MicroHooBook rumors are very probably false. A test of the non-Emergency Blogcasting System?


I thought I’d coined “MicroHooBook” but Matt   had done that  a full hour before.

Just a moment, just a moment…. looks like The 463 had it before Matt.   Originality sure isn’t what it used to be…

Microsoft is certainly working with Yahoo now to try to buy a piece of the company rather than the whole – Microsoft announced that over the weekend.     Most think they want to buy the search component of Yahoo and that Yahoo may sell because if they don’t Carl Icahn will be forcing a proxy fight that he will probably win, having already bought or lined up about 30% of the votes/shares in his favor.     

But John Furrier “broke” the rumor that as soon as they had Yahoo search MS would snap up Facebook for 15-20 billion.    I think this rumor is speculation and nothing more and I’m even thinking this was something of a test of the non-emergency blogcasting system, which generally delivers misleading information even faster than the truth. 

John Furrier and Robert Scoble are both clever guys, which is why I’m a bit suspicious they have cooked up the MicroHooBook rumor to test TechMeme and how the blogosphere reacts to unfounded rumors.

As usual, the blogOsphere loves unfounded and unverified rumors and this is the key tech blog story for Monday May 19. 

I think Sarah Lacy has this right, and she’s got more of an inside track to Facebook than most reporters.

Yahoo Microsoft – the Sequel?


TechCrunch is reporting that Microsoft has “excused” the proposed slate of new Yahoo board members telling them that they won’t be needed anymore.    I don’t think this tells us much if anything about the status of a new deal which rumors suggest may come from the Yahoo board’s concern over losing…billions of dollars.

I think MS is just playing this very smart.  These little measures are designed to get the current Yahoo board to rethink their folly.   I think only Jerry was dead set against the merger and the rest of the board would have settled for 35 or even 34 per share.   Why wouldn’t they?   Yahoo has been languishing for years, and the chance of getting back to 34 *without Microsoft* is fairly slim in the coming lean advertising years, not to mention the fact that low morale, challenges at the company, and the declining prospects with Microsoft may take the stock even lower.

Yahoo should have sold at 33 and I think they will almost certainly sell at 35 due to pressure from Shareholders and (more importantly) heavily vested board members who are “losing”, collectively, several billion dollars by sticking to their guns in this.

Ballmer has left the Building


Talks between Microsoft and Yahoo have stalled and may be over.   33 vs 37 per share.    I still think Microsoft is just calling what better be a bluff by Yahoo, because if they don’t take this MS offer the stock is going back to the sub 20’s and Yahoo is looking at a huge number of shareholder lawsuits asking why they sabotaged the offer of $33 when they are only worth $19 without Microsoft.

Here is my view at Webguild with the letter to Yang from Ballmer

Yahoo Microsoft: Is the fat lady almost singing at $34?


Henry Blodget is whining that the Yahoo Microsoft deal is back to where it started, but I think Henry’s wrong … again!     

I’m glad Henry was wrong about the rumor that Yahoo’s Q4 would beat expectations because it was part of the reason I bought YHOO then, and even though the stock dipped due to a bad Q4, it surged on Microsoft’s offer of $31 per share so I’m well in the black.   But now he’s wrong to say the deal is not almost done.  I think this Yahoo Microsoft merger is coming very soon to an internet near you.

Citibank Analyst Maheney upgraded Yahoo this morning, anticipating a boost in the MS bid to $34.   Hey, maybe he read my blog post of about 6 weeks ago where I suggested Microsoft raise their bid to $34?    

Unlike Henry, I think this is not back to where it all started at all!

Yang didn’t want to merge, now he sees it as almost inevitable.  Yahoo board wanted more, now they know anything past initial offer is gravy.  Part of the show was probably the board protecting itself against lawsuits from the unlucky minions who bought their Yahoo at $35+, some at over $100.

Barring a Q1 miracle that would recalibrate Yahoo prices without help of MS bids, I think the fat lady is now almost done singing on this deal.

 Disclosure:  long on YHOO

MicrosoftOxymorons


OK, not quite an oxymoron, but here is the latest “headline” from Microsoft that comes pretty close to contradicting it’s own strategic premise:

Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.
New interoperability principles and actions will increase openness of key products.

