Comments on: Ballmer is trying to rewrite Microhoo history

Microsoft CEO's is changing the script in the Microhoo saga. In Moscow, he reportedly said, "Yahoo was never the strategy we were pursuing."

[flhu]

Is it me, or when Ballmer wrote: "Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition," did it seem like he was talking about MS?

[manodud]

sounds like "sour grapes" to me...

[open-mind]

I think Balmer is missing his more "Microsoft-like" (and much less expensive) options. First, tweak Windows so that non-IE browsers work like crap. Then tweak IE to make Google's web site work like crap. Lastly, modify IE so that Windows Live is its one-and-only default search site.

BOOM ... instant search traffic ... problems solved.

[Mr. Dee]

The more I read about Microsoft and Yahoo! the more that strategy sounds like a dead end.

[BrianJStewart]

The more I read this site, the more I am convinced there is absolutely no reporting going on at CNET anymore. Everything is taking quotes out of context, spinning it this way or that way (i.e. Pro Microsoft-Yahoo Merger, Anti-Merger, Pro-Google, Anti-Google, Anti-Microsoft), whatever direction the wind is blowing on the day of the article. Is it just me?

I hate to defend Ballmer, but I think Ballmer has been rather consistent on the Yahoo acquisition. It was always an accelerator for Microsoft's strugglnig search and online advertisement business. It was never about anything else. They wanted scalability and advertisement consolidation to accelerate their search and advertisement business and have a strong #2 rather than a weak #2 and weak #3..

Microsoft has a strong portal and several strong online services that are suprisingly donig well. Sure they can always expand those and add sites (organically or through acquisitions), but the Yahoo acquisition was always and only about search and advertisement scale and consolidation. They know how to build software and frameworks, services, etc and have been doing rather well in that area. But in order to monetize those services and portals more effectively and quickly, the Yahoo acquisition was strategic in that sense only. It was never strategic in terms of Microsoft's overall online market where Microsoft has done rather well (i.e. MSN Portal, Live Messenger, Hotmail, Live Spaces) and will undoubtedly make acquisitions to acquire more sites. Sure they can do better, and need to do better.

This very much explains Ballmer's reluctance to over pay for Yahoo, if they needed a web presense or were "desperate", they'd probably be willing to acquire Yahoo for the 50-55 billion that Yahoo wants but will never get. Ballmer and company have been very clear on what a Yahoo acquisition would bring to Microsoft and what it was worth to them.

[dfarber]

It's hard to imagine that Yahoo's search business was worth close to $50 billion....so the notion that Ballmer only wanted search is a bit revisionist....search has been the most important aspect of the failed transaction, but the other parts of Yahoo have to be worth something and were alluded to in Ballmer's first note about the Yahoo deal. I don't doubt that Ballmer would have phrase his latest remark differently to avoid this kind of parsing, but this is a case of Microsoft trying to compete with Google via acquisition and having a hard time accomplishing that goal...
DF

[BrianJStewart]

I am not saying there isn't more to Yahoo than Advertising and Search. Microsoft would certainly have gotten more than just that, but it was always centrally about the money maker (online advertisement) from the beginning. Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Kevin Johnson, Ray Ozzie (among other top Microsoft Executives) have repeatedly stated their interest and objectives and the need for a strong #2 rather than a distant #2 and #3.


The facts speak for themselves (here are a few of the many press releases):


http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/press/2008/02-01Yahoo.ppt.
Just look at the first two slides (slide 3 and 4) of the presentation. Their motivations and interest are quite clear.


Also go look at Kevin Johnson's email to the company on February 22.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/02-22KJohnsonEmail.mspx

There are countless other references in public speeches, press releases, interviews, etc.