Yahoo may join Google instead of Microsoft
Posted by Emil Protalinski on 04 February 2008 - 01:51 · 62 comments & 42325 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil Protalinski
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil ProtalinskiContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 04 Feb 2008 - 02:23
- LMAO.
At the end of the day though these companies don't need each other - Yahoo and Microsoft both have the money and talent required to be market leaders. Live's search results are still horrible to navigate and Yahoo has put more emphasis on being a portal.
Google, despite it's many problems, is still the best because it has the best product. I will happily change search engines when a rival can produce a better interface for results and improve the quality of search results (Google keeps sending me to Wikipedia or price comparison websites, which annoys me no end). -
#2.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:41
- I actually like how for alot of things, Wikipedia comes up first. I find it often has very useful information (but of course, that can be disputed).
-
#2.2 Posted by este on 04 Feb 2008 - 06:09
- At the end of the day though these companies don't need each other - Yahoo and Microsoft both have the money and talent required to be market leaders.
If you didnt know, Yahoo has lost a lot of its market share. Its come to that point in time where they must merge to remain in existence -
#2.3 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 04 Feb 2008 - 16:12
- I'm sorry but if you want Wikipedia results then go to Wikipedia. It's simply a way for Google to mask that the results aren't as relevant as they should be and a way to lower the priority of blog posts. I'm all for Wikipedia being included where relevant but so many articles are very poorly written / sourced and yet they always seem to take the top 3 on Google.
-
#2.4 Posted by chicken-royal on 04 Feb 2008 - 18:18
- I completely agree about the Google returning price comparison websites, highly frustrating. The Wikipedia thing doesn't bother me too much, because it's usually a decent starting point for a search result.
-
#3 Posted by jrolson85 on 04 Feb 2008 - 02:24
- They should pick google, google would be better than microsoft
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by milesfromordinary on 04 Feb 2008 - 02:29
- isn't it up to the shareholders? and as of right now google hasn't offered any money... so they'll still be deciding on the deal with Microsoft
-
#4.1 Posted by Xerxes on 04 Feb 2008 - 02:37
- I say they'd go with Google as the choice is a no brainer, either be given a wad of cash and still be second to Google or join with Google and control ~72.5% of the search market (combined) that amount of control would easily be worth more then the $44.6 billion MS is offering, of cause this is just my opinion so take with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Xerxes on 04 Feb 2008 - 02:45
-
#5 Posted by TheNay on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:08
- Look who's trying to pull a monopoly now, lol, this has to be B.S
-
(4 replies)
#6 Posted by whocares78 on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:34
- so when MS wants to buy it google says it is anticompetitive, yet its ok if google wants it
-
#6.1 Posted by PsykX on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:41
- I agree with you that it is bad if Yahoo! is bought by either MS or Google (antitrust and all that....)
but MS... they really have everything. They're insanely big, they have windows, games, a bunch of software, a gaming console, keybaords, mice, a web browser, etc. etc. etc. and now they want more... A company big like that should never be allowed to grow even more. And if you replace the word Microsoft by Apple, or anything else, it still applies by the way.
Competition is good and always welcome. -
#6.2 Posted by whocares78 on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:04
- (PsykX said @ #6.1)I agree with you that it is bad if Yahoo! is bought by either MS or Google (antitrust and all that....)
but MS... they really have everything. They're insanely big, they have windows, games, a bunch of software, a gaming console, keybaords, mice, a web browser, etc. etc. etc. and now they want more... A company big like that should never be allowed to grow even more. And if you replace the word Microsoft by Apple, or anything else, it still applies by the way.
Competition is good and always welcome.
google is INSANELY big too, and you are talkign about differnt markets, it's like saying Sony should only make TV's and leave making consoles to nintendo adn other devies to someone else. (or only make electronics and leave the music industry to others) your even separating a web browser from other software....and are forgettgin they ALREADY do search...
so at what point do you decide that a company can't 'grow' anymore???
when it comes down to it a lot of smaller companies are owned by bigger companies, and there are big companies that are owned by even bigger companies it just isn't as obvious..
i actually think it woudl be good if MS bought it as it woudl make for a competitive SEARCH company, as it stands there are no SEARCH companies that really compete with google.. -
#6.3 Posted by toadeater on 04 Feb 2008 - 17:13
- (whocares78 said @ #6)so when MS wants to buy it google says it is anticompetitive, yet its ok if google wants it
A "business alliance" isn't the same as being bought.
