So the good news is....
...the Mail Group might fail because of this?
Let me guess, this is one of those Daily Mail articles where they tell you the good news about X on Monday and but by Friday, X has morphed into a global catastrophe?
Right now MailOnline parent the Daily Mail Group is worth at most £2.5bn, and the few content assets that Yahoo! is supposed to be selling, are already worth way more than that. But the issues go deeper. DMG – parent both of the Daily Mail print newspaper and the massively successful online site Mail Online – has no magic …
"The good news being it cures cancer and the bad news that massive numbers of people have started doing X, which causes cancer?"
But Yahoo! causes cancer. So why would the Daily Fail want to get cancer? Unless, of course, it's actually the Daily Fail that gives you cancer but Yahoo cures it?
We won't know until it turns up on the sidebar of shame.
So the good news is...... that Yahoo management have owned up to being crap.
That's the good news.... and it seems to have been lost in all the Daily Mail hoo-ha.
Take Flickr as a prime example.
So..... you don't want all your photographs to be suddenly owned by hivemind or picssr - where they lose all context with your collection (becoming pointless images - try visiting the 'image' page from Google images and you get just SHITE!...... certainly not your 'location related' collection).
Okay... understandable (of course it's too late - you have to get google to delete them AND the new owners) BUT...... to do this..... Yahoo deletes your pictures from their own search system!!!!!!
What?..... this can't be true (but it is).
Yahoo cuts off it's nose to spite it's face....... so now, your pictures in all their contextual glory, stored on Yahoo systems, are now invisible on Yahoo search!
Is this madness?
If so.... what form of madness is it, where you (Yahoo) destroy your own database of images that you (Yahoo) have paid so much to set up (cos it's free storage)?
Vis a vis the Daily Mail...... they are in the image business.
Perhaps they would wish to reinvigorate Flickr.
I honestly don't know.
But in the face of the 'tsunami of complaints' over what Yahoo are doing to image storage & display, yet blindly tripping over umbilical cords, and pushing forwards with their kneejerk manoeuvres....
.... please...... somebody take them over, because the good news is:
They have finally admitted that they haven't a clue (and don't we know it).
Yahoo deal with email. If the Daily Fail take over Yahoo, how would we know whether the Yahoo services that are currently running will still be available? I have a feeling that Daily Fail will take over services that it feels are profitable and remove those that are making a loss. Therefore things like Yahoo Mail and Flickr may suffer.
I'm sure the Daily Mail would love to run email. If they could only get enough people to use the service, say by ceasing to screw it up horrible drastically improving it, they could sack all their journalists and just rely on all the lovely info passing across their servers.
Oh Ethics? Yeah, that'th the plathe just to the East of London isn't it...
The Daily Fail are a right wing newspaper. So what will happen is that they will make you pay for Yahoo. It'll be cheap at first, then get more expensive while the service gets worse. To fix it, they will raise the price of the service But the service gets worse, more people leave, the Daily Fail loses money. They then say they're going bankrupt and ask the Government to help. The Government steps in, rescues the service, and over time stabilises it. At which point the Government sell it at a loss to The Daily Mirror.
Know the feeling. I own the postal address I live at and it's letterbox. By contrast free email services come and go and have varying privacy issues. Buy a domain for your email and you have to obfuscate you postal address by paying a quite high annual fee - and still decide on a secure backend email solution anyway.
" does not inspire in me confidence in their ability to keep email and news separate."
Well the choice seems to be, go with Google et al who don't see any difference between using email and other personal information for profiling and advertising purposes, or go with the Daily Mail and see your 'private' email becoming the source of tomorrow's headlines...
Given the commentards of Yahoo News are often as rabid as those of the Mail; that alone probably makes it a marriage made in heaven.
That said, it's rare to find any media publication comments section which doesn't get used as a platform for hate speech these days.
A prime example is the Independant comments - every single one seems to be hijacked by EDL/BNP/UKIP ranters.
No attempts to even menton the actual subject apart from a lever to rant about Muslims, Migrants, Corbyn, etc.etc.
(and elsewhere here we are informed it is some sort of Trotskyist collectivethat is responsible)
Yahoo has seen many top-end changes and much moolah chucked at it but it still declines.
One can only hope that extra money increases this decline and drags the Maul with it.
BUT will buying a foriegn company cause mortgages to rise and homeless gay immigrants infect our bricks and mortar with AIDS?
HAS YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL MADE MIDDLE BRITAIN OBESE? -- Mail-o-matic
Two subjects that usually mean a piss-take article.
Pleasantly surprised to read an article that plays it straight.
I've never understood what Yahoo! is actually for and so its finances are a mystery to me. But on the off-chance that this all means that more money is needed, I can see Yahoo! following BT down the path of charging for e-mail servers that have been free up to now.
Is this the problem? Perhaps The Mail have been burning with jealousy for ages, because News International made such a success of Myspace. And they're desperate to get in on the action...
Come to think of it, didn't ITV do so well with Friends Reunited too - and the less said about AOL Time Warner, the better.
The AOL Time Warner merger was masterful. I'm pretty sure the case was that there were some very clever people at AOL who managed to hoodwink Time Warner (who were until this time pretty successful) into believing that AOL had any value, had any income and weren't the laughing stock joke player on the Internet. That would have taken some effort, but to somehow come up with a value in excess of Time Warner's was a masterpiece of creative accounting.
Um, if you look back, it was AOL that bought Time Warner.
Beautiful move on AOL's management's part.
They took bubble billions and bought something with some real worth, consolidated management, then when the bubble burst, AOL-TW took a big hit in profits short term, but survivable.
AOL alone would have died.
All that was left was to jettison the 'Acquiring' AOL, name and all, then retain their management positions in Time Warner.
Sheer, evil, genius.
Technically it was a "merge" with both organisations transferring into a new combined organisation, 55% of which was AOL, 45% Time Warner, as dictated by their current "value" at the time. The shifting of management positions and shareholdings would likely make for quite dull but insightful reading.