection has with my network, dropping at least 3 times a day and forgetting the WPA password
3. Safari's outright refusal to work for me half the time. [shows pages in plain text like 30% of the time, others it thinks im not connected to the internet, while firefox works fine]
4. Mail.app doesn't verify my Cox e-mail's certificate so everytime I check the mail, I have to accept it. Very Annoying.

Still, even with all these bugs, Leopard has still been quite enjoyable. Just not as "perfect" as people make it out to be. Heck, I would put it on par with Vista. Not to sound like a MS Fanboy, but I have not experienced ONE problem with Vista outside of having to run some games with administrative rights.

legacyb4

Feb 4, 2008, 11:37 PM

Not like Yahoo's craptacular spam engine is that much better... my Yahoo account is useless these days because of that. Thank God for Gmail...

It seems to me that Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo so it's craptacular search engine tech and online free email junk won't fall further and further behind. If they bought Yahoo, boom, there they are on the tail of Google again.

IMO, Microsoft (the corp, not a particular person) suffers badly from neighbor envy.

MacViolinist

Feb 4, 2008, 11:46 PM

I've seen Americans use the singular for companies. How strange. Google is a company.

There are plenty of plural-only words in English. Like trousers, glasses, scales. And companies. Trousers have two legs. Glasses have two glasses. Scales used two have two scales. "Company" means among other things "a number of individuals gathered together, esp. for a particular purpose".

I can't help but encourage this bit of off-topic banter. Every modern linguist who has addressed the topic in both UK and American English insists that a company referred to by name is singular only. Apple is singular. Google is singular. The reasoning behind it is that the reference is to a single entity. It's similar to referring to a bushel of apples as one bushel. Yes, there are many apples, but they make up 1 bushel.

My response to the original poster who noticed this is that
it's a common error on both sides of the pond. Americans frequently don't understand or get lazy with subject-verb agreement. It's actually slightly more common in the US than it is in the UK. It's most definitely not one of the many differences between British and American English.

And now back to the regularly scheduled program.

nostaws

Feb 5, 2008, 12:10 AM

I will admit to not reading all 7 pages.

But my 2 cents: Every business' goal is market domination (their market). That inherently makes me nervous. Google makes me nervous, Microsoft made/makes me nervous, iPod makes me nervous, Wal-Mart makes me nervous.

I like factions in society and business. It keeps us all honest.

Competition is good. Sometimes I use Yahoo to do searches instead of Google just to support the factions.

barijazz

Feb 5, 2008, 12:12 AM

It would be great to have Flickr built into OS X but i just dont think its a thing Apple would do. Not forgetting Google Maps and Youtube are on the iPhone/iPod Touch so it seems Apple already has relationships with Google.

With the release of the iphone, apple also announced it's workings with yahoo. They integrated yahoo mail into the iphone web app. I sure as hell hope google doesn't let microsoft get away with this.

MacViolinist

Feb 5, 2008, 12:19 AM

Now this is where I can't agree with you. While I would be the first one to congratulate Apple on it's iPod, thats really the only innovation we got out of Apple. In fact, I would contribute 100% of its success on that one product. Without it, Apple would not have 1/10th of the brand recognition (which in turn funded the Mac Business) without the iPod. Not to discredit Apple, but, its still riding that success. Now the iPhone, not so much. Yes, it has a fantastic interface, but in terms of the phone business, it went backwards. No Camera zoom? No picture/video messages? No 3G? The only advantage it offers is... The interface. Again, not to discredit Apple, but the iPhone was hardly as revolutionary as the try to make it out to be. The phone business is much more mature than the MP3 business was when the iPod came out. For consumers to think Apple can capitalize that fast on a mature business is stupid.

I think you are doing what so many other companies do in the context of evaluating "innovation." You, quite reasonably--as a consumer, place a high value on feature-sets. You want all the latest and greatest now. Who doesn't?

The problem is that a feature is only as good as its interface. A feature with an inconvenient or downright hostile interface is worthless except for bragging-rights. And those don't go very far in the marketplace.

Apple is successful because they absolutely reject your attitude about features. It's quality over quantity. Some people call it form over function, but I disagree. Form over function only happens when device fails to do (or do well) what it is intended by its creator to do because the creator wanted it to take a certain form.

