Yahoo officially rejects Microsoft
Yahoo! has officially rejected Microsoft’s $44-billion offer.
As stated in the FCC filing, Yahoo! “believes that Microsoft’s proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo! including our global brand, large worldwide audience, significant recent investments in advertising platforms and future growth prospects, free cash flow and earnings potential, as well as our substantial unconsolidated investments.”
(bold added)
"Nice lowball guys, try again."
So Yahoo rejects MS, as expected. Now either MS comes in with a higher offer, Yahoo shareholders sue Yahoo to force a sale, or Yahoo partners with someone else, like one of AOL's recently spun-off divisions to make itself more valuable.
Proxy fight!
Gates: "no... YOU'RE a dummyhead!" nya nya
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/storie...02-19-08-34-38
Uh, I don’t think they can do that.
STFU
Nice lowball guys, try again.
I assume you were being facetious. Microsoft's offer was nearly twice the share value of Yahoo. I think Yahoo's board, at least the dissenters, were not putting the shareholders' interests first. It won't surprise me if the board relents, or barring that, that there will be significant turmoil.
In more recent news, it seems like Yahoo is doing what it can to make the benefit of a MS buyout more expensive that MS would have to gain from the merger... all while pimping itself to newscorp. Should be interesting.
I think the Yahoo board is acting out of emotion and not out of care for their shareholders. I really, really doubt anyone will step up with a better offer than what Microsoft gave. I've been following this fairly closely. Yahoo doesn't seem to realize that the 2000 Internet/tech bubble burst a long time ago. There are not now droves of venture capitalists fawning all over Yahoo. In my opinion, the Yahoo board reeks of over-enlarged egos and sentimentalism for the booming late 1990's. If I were a shareholder I'd be furious right now.
Jerry Yang needs to realize that Yahoo is no longer his company. It is a public corporation.
It's time for Microsoft to launch a hostile takeover. Let's see, maybe shareholders would not want to see a nearly instant doubling of their shares' value?
Your teachers are retards. Only source? No. Good source? Yes.
HA! HA! That's funny.
Well fair enough.
When Google calls something "troubling" people take note.
True, but if Google no longer has a monopoly it might force them to step it up a little an make it better than before. Google would have to improved some, and in the long run be better for us all. I know Google is awesome but imagine a better Google!
Doesn’t anybody have a comment about that?
Comments in your text below.
"True, but if Google no longer has a monopoly it might force them to step it up a little an [and] make it [to what is this 'it' referring to?] better than before. Google would have to improved [improve] some [to what is the referring?], and in the long run be better for us all. [in what way?] I know Google is awesome but imagine a better Google! [yet another generalized, meaningless statement that doesn't warrant a response]"
Google doesn't have a monopoly - not even close.
Maybe he meant Google has a monopoly on Google applications. I could be persuaded to agree with that.
In theory... In order for a company to have a "monopoly" it needs to corner the market so no other company can enter or compete. Google's search engine has a great market share but there are others that have a nice portion. Ask, Yahoo, MSN, and many others still have a ton to offer and do so. What Google has done is diversify it's power base. They offer applications, advertising, search engine, and a ton of other tidbits.
but do they denounce AND reject Microsoft?
"True, but if Google no longer has a monopoly it might force them to step it up a little an [and] make it [to what is this 'it' referring to?] better than before. Google would have to improved [improve] some [to what is the referring?], and in the long run be better for us all. [in what way?] I know Google is awesome but imagine a better Google! [yet another generalized, meaningless statement that doesn't warrant a response]"
Critiquing my work is not what I meant by comments. I was in a rush when I was typing that.
When I said monopoly I was referring to GHoosdum’s statement about “It would end Google's de Facto monopoly of the internet.”