BREAKING: Microsoft Proposes Yahoo! Takeover at $31 per Share (44 Billion $ Takeover)

[DukeofAnkh]

I would say that iWork '08 is a step in the right direction.

Certainly. I would love to be able to use it exclusively too, especially since Office 04 makes me want to punch the screen each time I open it. Unfortunately, Office does things I need that iWork doesn't. But ignoring the whole not working properly on Intel thing (my 08 hasn't arrived yet...) I don't think Office is a bad app. Probably MS's best asset in light of what everyone thinks of Vista.

 

[michaelverdin]

Come on Yahoo, you're the only IM company with homegrown Windows and Mac video capable clients, look to the long term and don't take the money!

Also, i really don't want to have to uninstall yahoo messenger and delete my mail plus account that i just paid £11 for m'kay

 

[phillipjfry]

What could MS possibly do with Yahoo they couldn't do with their own search engine?

...Ballmer's "stand behind our product" announcement of taking a 3 billion dollar write-off on 360 repairs, extending the warranty on all 360 consoles to 3 years, refunding anyone who had paid for repairs. He said, We're going to take care of our customers. If anyone has a defective hardware failure up to 3 years after purchase, we're going to take care of you, free, no problem.

What he didn't say: All the 360s hardware problems, pretty much save dropping it, are due to excess heat. The "3 red lights" failure is a heat-related failure. All the other onboard chip failures are heat-related. But you got your 1 light, 2 light and our 3 light failures. He didn't mention the part where you only have 2 lights or 1 light, same defect or no, you can go take a flying leap...

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on?
was pretty unaware of this

 

[LizKat]

Yahoo + Google = The Most Monopolistic Company that never lived. That would never be allowed by the U.S. let alone E.U.

Besides, Yahoo and Google overlap on almost every single thing they do. How would they merge?

They won't. But it's a nice delaying tactic while YH tries to run something else through a spreadsheet in the meantime. Round up someone with deep pockets and an abiding dislike of M$ or whatever. Maybe Ellison like to buy it instead of another antiquity or building another ocean racer.

Go yahoo! Improvise!

 

[Naimfan]

Yahoo + Google = The Most Monopolistic Company that ever lived.

Does anyone else remember AT&T? Or public utility companies? Etc.

The point of a public company is to make money for its shareholders.

Only one of these two companies is doing that.

First, that is not necessarily true.

Second, both companies are making terrific profits.

Third, the performance of a stock is far from the end-all of of a company making money for its stockholders.

 

[robanga]

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on?
was pretty unaware of this

The 360 is an awesome product but it is well known that you will likely go through at least one replacement. MSFT replaces them pretty quickly and they supposed to move to the new 65nm processors which will help alleviate the heat failures.

The online experience alone is worth it. Buy it and enjoy it.

 

[Naimfan]

The 360 is an awesome product but it is well known that you will likely go through at least one replacement. MSFT replaces them pretty quickly and they supposed to move to the new 65nm processors which will help alleviate the heat failures.

The online experience alone is worth it. Buy it and enjoy it.

Why not wait for the 65nM processors, then? When are they expected?

 

[Unspeaked]

It's almost not worth responding to you. You are judging a company's strengths and weaknesses based on the stock market! I'm just emphasizing that with an exclamation point, because you still seem to not get it. Microsoft is not wholly responsible for how the public views the stock. The point is that they are doing better business than Apple. There, simple sentence. Deal with that how you want, point to an abstract number governed by public opinion. I mean, need I point out the 500 examples of stocks that were riding high before the tech bubble burst that weren't solid companies? Stock price does not dictate business acumen or performance.

You know what would be great? If you could point out a single instance in this thread where I put down Microsoft. Because I haven't.

I don't know where your unbridled love for the company comes from, but if you take a closer look at what I've been saying, you'll see that I've simply been doing a courtesy by trying to answer some question you yourself brought up about why people feel the way they do about Microsoft. I never said they don't make money hand over fist, I just said they generally mishandle their purchases and their stock hasn't been doing as well as some other tech companies.

