Yahoo again rejects Microsoft bid

SAN FRANCISCO: Yahoo reiterated Monday its rejection of a takeover offer from Microsoft, again calling the bid too low.

The company was responding to a letter from Microsoft in which the software company threatened to lower the price of its buyout offer and take it directly to Yahoo shareholders.

Although Microsoft's offer was initially valued at $31 a share, a drop in the price of Microsoft shares has reduced the offer to just more than $29 a share.

Microsoft's chief executive, Steven Ballmer, raised the pressure on Yahoo's directors Saturday in a letter warning that Microsoft would begin a proxy fight seeking to oust them if the two companies did not reach a deal in the next three weeks.

"Our board's view of your proposal has not changed," Yahoo said in a statement. "We continue to believe that your proposal is not in the best interests of Yahoo and our stockholders. Contrary to statements in your letter, stockholders representing a significant portion of our outstanding shares have indicated to us that your proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo."

Senior executives from the companies have met on two occasions since Feb. 1, when Microsoft made its offer, but they have not entered formal negotiations. Yahoo has rejected Microsoft's offer, saying it "substantially undervalues" the company.

"We are open to all alternatives that maximize stockholder value," Yahoo said. "To be clear, this includes a transaction with Microsoft if it represents a price that fully recognizes the value of Yahoo on a standalone basis and to Microsoft, is superior to our other alternatives, and provides certainty of value and certainty of closing."

Yahoo's board has asked Microsoft for information on antitrust issues and other matters but feels frustrated by Microsoft's lack of response, according to people involved in the discussions, who were granted anonymity....."

Yahoo.com used to be the best out there for on-line email, contacts, calendar. I have been using it for at least 10 years and it's the ONLY service I actually pay about $20/year for the PLUS service (more blocked addresses for spam, unlimited email space (which they all do right now ) and less of those hideous ADDS and animations assaulting you every second you are in that website -). And yet, with the ‘plus’ option service, I have been very happy with the service. Reliable, and besides I really know it well, no spam problems to speak of UNTIL NOW!!!! Reason for which I am moving.

Things I hate or have hated for a long time about YAHOO

FIRST ONE: At least in my case, is that I have never found A PERSON, A HUMAN BEING to help me when I have a problem. It's all help menus and more Help menus... And that is very DISHEARTENING!... Because as great as the Internet is, it's horrible when an 'established' site like yahoo..- Which is SO IMPORTANT to me personally and that for ‘security reasons,’ I can not discuss here , treats a customer this way… to me is simply a sign of arrogance and even disrespect.

SECOND: SPAM filters. I have not seen any changes in years, and something better is needed) My 500 addresses/slots for blocking spam are used up and when that happens, that's it!... anything over that amount, and the spam is not blocked anymore.... so every time I open my email now I may have from 20 to 50 and sometimes more pieces of sh**. The best I could do is find some kind of emails from users discussing the problem and the solutions were really not practical or confirm.

THIRD: The advertising and those hideous ADDS and ANIMATIONS I spoke about. Not such thing in Google!... silent and quiet as a website can be… I guess they can afford not to have them… And I tell you this is shear heaven…

AGAIN, my main beef is the ACTITUDE of a company like Yahoo. First off, because they have not found a better solution to defeat spasm (other services like INBOX.COM have better filters, like those that force you to type in those funny letters correctly if you want the email to go through… Now, this WORKS!.. Why have they not adopted yet, I will never know, but then again, why should they when MS is willing to pay $40 billions or more? Right? … I would not give a sh** either 

So why then is MS so bullish in buying yahoo you ask?

Well my friend, in case you don’t know… I have been checking Google.com in detail of late and all I can say is that it has ADVANCED TO FAR AHEAD OF YAHOO… that is like comparing a FERRARI with a VW. And yet… Yahoo still would be the best if it weren’t for google.com. That is how good and simply “innovative” this company is.

