MS Buying Yahoo? Bad Idea, Even At a Discount

jfruhlinger writes "Nearly four years ago, Microsoft tried to buy Yahoo, but eventually withdrew the offer in the face of resistance from Yahoo's leadership. This week rumors resurfaced that Microsoft was once again bidding on the struggling Internet pioneer, this time for significantly less money. But even at a discount, it might be a pretty bad idea for Microsoft to get involved in the unfocused, money-losing Yahoo."

Re:Who, exactly, is losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

MICROSOFT is losing money fast

You mean the company that made $23 billion last year [yahoo.com]? Nearly as much in profit as Google's revenue and 3x their profits. 65% more profits than Apple. That company? That company is losing money fast? Really?

Really?

No seriously.. really?

Re:Money-losing!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL used to make loads of money too.
There's a bunch of things that's pretty obvious.
1. They don't own the coretech of what drives their business.
2. Customer loyalty and satisfaction arent what it used to be. No new features or comparitives. Exactly why use google?
3. No real presence in the app space. their apps are the worst in iOS.
4. No real presence in social. twitter, faceboock, google+
5. CEO musical chairs.
6. Large pockets of yahoo talent disappearing.

Let's say they have make black. I think their trending down. I don't think they have what it takes to pull to black when they do hit red either. They are just too far behind.

Re:Money-losing!?!

[Dahamma]

Actually, I agree with everything you said (other than the horrible grammar) - but it doesn't really have anything to do with my post :) Regardless of all the ways they can and should fail, they are making a profit, and stating otherwise is incorrect.

Re:Why?

[Hadlock]

To further your point, within a week of installing the new CEO at Yahoo, they signed on Microsoft to do both their search and advertising for them. This is snarky to say, but it's true - Microsoft already owns them. Yahoo is a revenue stream for Microsoft, without any of the risk involved for Microsoft's share price or litigious liability. Next to installing their own executive at Nokia last year, this was the ultimate un-acquisition. All of the benefits with no downsides and zero long term liability.

Re:Are we talking about the same Microsoft?

[Locutus]

that "focus" on languages has always been more about locking developers( and therefore software ) to their Windows platform. Silverlight is about limiting or stopping Adobe Flash because not only did Adobe become cross platform but Flash is a development platform which works across all platforms. This kind of thing is a threat to Microsoft's revenue stream( Windows ). So that's why Silverlight was created. As for MS .NET, that was in response to Java which is cross platform and the same rules apply regarding protection of the revenue stream. The kind of protectionism I talk about is evident in most all of the exposed emails from court cases which made public internal Microsoft email and depositions.

Because Microsoft's entire revenue base is tied to the Windows OS and it is a substantial revenue stream, protecting it at all costs( in the billions annually ) is business as usual and has worked for them for 20 something years. The funny thing is, they never had to compete in the portable space( disconnected mains power ) much and it never was much of a threat to the desktop or server. Apple changed that with the iPod/iTunes and how it showed great usability outside of the Microsoft ecosystem. It also expanded the Apple brand and sold desktops. Along came the iPhone and the Vista crapware and people really started taking non-Microsoft platforms seriously. GNU/Linux on the server side was doing quite well too. Zune was an attempt to curb the iPod craze but nobody fell for it since the Apple brand meant more than the Microsoft brand and you were not cool if you were Zuned. BING is Microsoft's attempt to limit Google's growth and brand and it too is failing and costing Microsoft billions. long story.

LoB