|
|
|
|
|
|
by lionhearted
6199 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting piece - reads correct, but I wouldn't count out a company with 3 billion in liquid reserves. Wow. Also, this set my Small Sample Size Alarm off some: > Bing is off to a remarkably good start. Microsoft has historically had 8% to 9% of the US search market compared to Yahoo!’s 20% and Google’s 65%. Early results show Bing’s share surging as high as 13% of 14% in the three weeks after its introduction. [emphasis added] Still, interesting read. I actually feel better about Yahoo after reading it - I didn't realize they had that much cash in the bank. That means that barring an epic screwup, they've got at least 5-10 years to develop a new big revenue source. I wouldn't count them out yet, but they do need to develop some new products that make cash. |
|
|
Other than that, it is an entirely incompetent piece:
1) He appears to think that acquisitions can only be paid for with cash. 2) He does not explain why he thinks search is Yahoo's critical business: Carol Bartz does not seem to think it is. She may well be wrong, but he needs to explain why he thinks so. 3) MS may be willing to invest heavily in search, but throwing money at something does not guarantee results. 4) Yahoo can afford deals such as the one MS has made with Verizon - especially as the wording he quotes implies that the payments are being made over a period of years and are likely to be covered by the revenues it generates. If MS is willing to make unprofitable deals to gain share it will make Yahoo weaker in that market, but he gives no evidence of that. 5) Yahoo has huge amounts of traffic, and a lot of good products. Even the search engine is at least on par with Bing.