While you may not be the target audience for some of Apple's products (I am certainly not a target for a lot of what they produce), that doesn't mean that Apple has not innovated in terms of usability. I just don't happen to need to use what they are selling right now.

And if you are surprised by this, it's only because you don't really understand Apple's history. Everything Apple's ever made has been governed by the idea that user-choice isn't necessarily a good thing. Many users will make bad choices. Apple has never tried to appeal to everyone all at once. And it never will.

Innovation shouldn't be defined in such narrow terms. Is it really innovation to cram every possible feature into the smallest possible box, and to hell with how anyone's going to use it? Is that really all it takes to innovate?

I think the market disagrees with you. The first iPods were not exactly feature-rich. Hell, the first Macs weren't exactly feature-rich. But they were extremely usable for what they did. The iPhone is an extension of that design philosophy. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But for the 3-something million people--and counting--who use them every day, they are certainly innovative.

Plus, when you think about the nature of innovation in history, it's never been about doing something "new." Innovation has been about doing something familiar but better. The people who invented cars didn't invent motion or travel, they just found a more user-friendly way of accomplishing it. The people who invented the written word didn't invent communication, they just made it more accessible. The people who invented education didn't invent knowledge, they made it easier to learn.

History is littered with the corpses of would-be innovators who tried to do something "new." The definition of innovation throughout history has always been to make something worthwhile easier.

Apple is no different. Apple looks at what we want to do and focuses on how best to do it. The specific features get there eventually after the specific issues surrounding the deployment and use of a feature get solved, not before. That is innovation.

uNext

Feb 5, 2008, 12:21 AM

The point is that Apple, right now, is NOT in Microsoft's position. They are not the 800 pound gorilla who has somehow forgotten to evolve with the rest of the primates. Apple has been busy making cool stuff while MS has been buying companies and running them into the ground.

If/when Apple starts showing signs of microsoftness, I'll gladly turn on them and towards the next innovator. But, they aren't there now, not yet, perhaps never will be.

Forgot to evolve? last i remember microsoft went from a dos system to vista.
No matter what you think of vista it is clear that evolution is active over @ microsofts headquarters. They dont make their own hardware...but the integration of diffrent features or hardware needs help 3rd party vendors evolve their products. To me stop evolving would mean that microsoft is still stuck with windows 3.1 in 2008.

If anything they evolve to a point of being up to date...last i checked a 2700 computer from mac had an outdated card without the capbility to bring up to date.

This is exactly what i mean by being double standard. Thank you proving my point. Some of you are so focused on everything apple you MISS the big picture. Both linux and windows support anything high tech out there.
I Think evolution in relation to technology extends farther then eye candy add ons and software.

I own a vista quad computer, macbook pro and macbook. If apple was so innovative why do i have to go to my vista
to have the ability to play blu-ray and hd dvd movies? You see where im going with it? WHERE IS THE INNOVATION BESIDES THIN?
just because they get first dibs on new products from STUFF INTEL MAKES does not make apple the innovative company we use to know.

Syrus28

Feb 5, 2008, 12:22 AM

With the release of the iphone, apple also announced it's workings with yahoo. They integrated yahoo mail into the iphone web app. I sure as hell hope google doesn't let microsoft get away with this.

Huh? Google let Microsoft get away with what? I can't imagine Google has any say what-so-ever in these agreements.

ddrueckhammer

Feb 5, 2008, 12:28 AM

I also prefer the iPhone to Windows Mobile. The platform that makes more money is not guaranteed to be superior, but it is more successful. Which some people can't comprehend. So mostly, I wrote that for the people who claim how Apple is just dominating Microsoft in everything they do.

In the case of Windows vs OS X, I might not be the best person to ask. Yes, I have a MacBook [bought it Leopard Day] but, I can't say I like it more than Windows.

1. My Dashboard doesn't work.
2. My wireless connection has with my network, dropping at least 3 times a day and forgetting the WPA password
3. Safari's outright refusal to work for me half the time. [shows pages in plain text like 30% of the time, others it thinks im not connected to the internet, while firefox works fine]
4. Mail.app doesn't verify my Cox e-mail's certificate so everytime I check the mail, I have to accept it. Very Annoying.

