Microsoft + Yahoo! = Microsoft - $44,600,000,000 ?
Oy.
My first reaction: "That's a lot to pay for flickr."
I'm surprised yet not surprised. Internally, a number of us had heard reasons from Steve Ballmer why a Yahoo! acquisition didn't make sense. One that sticks in my mind right now is how if we acquired Yahoo! - such a big company - we'd have to naturally have layoffs within Microsoft to accommodate it.
Maybe there are HR people wandering around Microsoft this morning asking, "What color slip did you say? Pink?"
Man, if I was in the Online Services Division I would be worried. Especially if Yahoo! did something my team did and did it well.
I guess you can track down the 10:00am meeting and see if you can get your question answered.
Forty-four point six billion US dollars. In long hand: $44,600,000,000 USD.
So, if your team is naturally at risk due to the acquisition I would start checking in on your local network and see what's going on elsewhere in Microsoft. If there's someone within Microsoft you've always wanted on your team that has some turbulence ahead due to the acquisition (yeah, I know, Ballmer's telling us "stay on target") check in with them and tell them the groovy things your group is doing.
If the buy goes through, it will be one huge turning point for Microsoft: I think we'll either turn it around brilliantly and our mega-investment will be worth it, or we'll be torn asunder and revert back to our core cash cows. It will be a story worth telling, one way or the other. In the meantime, that big huge money-chest is going to go empty, and that might bring a new sense of clarity to our operations.
Initial posts:
- Mr. Todd Bishop: Microsoft's big Yahoo bid Behind-the-scenes details - nice flow of updates over time and info on the Yahoo! board. Follow-up story by Mr. Bishop: Microsoft offers $45 billion to buy Yahoo
- Ms. Mary Jo Foley: Microsoft to become Micro-ad All about Microsoft ZDNet.com
(more later.)
204 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 204 of 204That fixation on Apple, Google, Sony, IBM, or whoever else he decides is the enemy of the month is why Ballmer is hopelessly floundering around and wasting shareholders' money on failed ventures. Get him out of there, or you can count on MSFT staying on a slow decline.
And yet... and yet we're still a growing company posting incredible profits. MSFT being in "slow decline" is most certainly not a fact; indeed it's quite debatable.
Seriously, would you have been able to sell any copies of Vista to date, if you didn't have the monopoly leverage over the Dells and HPs of the world?
But we DO have the monopoly advantage, blanche. we ARE a monopoly and you ARE in that chair and WE will do as WE please.
Heh. couldn't resist.
In any case, this argument is at least partially a red herring because rightly or wrongly, our dominant position gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with. The salient point is that we have not yet hung ourselves and we continue to do quite well overall, and the jury of long-term performance has not returned a verdict on the wisdom of ballmer's "vision".
I'm the OP who made the comment about you still being in school, btw -- your point-of-view demonstrates a lack of understanding between the unique pressures faced by small startups vs. large established businesses. A small startup can afford to ignore competition and focus on the needs of a specific kind of customer, but a large business with established competition (and, just to throw another monkey wrench into the works) a highly heterogeneous customer base must balance customer "focus" with the need to meet lowest-common-denominator user requirements and ever-present competitive pressures from companies who will develop a feature that becomes a de facto must-ship standard.
It's a balancing act, get it?
Does any of the above mean Microsoft didn't drop the ball on quite a bit of customer-focus? No. Does that mean it's not simply a matter of "focusing on the customer" as you would like to believe? Absolutely.
You can pay me for the business 101 lesson after you've made a few bucks in the real world, btw. No rush. ;-)
...Heres a hint on WM and XB - a whole new generation of kids dont reflexively DESPISE MSFT now b/c they view MSFT as XB. An EU telco is planning to use XB as THE set top box for its IPTV. If you're still clueless, you're helpless...
Man you sound so grandiose. FYI mysterious telco is BT and service is raging sucess (not):
...Sales of BT Vision have been somewhat sluggish according to critics, with BT signing up around 100,000 subscribers since launching in November 2006.....
By the way xbox is only one of the supported devices.
And now the punchline:
...On-demand films and sports content from the BT Vision service will be available via the Xbox games console from the middle of this year. Unlike the dedicated set-top box the Xbox will not be able to receive or record live TV....
Hint - found article on an EU broadcaster's website (bbc for ordinary people)
we're still a growing company posting incredible profits
Profits which would be far higher, if Ballmer wasn't throwing billions down unprofitable ratholes for the sake of his ego. The man is the ultimate example of the Peter Principle, and his continued presence at MSFT is bad for your shareholders, your employees, and your customers alike. (Of course, it's great for me. personally. Between Ballmer and Alchin, MSFT's botching of Vista has made me a nice bit of cash through my AAPL shares: enough for me to be able to go and start a new business instead of having to keep working for someone else.)
we ARE a monopoly and you ARE in that chair and WE will do as WE please.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, while your smarter colleagues bail and go to work at Google.
IBM had that monopoly and lost it, just as you're doing now. IBM lost it, because it turned out that unless a monopoly is government-granted, customers do have the option of going elsewhere.
"I'm the OP who made the comment about you still being in school, btw -- your point-of-view demonstrates a lack of understanding between the unique pressures faced by small startups vs. large established businesses."
I've been in this industry since 1982, in companies ranging from three-man shops to the Fortune 100. I'll match my business experience against yours anytime, anywhere.
-jcr
a large business with established competition (and, just to throw another monkey wrench into the works) a highly heterogeneous customer base must balance customer "focus" with the need to meet lowest-common-denominator user requirements and ever-present competitive pressures from companies who will develop a feature that becomes a de facto must-ship standard.
You know, running your drivel through a verbiage expander really doesn't support your point. You claim that a large business has to think about the competition instead of the customers, and if you actually believe that, then you're part of the problem.
History is replete with examples of companies that lost their customer focus, and ended up either vanishing or getting far smaller. Most of those companies had people spouting blather just like yours around the time they peaked.
-jcr
Post a Comment