At least Syrus28 - the other vocal member in Microsoft's corner - seems to have the ability to see thing objectively. It seems as if the moment anyone directs a bad thought towards Microsoft, you label their arguments invalid.

If Microsoft was doing as wonderful as you claim it is, it wouldn't feel the need to drop over $40 billion on Yahoo! in the first place.

 

[jlbrown23]

Does this mean i SHOULDN'T buy the 360 i've had my heart set on?
was pretty unaware of this

Buy it and IMMEDIATELY stress it as much as you can(put the most graphic intensive game you can in) for about 24 hours(you don't have to PLAY it all that time ;-) ). Also, stand it vertically(this blocks the largest vent). If you don't get the 3 red bars after that, you are probably OK. My first XBox 360overheated on me almost immediately so I was able to get it back to the store for an exchange within the 5 day window & the second unit hasn't given me any problems(with a 35% failure rate, the chances you'll get ONE bad one are pretty high, but two would be a little unlucky).

The store tried sending me to MS to remedy the problem, but inevitably this means delays and beauracracy, so I held them to their 5 day exchange policy(they were even able to swap out the HD so I could keep all my saves).

MS has done a pretty good job keeping this quiet - I didn't know about it myself until my unit kept overheating & I googled it. 35% failure rate is absolutely disgraceful, although I do have to admit that the WORKING product is a lot of fun(Bioshock and Oblivion ate my Christmas break).

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

You know what would be great? If you could point out a single instance in this thread where I put down Microsoft. Because I haven't.

I don't know if it was you specifically, but at least you agreed with the "fact" that Microsoft is a failing company.

I don't know where your unbridled love for the company comes from, but if you take a closer look at what I've been saying, you'll see that I've simply been doing a courtesy by trying to answer some question you yourself brought up about why people feel the way they do about Microsoft.

I understand that, but I don't have unbridled love for MS. I respect what they've done as a company and how they've withstood the bubble burst and everything, but I'm an Apple guy. The only MS products I own are Office 2008 for mac and Xbox 360 (stolen, but never had a problem with it).

I never said they don't make money hand over fist, I just said they generally mishandle their purchases and their stock hasn't been doing as well as some other tech companies.

And I never said that there stock was doing as well, I'm just saying that stock price is not a good indicator of company strength.

At least Syrus28 - the other vocal member in Microsoft's corner - seems to have the ability to see thing objectively. It seems as if the moment anyone directs a bad thought towards Microsoft, you label their arguments invalid.

Syrus28 is making some great points, I agree, but you have to understand, this isn't personal. I'm not indicting you for being an invalid (jk, we were talking about validity), but what I am saying are that the arguments people are espousing pointing to the rumored downfall or inadequacy of Microsoft compared to Apple (your argument about stock price, others about imminent downfall with no facts) are invalid in my opinion. I'm glad this discussion is continuing though, it's a good thread.

If Microsoft was doing as wonderful as you claim it is, it wouldn't feel the need to drop over $40 billion on Yahoo! in the first place.

They're not perfect in everything they do, they want to increase market share in search engines, nothing wrong with that. Maybe a bad business decision, I guess we'll see if the deal goes through, but they're doing something about their inadequacy in this particular segment of tech.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I wouldn't shed a single tear if msft keeled over tomorrow.

Fingers crossed eh.

However great and profitable people think msft are, the reality is that their future is looking iffy, they may have just had their best quarter yet, but they will be overtaken in the next few years.

The mobile biz will be what eventually dethrones msft, their monopoly will be stripped practically overnight.
And will come as quite a surprise to most people by the looks of it.

I'm more responding to these kind of comments than to anyone in particular, I apologize if I was being a bit childish with the patronising (yay British spelling).

But in response to this post in particular: What in the world are talking about?

 

[PlaceofDis]

Does anyone else remember AT&T? Or public utility companies? Etc.

remember? isn't AT&T exactly how it used to be these days?

 

[Unspeaked]

...

I can totally respect this post, and the opinions you state within it.