Still, even with all these bugs, Leopard has still been quite enjoyable. Just not as "perfect" as people make it out to be. Heck, I would put it on par with Vista. Not to sound like a MS Fanboy, but I have not experienced ONE problem with Vista outside of having to run some games with administrative rights.

Wow! You should really post in the forums here and get some help to get those bugs fixed. This is a great community for getting help for things like that. If you can't find an answer here, get on the Apple.com support forums or go see a genius at the store...

The only problems I have had recently with OS X are slowdown in iTunes 7.6 (which is pretty well documented) and my keychain for Mail app getting messed up. Really overall though I'm happy to use a Mac at home so I don't have to repair my registry, defrag, virus/spyware scan, check firewall settings etc. as much. With the exception of the registry all of the other things are applicable to OS X but it seems not to need as much constant attention as Windows to run smoothly. Most of all OS X is a cleaner and slightly more advanced OS than Vista IMO which makes it a little nicer to use.

Syrus28

Feb 5, 2008, 12:33 AM

Wow! You should really post in the forums here and get some help to get those bugs fixed. This is a great community for getting help for things like that. If you can't find an answer here, get on the Apple.com support forums or go see a genius at the store...

The only problems I have had recently with OS X are slowdown in iTunes 7.6 (which is pretty well documented) and my keychain for Mail app getting messed up. Really overall though I'm happy to use a Mac at home so I don't have to repair my registry, defrag, virus/spyware scan, check firewall settings etc. as much. With the exception of the registry all of the other things are applicable to OS X but it seems not to need as much constant attention as Windows to run smoothly. Most of all OS X is a cleaner and slightly more advanced OS than Vista IMO which makes it a little nicer to use.
Actually, I have visited the discussion forums at Apple a lot. All of those, besides the Mail certificate thing, are getting heavy discussion over there. Especially the wifi dropouts. I returned my first Macbook thinking it was just the computer. But its happening again. Sure enough when I try to replicate the problem at the Apple store, nothing is wrong...

Bonsai1214

Feb 5, 2008, 12:41 AM

i'm almost certain someone has said this before me, but if m$ does buy yahoo, google and apple should join forces (not merge) and kick their asses

jamespa66

Feb 5, 2008, 12:57 AM

Huh? Google let Microsoft get away with what? I can't imagine Google has any say what-so-ever in these agreements.

No they don't have any direct say in the matter, but they do however have plenty of $'s to leverage the outcome.

ddrueckhammer

Feb 5, 2008, 01:00 AM

Actually, I have visited the discussion forums at Apple a lot. All of those, besides the Mail certificate thing, are getting heavy discussion over there. Especially the wifi dropouts. I returned my first Macbook thinking it was just the computer. But its happening again. Sure enough when I try to replicate the problem at the Apple store, nothing is wrong...

You really shouldn't have to replicate the problem. If you can't replicate it at the store then just tell them it is a problem that is intermittent and you want them to send it in for repair. If they refuse then speak with the manager and be firm. I doubt they would refuse though.

If the store keeps giving you problems, just go around them and call Applecare directly and tell them you have a hardware problem so they don't try to sell you the extended warranty if you don't want it.

If Applecare calls you to ask you questions about your problems tell them they are intermittent and for the most part they will replace the part in question even if they can't replicate the issue.

Overall, over the years I have had really decent experiences with Apple customer care and geniuses (nothing as great as say Nintendo but better than most computer companies) but like all customer care departments they have their S&Ps to follow and sometimes you have to be firm. Make sure you get them to fix all of your problems if you go to the genius bar (both hardware and software).

Syrus28

Feb 5, 2008, 01:20 AM

No they don't have any direct say in the matter, but they do however have plenty of $'s to leverage the outcome.
Do you mean in the form of buying Yahoo themselves? Because that can't happen. Besides, MS also has plenty of $'s to get what they want. But here's an article on how Ballmer plans to "attack" Google, with or without Yahoo.Link (http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9863981-56.html?tag=recentPosts)

Syrus28

Feb 5, 2008, 01:23 AM

You really shouldn't have to replicate the problem. If you can't replicate it at the store then just tell them it is a problem that is intermittent and you want them to send it in for repair. If they refuse then speak with the manager and be firm. I doubt they would refuse though.