Microsoft brought this upon themselves by making this hostile bid towards Yahoo. The entire tech industry should come to Yahoo's defense. -
#6.4 Posted by STV on 05 Feb 2008 - 05:04
- (toadeater said @ #6.3)(whocares78 said @ #6)so when MS wants to buy it google says it is anticompetitive, yet its ok if google wants it
A "business alliance" isn't the same as being bought.
Microsoft brought this upon themselves by making this hostile bid towards Yahoo. The entire tech industry should come to Yahoo's defense.
I doubt GE is a "business alliance". They make all sorts of appliances, generate and distribute electricity, transportation equipment (land, air, etc), and they even have their hand in television, movies, and financial services.
How will Yahoo be hurt by this? They are slowly losing market share, it seems. As for the most obvious consquence of a buyout, are the job cuts; however, it seems that job cuts were already on the way (http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205909195&cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb). How could this be a bad thing?
It just seems that a little "double standard" it coming from all of this, don't you think? It is fine, if Google gets +70% with Yahoo, but it isn't okay for Microsoft to even have +30%.
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by WarLuigi on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:40
- IRONIC!
-
#7.1 Posted by Thrawn on 04 Feb 2008 - 06:36
- IRONIC++ Didn't they just say:
"Google emphasized that the interests of Internet users should come first, and that serious questions about the possible acquisition need to be asked."
Google is really starting to disgust me. But they still have good search results.
-
(5 replies)
#8 Posted by +chconline on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:46
- Personally I would think Microsoft would be a better choice, but that's just me.
-
#8.1 Posted by z0phi3l on 04 Feb 2008 - 03:52
- (chconline said @ #
Personally I would think Microsoft would be a better choice, but that's just me.
It's a good thing most SANE people see it differently -
#8.2 Posted by whocares78 on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:06
- (z0phi3l said @ #8.1)(chconline said @ #Personally I would think Microsoft would be a better choice, but that's just me.
It's a good thing most SANE people see it differently
i take it you assume you are sane.. what is so bad about having a competitor for google, as it stands neither MS or yahoo really compete or do you think google shoudl get it and increase their dominance of the search market even more? -
#8.3 Posted by z0phi3l on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:19
- (whocares78 said @ #8.2)(z0phi3l said @ #8.1)(chconline said @ #Personally I would think Microsoft would be a better choice, but that's just me.
It's a good thing most SANE people see it differently
i take it you assume you are sane.. what is so bad about having a competitor for google, as it stands neither MS or yahoo really compete or do you think google shoudl get it and increase their dominance of the search market even more?
Yes I do believe Google would do a better job at it than MS, MS has proven that they can't do many things well and really the only thing they do well now is Peripherals and Game systems, also MS taking over Yahoo will put them under even more scrutiny from both American and European anti-competitive regulators, while Google would be seen as consolidating the search market -
#8.4 Posted by whocares78 on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:29
- (z0phi3l said @ #8.3)(whocares78 said @ #8.2)(z0phi3l said @ #8.1)(chconline said @ #Personally I would think Microsoft would be a better choice, but that's just me.
It's a good thing most SANE people see it differently
i take it you assume you are sane.. what is so bad about having a competitor for google, as it stands neither MS or yahoo really compete or do you think google shoudl get it and increase their dominance of the search market even more?
Yes I do believe Google would do a better job at it than MS, MS has proven that they can't do many things well and really the only thing they do well now is Peripherals and Game systems, also MS taking over Yahoo will put them under even more scrutiny from both American and European anti-competitive regulators, while Google would be seen as consolidating the search market
i dont think its about who will do a better job, google already does a pretty damn good job at this stuff, MS dosnt and either does yahoo, put them togeterh and you may just finally get some competition for google... dont get me wrong though i use google for search..