Oddly enough, if you check out some of my posts outside of this thread, you'll see that I'm far from an Apple "fan boy" and have taken issue with many of their business practices in the past.

As I alluded to, I was more than anything else playing devil's advocate and trying to express the thinking behind folks who say Microsoft lacks leadership and innovation, etc.

But that's why I come to the forum: to discuss and debate

 

[hulugu]

Why doesn't Mac sell their OSX to DELL, HP, Lenovo?
Seriously what is their excuse? Seems to me, they have a great product that has a monopoly only on their physical architecture. I have read that you can manipulate (hack) so it will load onto a PC.

First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.

Seems there would be a demand, look at me. I am a convert, but to be honest I came over to play on both sides of the fence with Bootcamp.

Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.

Why is it that Office Mac still is a big seller?How come doesn't come out with an Office Suite to stamp down all the other wannabees as well as MS Office.

Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before.
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.

 

[Naimfan]

remember? isn't AT&T exactly how it used to be these days?

Not even close. AT&T used to make up all the RBOCs, the "Long Lines" division, as well as the equipment division--Western Electric, which included Bell Laboratories.

 

[Syrus28]

First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.

All good points, but remember that Apple releasing OS X and Apple having a hardware business can NEVER coincide. Dell, HP, Sony, all see Apple as serious competition in the PC business. Why would they all of a sudden fund Apple's growing business, especially considering they build their entire business plan off of Windows. Apple releasing OS X would indeed by suicide.

Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.

What's the reason for buying a Mac if your sole intention is to run Bootcamp? Believe it or not, Apple's smooth curves and clean designs are not swaying people to buy Mac's. Mac OS X is.

Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before.
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.

Not to mention that Microsoft is the biggest 3rd party developer for Mac OS X in general. MS Office just sells well on the Mac platform. I'd say its name brand recognition at its finest. No matter how good iWork '08 is, Apple would be hard-pressed to dethrone MS Office. Practically every one associates a word processor as "Word" and a powerpoint as "Powerpoint. "Excel" as a spreadsheet. Apple can't take that kind of recognition away. That's stronger brand recognition than "iPod" is for MP3 players. In fact, I see alot of people realizing Apple isn't the only one in the MP3 player game, but maybe thats just my experience.

 

[diamond.g]

I wouldn't shed a single tear if msft keeled over tomorrow.

Fingers crossed eh.

However great and profitable people think msft are, the reality is that their future is looking iffy, they may have just had their best quarter yet, but they will be overtaken in the next few years.

The mobile biz will be what eventually dethrones msft, their monopoly will be stripped practically overnight.
And will come as quite a surprise to most people by the looks of it.

Can you please explain?

First, Apple does not have a monopoly, but rather vertical integration. These are different things.

But, secondly, as others have pointed out, Apple stands to make more money on selling computers and OSX than just OSX.
If Apple allowed OSX to run on other PCs, the company would lose some or all of it's hardware business (and the fat profit margins therein) while dramatically expanding the development costs of OSX. Now, Apple would have to worry about not just having Leopard work on a MacBook Pro, but also dozens of other variations in motherboards, chip designs, custom WiFi setups, and other little variations that exist in PC land.



Yes, exactly. Apple got you to pay for a new computer and OSX, and all they had to give you was Bootcamp. Rather than develop for a whole slew of PCs, they just had to create this capability. This is a good business decision.



Because the walls of Microsoft are decorated with the skulls of those who've tried before.
Actually, Apple has a fine line to walk, they want to develop iWork into a viable Office replacement, but they want to do so in a way that won't destroy the Mac Business Unit because a vast majority of people in PC-land and on the Mac use Office. In fact, most places including businesses and universities (not to mention the legions of home users) have MS Office and thus would be hesitant to use OSX if they would run into compatibility problems.

So is is safe to say that in order for Apple to truly kill MS they would basically have to become MS? I mean Apple can't possibly supply all of the worlds computers, and they wont license OS X. So how can they kill MS?