THAT IS WHY MS needs YAHOO!... Because they need to make up time like crazy if they want to have a shot a competing with Google.com. As much as LOVE MS office – Not the pricing though, especially for Upgrades – I love it because no matter how pretty or elaborate it is your document, the MOST important thing is that anyone in the World can open it, read it and use it… And MS did that, they made exchange of documents throughout the universe EASY.

Anyway, back to Google. Anyone knows that changing a PC or Notebook to a newer one and bringing it to the same level as the previous one is the equivalent of ‘heart surgery’ for many of ‘regular’ users, like most of us are. I have change computers six times already and let me tell you, even transferring the email – All of it – to the new machine could be a challenge. That is why I went for online email, contacts, etc.

On top of that, you can save regular documents (in Excel, Word, and Pictures etc) and have it available for ANY computer where you have access to the Internet. So I have my “key” files on-line and I can NOT TELL YOU how convenient this is! - for me anyway - And I notice I am doing it very slowly, but I just love the convenience.

No, you will always want to have your computer with your applications and data at home!... with all the trash and run of the mill stuff.

The point?... If MS does not watch out, Google can create the famous, long waited “Document suite” all on-line. You probably will not have to install the applications in your computer anymore (unless you want to). But simply open the document online, work on it, save it, and there it remains, on-line. In fact I am already doing it… Work on-line and download it to my system as a back up fairly often just in case the Internet goes down or whatever. We all learned the lessons of backing up our data, right . So BACKUP, back up and more back up your data. This, in ADDITION to all the great things Google has done, like “Google Earth.” This little application is simply awesome…No better to look at the planet earth… Just incredible. And we can not forget “Google Search!” which is like most of my purchases begin, then “Google product search” (it will get you many of the websites who have it and at the price listed, etc. And what about “Google maps?” Again, the best imo. And what about “Google Pictures,” where I get all my Pics for my political cartoons!... (nothing even closer for free)

But anyway, with broadband and Google’s computers being so fast, it takes almost the same time that if you open it from your computer. I don’t foresee getting rid off your HD in your pc anytime soon, but I predict this will be more and more popular as people get more comfortable with this.

Why did I right this about? Hmmm…. Good question, I guess I want it to stick it to Yahoo a bit and because this might help others who may not know much about this stuff…

Good night! 

People just-do-not-get what MSFT offers on so many levels.

That seems to be the problem. Really, it's a marketing/packaging issue that's so basic it takes supreme incompetence to bungle as Microsoft has done. The typical user wants basic functionality. They don't want to deal with the hassles of bundled software that causes an operating system to appear consume more resources than the programs run on it.

Microsoft wants to force the user to accept a fully bundled packs of the OS and their utilities rather than marketing a basic version that allows the user to get their email, print their docs, watch a video on YouTube and maybe play some warcraft or something.

Instead they get the monstrosity of Vista that requires a full system upgrade or go back to XP which works for what they need and the system they currently have.

Microsoft certainly has the right to create a strategic vision for their product and the market they want to service in the future. I don't deny that, however what they've done is create a vacuum in the market between what the offer and what the typical user wants. That's lead to major alienation and moreso, resentment due to the fact that Microsoft is currently the only viable alternative for like, 80-85% of the market.

Microsoft is big, stable and has a huge flow of revenue, but the building animosity of their consumer base is going to bite them in the tail big time unless it's addressed.

OTOH, I use MSVS, and talk about a "sandbox" application. You can build anything with it. The first 10 minutes we used it, just screwing around, we were able to access remote, Non-MS SQL servers and run SQL commands to pull them into a what? 15 line piece of code, this was complete with passing the user id, establishing the proper file location (simplest terminology between multiple platforms), running the request and pulling the data.

THAT was impressive.

And again:

People just-do-not-get what MSFT offers on so many levels.

You're right, however most people will never understand WTH I just explained above, and will never appreciate the potential Microsoft has opened up. They just don't need it for what they want to do.

OTOH, from a development perspective? Very, very cool stuff.

Anyway, MS has to do something at the low-end user level. They can't risk alienating the basic users I'm referring to. At some point, there will be someone who can give them what they want if MS doesn't. MS doesn't want to risk that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.