MS is bad at makign OS's thats why they dominte the OS market, i have used MAC OS and linux and i prefer windows, it really is a personal preference.. i also disagree on the game systems, the 360 has had a lot of issues, a lot more than the PS3 or Wii..
so even though google say MS buying yahoo is anticompetitive, they dont believe that it is anticompetitive if they take it over?? this is just ridiculous as google will have such a domination of search noone will be able to compete..
how the hell is MS takign over yahoo more anti-competitive than google taking it over, seeing MS takign it over will still not even give them enough market to beat google, yet google takign it over will give them about 75% of the market -
#8.5 Posted by Skyfrog on 04 Feb 2008 - 14:32
- I agree, Google does not need Yahoo. They just want to kill it off and have less competition, not to mention keeping Microsoft from getting it. Microsoft wants it to compete with Google. The best thing for consumers would be for Yahoo to remain a seperate company, but following that it would be for Microsoft to get it. The worst thing for us would be for Google to get it.
-
#9 Posted by cork1958 on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:51
- As I stated in the news article right below this one on main page, now, if the shoe is on the other foot, it's a totally cool thing, huh?
Screw Google!!
Actually,
Screw these absolutely asinine deals!!
-
#10 Posted by Hurmoth on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:51
- There's no way Google could afford $44.1 billion and I doubt care what anyone says, people will go where the most money is. The stockholders wouldn't want Google over Microsoft because Google doesn't have the money MS does.
-
#11 Posted by kyro on 04 Feb 2008 - 04:52
- I just cant see how a company totally standing on *Nix technology (Yahoo) can merge with company bent to crush *Nix technology.
And in my opinion i agree with lots of reviews on internet suggesting Microsoft sees itself loosing to web-ad-market revenue and purchasing yahoo is its desperate attempt in not getting crushed by google.
-
(5 replies)
#12 Posted by nunjabusiness on 04 Feb 2008 - 05:19
- What's really hilarious in all this is the "At $31 a share, Yahoo believes the bid undervalues the company" statement. I would love to know WHO made this statement and in what context.
Remember, Yahoo announced last week they were canning 1,000 people. Does that sound like even the management thought the company was doing well?
What no one seems to remember is that Yahoo went public when the bubble was growing exponentially and companies who MADE no profits were being valued insanely high. The company has never REALLY been worth what shares cost.
The $31 per share offer was a 62% premium over the closing price of about $19 on Thursday before the offer was made. Only after the offer was made public did Yahoo's stock surge on Friday (quite nicely.) However, the MS offer is still a gift the sensible shareholders can not ignore.
What google is really afraid of is exactly what happened Friday - their stock took a 39% dive after the news of the bid. -
#12.2 Posted by nunjabusiness on 04 Feb 2008 - 05:35
- (Slimy said @ #12.1)I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 39% dive. Link?
"At the same time, there are signs Google's own business may be slowing. The company's fourth-quarter profits were below analysts' forecasts, and yesterday the company's shares tumbled $7.05, or 39.7 percent, on the news of Microsoft's offer for Yahoo. "It would be premature for us to comment at this time," said Matt Furman, a spokesman at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif."
REFERENCE
You might also look at http://stockgroup.financialpost.com/sn_ove...asp?symbol=GOOG how does 48% grab ya? -
#12.3 Posted by Slimy on 04 Feb 2008 - 05:44
- Odd, I couldn't find that drop on another financial site. That's one hell of a drop!
-
#12.4 Posted by mprobins on 04 Feb 2008 - 09:46
- (nunjabusiness said @ #12.2)(Slimy said @ #12.1)I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 39% dive. Link?
"At the same time, there are signs Google's own business may be slowing. The company's fourth-quarter profits were below analysts' forecasts, and yesterday the company's shares tumbled $7.05, or 39.7 percent, on the news of Microsoft's offer for Yahoo. "It would be premature for us to comment at this time," said Matt Furman, a spokesman at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif."
REFERENCE
You might also look at http://stockgroup.financialpost.com/sn_ove...asp?symbol=GOOG how does 48% grab ya?
You need to learn how to do both math and read stock information (as does the person writing the boston.com article).