If the store keeps giving you problems, just go around them and call Applecare directly and tell them you have a hardware problem so they don't try to sell you the extended warranty if you don't want it.

If Applecare calls you to ask you questions about your problems tell them they are intermittent and for the most part they will replace the part in question even if they can't replicate the issue.

Overall, over the years I have had really decent experiences with Apple customer care and geniuses (nothing as great as say Nintendo but better than most computer companies) but like all customer care departments they have their S&Ps to follow and sometimes you have to be firm. Make sure you get them to fix all of your problems if you go to the genius bar (both hardware and software).
Well I can't imagine that both of the laptops were flawed. Remember this is my second MacBook with the same problem. I returned the first one, which was bought before Leopard came "pre-installed" on it, but did receive a install disk. I thought maybe something went wrong with installation, so did it again. No luck. So I have to go with Leopard itself. Besides, there's a 10-page, 5,000+ view thread over there on the Apple discussions about it, so hopefully they are aware of the problem.

ddrueckhammer

Feb 5, 2008, 01:40 AM

Well I can't imagine that both of the laptops were flawed. Remember this is my second MacBook with the same problem. I returned the first one, which was bought before Leopard came "pre-installed" on it, but did receive a install disk. I thought maybe something went wrong with installation, so did it again. No luck. So I have to go with Leopard itself. Besides, there's a 10-page, 5,000+ view thread over there on the Apple discussions about it, so hopefully they are aware of the problem.

Hum...Must be specific to Macbooks... My iMac certainly has no problems with Wifi

cambosis

Feb 5, 2008, 04:01 AM

Being not in the Search business, does not make them want to be in the Search business... Who wouldnt want to be the next Google...

and they have had some great success with Search on the desktop...

Haha, I don't think Apple would want Yahoo because they are not in the search business.

But if they did buy Yahoo I would love to see them rebrand it .Mac!!!

winterspan

Feb 5, 2008, 05:49 AM

sachxn

Feb 5, 2008, 06:10 AM

If Google buys Yahoo then Goohoo + Apple can cut microsoft in pieces.;)

Sachin (http://sql-plsql.blogspot.com)

R.R.Mac

Feb 5, 2008, 06:47 AM

If apple gets yahoo i think they will be able to turn it around quite quickly. I also think that if they get Yahoo they will change it massivly and make it a lot better than it is. It will be great if apple buy them!:cool:

chibber21

Feb 5, 2008, 07:40 AM

THAT IS AWESOME!

Google wants to help fend off Microsoft!?!? Could you imagine if google just gave Yahoo money to support themselves? It is like promoting the competition.

You mean like when Microsoft bailed Apple out in the 90s

surferfromuk

Feb 5, 2008, 08:43 AM

Clearly even in our own Macrumors paradise (where we know Apple isn't perfect but we are grateful that they are trying to be) we are again heavily under siege from endless Microsoft PR people coming in masquerading as mac users and posting their Micro-centric FUD.

Half of what they say might be half true but really the bottom line is that we already made a free choice to avoid Microsoft's ***** technology - so please Microsoft PR people - b*gger off and don't come to our patch and spread your vile garbage about how amazing Microsoft really is and how we all got it so wrong.

This, on it's own, is enough evidence to me that 90% is not enough for them - they want it ALL - and are clearly willing to attempt to discourage even the 'heart and minds' of mac users.

chibber21

Feb 5, 2008, 09:28 AM

hagjohn

Feb 5, 2008, 09:57 AM

I think most of you are missing it all.. It's not about Flickr or messenger. It's the Search, Ad revenue and traffic that is the big deal for anyone buying them.

dvince2

Feb 5, 2008, 02:39 PM

surferfromuk

Feb 5, 2008, 03:09 PM

Hey hey surferfromuk, I gather that comment was about my little quip, please, dont take it too seriously!