Someone is going to have to explain it as if I am a 2 year old because obviously I am not understanding something.

 

[surferfromuk]

With 40B operating costs it would actually only take 3 years of 'year on year' 20% decline in sales to bankrupt Microsoft..

..and funnily enough that's beginning to happen - and there's a reason Vista is expensive - it's propping up the company - they simply can't afford to make it cheap!

...and when a company that makes 90% of the worlds operating systems demonstrates they can't even do EVEN that properly it's no wonder people are flocking in their droves to Apple.

And quite right too - Apple should be at the top - it's the correct natural order - the big cats should reign over the fat bloaty worms that stole their way to the top all those years ago...

2012 could be a totally different story if Microsoft continue to fail and Apple continue to create incredible innovative products.

I see Microsoft's desperate dive for Yahoo as further evidence that they haven't got a clue...

 

[hulugu]

All good points, but remember that Apple releasing OS X and Apple having a hardware business can NEVER coincide. Dell, HP, Sony, all see Apple as serious competition in the PC business. Why would they all of a sudden fund Apple's growing business, especially considering they build their entire business plan off of Windows. Apple releasing OS X would indeed by suicide.

Bingo. Apple would be in the position of selling software or nothing.

What's the reason for buying a Mac if your sole intention is to run Bootcamp? Believe it or not, Apple's smooth curves and clean designs are not swaying people to buy Mac's. Mac OS X is.

I don't disagree, in fact I've been arguing this fact for forever and a day, my point is, if you want to run Windows and OSX there's a solution and Apple can get those users who want both. If Apple went to porting OSX to Dell, their costs would go up for little gain.

Can you please explain?

So is is safe to say that in order for Apple to truly kill MS they would basically have to become MS? I mean Apple can't possibly supply all of the worlds computers, and they wont license OS X. So how can they kill MS?

Someone is going to have to explain it as if I am a 2 year old because obviously I am not understanding something.

I never said Apple would kill MS, so let's put that bon mot to bed. What I see is a slowly flagging company, desperate to use Yahoo! to prop up a flagging empire. Expecting another empire to fill this vacuum ignores the myriad of small companies and new ideas that are just around the corner. I don't expect Microsoft to fail tomorrow, but I don't see their fall halted by gobbling up another company.

There's more to this than a zero-sum game, but if Microsoft wants to survive they better start innovating. Breaking the piggy-bank for Yahoo! doesn't do this, IMHO.

 

[Naimfan]

There's more to this than a zero-sum game, but if Microsoft wants to survive they better start innovating. Breaking the piggy-bank for Yahoo! doesn't do this, IMHO.

Well said. I agree with you.

 

[gifford]

I'm more responding to these kind of comments than to anyone in particular, I apologize if I was being a bit childish with the patronising (yay British spelling).

But in response to this post in particular: What in the world are talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that in the not too distant future microsofts OS monopoly will have disappeared. Many many more phones are sold than computers, but phones will BECOME the computers of the future.

It will not be very long before Windows OS is overtaken by numerous other smartphone OS's, OSX being one of them , Android another.

Infact in terms of installed operating systems I can only guess that windows is already in second place to Symbian, though I see little future in this OS and it's popularity will dwindle as it was designed for an age of exceptionally low processor speeds which we are thankfully through.

Now the real game begins, it's possible to run a full operating system on a mobile, and I do not believe msft has the ability to succeed in this market.
And if they fail, the stranglehold they once had will be gone forever, the future is in the hands of Apple and Google.
Unix will eventually power everything, and what can be given away free will be given away free. To survive in the future you will either have make money from advertising, or from selling hardware, which is why google and apple are so well placed.

 

[Syrus28]

Uggh I thought we went over this before!!

With 40B operating costs it would actually only take 3 years of 'year on year' 20% decline in sales to bankrupt Microsoft..

So in the case that Microsoft buys Yahoo 3 times over, Microsoft goes bankrupt. Sure. Microsoft doesn't make bid budget acquisitions like this every year. No one does.

