Apple and Others Considering Bids for Yahoo?

[Syrus28]

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!

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

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

Yahoo's value is limited to the talent of its engineers

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

 

[EagerDragon]

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]

Advertising dollars...

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]

Way off topic ...

(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]

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]

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...

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.

 

[jettredmont]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

Corporations are single entities. A corporation is a legal entity (technically, a juristic person) which has a separate legal personality from its members. See Wikipedia.

For instance: Apple IS considering expanding the iPhone feature list.
NOT: Apple ARE considering...

I see this error very frequently in forums. Apple is considered one unit (not a group of people).

 

[rtdunham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I would. All night Party!!

 

[EagerDragon]

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]

...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]

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.