Huh?   Oh, OK, now I get it.  Hey, that really is big news, but I wonder if many folks will have a clue what all this means until it’s intrepreted by the media which is generally not all that sympathetic to the Big MS.     Why do they write like this?    It’s bad enough that these initiatives come like Microsoft is Google’s lap dog, chasing away at quality innovation two or three years too late.   Can’t they find somebody to state this stuff clearly?

It seems to me microsoft routinely shoots themselves in the foot before they are even out of the gate.  This happens for many reasons, but it is almost as if the company actually believes all the bad things about them and thinks they can only maintain dominance via monopoly and power plays rather than ….ummm…. working a lot harder to be customer centric, highly communicative, innovative and clever.    They can do it, but they don’t do it. 

Ironically all these goals are a key part of  what they are trying to do with this excellent open architecture  strategic initiative, but I think this great idea is almost lost in the bizarre Microsoft doublespeak we’ve all come to know and shake our heads at.

How would Google write a corresponding headline?

Microsoft Headline:
Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.
New interoperability principles and actions will increase openness of key products.

Google Headline: 
We’re OPEN!

Yahoo Headline:
Help, we are about to be held prisoner in a Microsoft Soylent Green Fortune Cookie Factory! 

Gates on Yahoo: “It’s the People” | Yahoo on Gates “OMG! He’s making Soylent Green!”


As Microsoft prepares for a proxy fight that will pit them agains the Yahoo board in the fight over control of Yahoo, Bill Gates is talking up the deal as a way for Microsoft to access the great talent pool of Yahoo.    Although he’s certainly right that Yahoo’s got a lot of great talent, it is not at all clear that most of them will stay and work for Microsoft.   I think a lot of the Yahoo staff will see MS as trying to consume them into the Micro Borg mother ship, rather than work with them to make a better Yahoo/MS to fight the Google wars.

I suspect they will if MS treats them right, and I think MS would treat them right, but it would not take an extraordinary poaching effort from Google to effectively dismantle the really great parts of Yahoo.   Oh, yes, and this Google poaching has already begun. 

A couple years ago – at the Google Party no less – I was involved in a fascinating conversation with one of the key search guys from Microsoft’s search engineering team and another top engineer from Google.  One of the most interesting topics was how MS felt that Google had very selectively poached a key Microsoft search insider.    The MS guy said until that point he felt Google had been basically playing fair, but that he knew from that episode that Google was strategically picking off people not so much because they wanted them but because Microsoft *needed* them.      He felt this defied the “don’t be evil” Google mantra and had soured him on Google’s honesty in these matters.    Suffice it to say that as much as I think Google *usually* does follow the “don’t be evil” mantra there was some pretty interesting clandestine activity going on at that party to record the MS guy as several beers got him to spill more beans about the MS algorithm.    In fact it was then I realized how weak the MS search effort was with what he said were only 300 engineers working in search, while Google had *thousands*.

Gates is certainly wrong that the cultures are the same.   Based on my experiences with people from these three companies I’d suggest the cultures are pretty clear:   MS culture is a massive corporate empire with lots of heirarchies, corporate bloat, somewhat overbearing, and diminishes the role of the individual as a key part of the big team.  People are not proud to be with MS – they are often almost apologetic.

Google is flexible with lots of lateral motion in terms of project and ideas.   Ideas and cleverness will trump formal designations which are few anyway.   You can stand next to a top engineer worth tens of millions and a new hire and you can’t tell which is which – not even from the way they treat each other and certainly not from the casual dress or styles.    Google people are smart and confident, and generally very helpful and well-informed with the notable exception of questions about ranking quirks where transparency goes pretty much out the window.

Yahoo?   I think they *used to be* just like Google, but managed to mov in the direction of managerial bloat and questionable treatment of engineers several years ago.  They paid people well, but I think the focus moved away from search and engineering and towards a content and entertainment empire.  This was a mistake, and Yahoo’s about to to pay the price – they are about to get absorbed into the MS empire.    But don’t worry Yahoo engineers – they are not making much Soylent Green over there anymore.  Right Bill?

Ina on Gates

Disclosure:  Long on YHOO 

Yang to Yahoos: Keep the Faith


Blodget has a good summary of Jerry Yang’s Yahoo note to the troops articulating the reasons for the rejection of Microsoft’s offer and the company’s future plans.    He gives Yang an A- but I think this might be generous.  