..and funnily enough that's beginning to happen - and there's a reason Vista is expensive - it's propping up the company - they simply can't afford to make it cheap!

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid people. Microsoft grew at a faster rate than Apple did in the last 6 months. Microsoft's profits are more than 3 times that of Apple!! Do you not understand this?!?!?!

...and when a company that makes 90% of the worlds operating systems demonstrates they can't even do EVEN that properly it's no wonder people are flocking in their droves to Apple.

All the criticism of Vista, yet it has overtaken Mac OS X in 8 months. So exactly what "droves" are you talking about?

And quite right too - Apple should be at the top - it's the correct natural order - the big cats should reign over the fat bloaty worms that stole their way to the top all those years ago...

... Apple fanboyism at its finest.

2012 could be a totally different story if Microsoft continue to fail and Apple continue to create incredible innovative products.

Vista is growing at about 10x the rate of Mac OS X. So if people considering this "failing", Mac OS X isn't even alive.

I see Microsoft's desperate dive for Yahoo as further evidence that they haven't got a clue...

How in the world is this a "desperate dive" ? They just offered $44 billion dollars to expand its online business. Tell me how "desperate" can even be included in this discussion. And Microsoft hasn't got a clue... Wow! Microsoft makes 3 times the profit of Apple, and they haven't got clue? I think its you who doesn't have a clue.

And Excuse all my "comparison" of Microsoft to Apple. It seems like people can only see other companies in relation to Apple.

 

[surferfromuk]

Well it's a speculative fantasy I grant you doesn't make me a STUPID STUPID STUPID PERSON...

Microsoft's Operating costs are roughly 40B on 60B t/o

If SALES decline (which if you'd read the thread you would have UNDERSTOOD THIS) by 20% a year and costs stay roughly the same in 3 years they are history...Sorry you don't like it but that's how the figures run.

Not only is their s/w bloated - they are as a company bloated. They have totally lost the ability to make their CORE products relevant and great.

Sure a lot of bad things would have to happen and I don't see it because there will always be plenty of stupid people like you backing them up - but IF the Yahoo merger totally tanked and Vista and Office sales nosedive by 20-30% then let me tell you STUPIDO - that would be enough to put them in the crapper.

OK?

(Droves BTW - 3% to 8% Mac marketshare in little over three years and still accelerating - that's droves!)

 

[Syrus28]

Well it's a speculative fantasy I grant you doesn't make me a STUPID STUPID STUPID PERSON...

Indeed it doesn't. It was my over-reaction.

Microsoft's Operating costs are roughly 40B on 60B t/o

If SALES decline (which if you'd read the thread you would have UNDERSTOOD THIS) by 20% a year and costs stay roughly the same in 3 years they are history...Sorry you don't like it but that's how the figures run.

Why would their sales decline by 20% 3 years in a row after a record quarter? Maybe Im not getting this. Can you please explain

Not only is their s/w bloated - they are as a company bloated. They have totally lost the ability to make their CORE products relevant and great.

No matter your opinion (which it is, an opinion) Microsoft is/has still doing better than Apple recently, if you look at the numbers

Sure a lot of bad things would have to happen and I don't see it because there will always be plenty of stupid people like you backing them up - but IF the Yahoo merger totally tanked and Vista and Office sales nosedive by 20-30% then let me tell you STUPIDO - that would be enough to put them in the crapper.

I don't understand your post. What sign is there are Windows/Office sales "decreasing" at all, let alone 20-30%. Windows Vista sold 100 million copies in 8 months. MS Office 2007 "sales rose 98 percent and shipments increased 61 percent" than its previous version.

OK?

(Droves BTW - 3% to 8% Mac marketshare in little over three years and still accelerating - that's droves!)

If that's droves, Vista is selling like candy. Vista went from 0% to 10% market share in 8 months!

 

[gifford]

If that's droves, Vista is selling like candy. Vista went from 0% to 10% market share in 8 months!

yes but vista is not creating market share, it is at the expense of msft's other products.
Vista has gained 10% share of a market that is n% smaller thanks to apple.