I was merely making a sly little comment about the $150 million worth of non-voting stock M$ aquired in 1997 to keep Apple afloat and thus avoid the anticompetative watchdog - and the irony that in a post lauding the possibility of Google doing roughly the same thing for Yahoo, the poster decries the company that did this for our beloved Apple

Aimed at Sirus28 actually - seemed far too coincidental that this person pops up two days ago with so much Microsoft propaganda and so vehemently anti-mac.

He was basically firebombing both the 'MY-Yahoo merger' threads with Microsoft FUD - for 'google search' purposes I guess - such attempts at 'information control' are almost orwellian...

I mean I never go into a Microsoft forums and start barraging them about the greatness of Apple so I really didn't need it here.

All that crap about Safari only displaying 30% of the page in text format and his macbook dropping out wi-fi like it was some kind of 'normal expectation' (I have a 2.2 Ghz macbook ( and an iMac) myself so I know it's crap.

eRondeau

Feb 5, 2008, 03:12 PM

I think history will show that Microsoft has peaked and has started on the long slide down. Vista's introduction (or lack thereof) has been a disaster for them. Ironically, in the 1980's Microsoft became dominant because it was small enough and responsive enough to do what IBM couldn't. Now Microsoft has become the bloated corporate elephant, with an outdated corporate structure and a customer base that insists it remain compatible with ancient legacy code. How many actual new products does Microsoft now introduce in a year? One? Maybe two?

To draw a rough comparison with the Auto Industry, Microsoft today is the Ford of 1920. They have dominated the market and nobody else has been able to catch them. Between 1920 and 1940, through efficiency sheer volume, Ford drove almost 200 competing car manufacturers out of business. It took 20+ years, but Ford's competitors finally got their acts together and started adding features Ford didn't offer, drawing serious attention and respect for the first time. That's the stage Apple is in right now. After 20+ years of being a minor player (in terms of overall sales volume) Apple is finally making serious inroads into the markets previously clenched by Microsoft -- because Apple offers features that Microsoft just doesn't have. It may take another generation, but if Apple can keep focused and keep its momentum going they will come to dominate their market too.

Whether it's cars of computers, the consumer usually makes a couple of bad decisions before they make right one. :apple:

Lord Sam

Feb 5, 2008, 03:22 PM

Please god, anyone, ANYONE but Microsoft!

Syrus28

Feb 5, 2008, 07:30 PM

Aimed at Sirus28 actually - seemed far too coincidental that this person pops up two days ago with so much Microsoft propaganda and so vehemently anti-mac.
Aww. So much hostility. It hurts. Where have I shown to be anti-mac, or anti-apple at that? Give me some links... I say owning a MacBook + iPod touch is proof enough that im not anti-apple. You, however, have all but admitted you are anti-Microsoft. Remember saying this?

In short, we can dream can't we - of a world free from Microsoft's desktop tyranny, incompetence and bully boy business tactics ?

If Steve Jobs had not been kicked out of Apple in 85 we'd have seen OSX Leopard in 1995 and we'd be on OSX 20 by now - that's the difference - the world lost out cos Microsoft got given the whole thing on a plate - for free.

He was basically firebombing both the 'MY-Yahoo merger' threads with Microsoft FUD - for 'google search' purposes I guess - such attempts at 'information control' are almost orwellian...
Or maybe the post interest me? Me, unlike you, can appreciate what Microsoft has done. And the fact that Yahoo is my home page helps too.

I mean I never go into a Microsoft forums and start barraging them about the greatness of Apple so I really didn't need it here.
This isn't a Apple forum. The site is called MacRumors. And considering the fact that I own a MacBook and iPod touch... So I would expect some Mac Rumors to be going on, not people [you] bending down licking Apple's feet.

All that crap about Safari only displaying 30% of the page in text format and his macbook dropping out wi-fi like it was some kind of 'normal expectation' (I have a 2.2 Ghz macbook ( and an iMac) myself so I know it's crap.
Let me direct you to this thread:LINK (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1361968&tstart=75)

Or maybe PC world? Link (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139140-c,macos/article.html)

How about Gizmodo? Link (http://gizmodo.com/346122/question-of-the-day-leopard-causing-wi+fi-dropouts)