I’m wondering if Yahoo didn’t fail recently, rather years ago when many lines of separation were drawn between technologists and most of the company management.  I assume there were official lines drawn, but I’m talking more in terms of culture here.     My bullishness about Yahoo has rested on the assumption that the technologists would eventually have their day and as with Google would create the tools necessary to keep Yahoo competitive and interface with the broader developer community as Google has done so effectively to bring more awareness and use of Yahoo tools, effectively widening their footprint over the internet landscape.  

I no longer thing there is enough technological empowerment at Yahoo to make this likely anytime soon.   It will take a LOT more than peppy emails and a combative stance here.  Recent defections from Yahoo suggest that even internally Yahoos are more bullish on Google than their own company.   

So, if we assume Yahoo’s got to do something really big is Microsoft or News Corp the best fit.    From Yahoo’s perspective clearly they’d love it if News Corp was willing to pony up as much as MS, and frankly this seems like a more likely winning combination than MS and Yahoo which would have a lot of initial, and perhaps long term, contentiousness.   Fox Interactive is run brilliantly, and applying these management principles to Yahoo could do a world of good to the bottom line of the combined company.    As a Yahoo shareholder I’m rooting for that option though I’d predict MS will win this battle because of the difficulties News Corp will have showing how valuing Yahoo at 50 billion+  is justified given how difficult it may be to make a lot more money from the combined company in anything short of many years.

disclosure:  Long on Yahoo

Yahoo Tech Ticker – Arrington on Yahoo


Yahoo’s got an interview with Mike Arrington who provides some excellent and concise commentary on Yahoo’s demise, including at the end of the interview his prediction that the interviewer will be …. out of a job soon.

I think the *key* point Mike makes is that where Google gets about .09 per search on average, Yahoo gets about .04.   He notes this is partly demographic and partly due to Yahoo’s search monetizing deficiencies that were supposed to be rescued by project “Panama” but were not.  I think this is per search query rather than per click on a search ad, but the point is the same – Google makes more than twice as much per search action, and this is a crushing advantage to have over Yahoo.

So, what is the endgame for Yahoo in the Microsoft deal?   We should know soon if the rumors of a News Corp deal are well founded or hyped up.   Some are suggesting that it’ll be very hard to fend off Microsoft in any case as they are likely to bid $35 per share soon which will about equal the rumored News Corp deal of about a 50 billion valuation for Yahoo.  

Disclosureizing:  Long on Yahoo

YaFoxHoo? Now that makes some sense…


The rumors of a potential offer from News Corp for Yahoo are interesting and CNBC claims they’ll have some new news from news corp in a few minutes, though I’ll be surprised if this is more than rehasing the rumors swirling around that appear more as linkbait for blogs than substantial information.    

CNBC is referencing Jessica Vascellaro’s story at WSJ:

The deal would allow Yahoo to remain independent while giving News Corp. substantial control over a huge array of Internet properties and advertising opportunities.

News Corp, already a key internet player because they own Myspace and many Fox properties that have huge online visitation, could leverage the Yahoo aquisition to some advantage, perhaps through monetization optimizing, cross promotion, and such.    However I would not want to try to make the case to Murdoch that Yahoo is worth *more* than MS already generous offer.   As employees run for the door and the board is more interested in fighting than switching, I’m not clear Yahoo should be playing hard to get right now with anybody.

Disclosure:   Long on Yahoo

Yahoo Executives – kudos for true believing, but sell the place anyway!


A lot of folks have been very hard on the Yahoo board and Jerry Yang in particular for fighting the Microsoft takeover bid, but it should be noted that almost more than anybody these folks are playing with their own money, and the stakes are huge.

As Fortune reports Jerry Yang’s got more than a few Yahoo shares, and this he’s effectively “gambling” with his own money as he powerfully resists the fat Microsoft offer.    If Yahoo stock tanks – as it certainly will if Microsoft backs out – I won’t be all that much worse for the wear but Jerry would be taking something like a *half billion* hit to his net worth.   That’s real money, and you’ve got to admire Jerry and the board for believing so strongly in their “new” vision for the company that they are willing to bet they can regain their former glory.  

Of course, maybe they *can* regain their former glory, but that’s a bird in the wild and wooly internet bush and Microsoft’s offer is *billions of birds* in the greedy little hands of investors.    This is not a tech issue – billions of Microsoft birds in hands are better than a few Yahoo birds in the bushes.   

Disclosure:  I have some YHOO, though fewer than Jerry Yang.