Google's share price dropped $48.40, NOT 48%. That reprecents a drop of about 8%, not 39.7%. The stock would have needed to drop about $250 for the loss to approach 48%. -
#12.5 Posted by nunjabusiness on 04 Feb 2008 - 12:26
- (mprobins said @ #12.4)(nunjabusiness said @ #12.2)(Slimy said @ #12.1)I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 39% dive. Link?
"At the same time, there are signs Google's own business may be slowing. The company's fourth-quarter profits were below analysts' forecasts, and yesterday the company's shares tumbled $7.05, or 39.7 percent, on the news of Microsoft's offer for Yahoo. "It would be premature for us to comment at this time," said Matt Furman, a spokesman at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif."
REFERENCE
You might also look at http://stockgroup.financialpost.com/sn_ove...asp?symbol=GOOG how does 48% grab ya?
You need to learn how to do both math and read stock information (as does the person writing the boston.com article).
Google's share price dropped $48.40, NOT 48%. That reprecents a drop of about 8%, not 39.7%. The stock would have needed to drop about $250 for the loss to approach 48%.
You are right, my bad for not checking the math. Whatever! an 8% drop in one day is still not good.
Also, the fact remains in Dec. the share price was $718 - Friday less than 2 months later it is $515.
It has definitely lost nearly a huge chunk of its value.
What do you care anyway - it won't directly affect you for quite a while, unless you actually bought any.
In which case - Bwahahahahahahahahahah!
-
#13 Posted by guruparan on 04 Feb 2008 - 05:55
- I would go with Microsoft buying Yahoo...and if google buys it..then MS will reconsider the ways it currently works..and surely they have power to fight against :-)
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by Niels. on 04 Feb 2008 - 06:45
- Right, so first Google complains about Microsoft taking over Yahoo because it would hurt the "openness" of the internet, and then this? Contradiction at it's finest.
-
#14.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 04 Feb 2008 - 22:22
- I really don't find any contradiction in there, assuming that you know companies, and that you've read the same article as I did.
-
(3 replies)
#15 Posted by A Clockwork Lime on 04 Feb 2008 - 07:17
- This isn't about Google buying Yahoo. It's about Yahoo working with Google as partners so that Yahoo can avoid being bought-out by Microsoft or anyone else. Huge difference between the two, but keep wearing those tin-foil hats.
Last edited by A Clockwork Lime on 04 Feb 2008 - 07:42 -
#15.1 Posted by +shakey_snake on 04 Feb 2008 - 08:00
- Yeah, I don't understand why everyone so far is saying the opposite, either.
Neowinians, I'm losing faith in you.
-
#15.2 Posted by Fourjays on 04 Feb 2008 - 09:09
- Same. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a takeover and alliance to prevent a takeover?
What Google are trying to do is keep Yahoo and MS separate. Obviously for Google it is so they don't have a larger competitor, but it's good for the consumer too as 3 competitors is better than 2. -
#15.3 Posted by mprobins on 04 Feb 2008 - 09:52
- (Fourjays said @ #15.2)Same. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a takeover and alliance to prevent a takeover?
What Google are trying to do is keep Yahoo and MS separate. Obviously for Google it is so they don't have a larger competitor, but it's good for the consumer too as 3 competitors is better than 2.
Depends; 3 competitors sharing 33% marketshare is better than 2. 3 competitors, one with 60% marketshare (and gaining) while the other two are at 20% (and losing), are not better than 2; the two with lower marketshare obviously don't pose any sort of appreciable challenge to the one with 60% share (ie: they might as well not exist).
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by RAID 0 on 04 Feb 2008 - 08:53
- Who gives a ****? It's friggin Yahoo!
-
#16.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 04 Feb 2008 - 14:44
- You might want to educate yourself before making foolish posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!#Pr...ts_and_services
-
#17 Posted by boho on 04 Feb 2008 - 11:07
- Google won't be allowed to merge Yahoo
. Microsoft will put a kiss of death on Yahoo if they buy it. 
Microsoft midas touch (from long ago) no longer turns things to gold, the colour is brown rather than yellow and the word rhymes "grit". Most of what Yahoo do is also done by MSN anyway. People and corporations may like Microsoft for their computer O/S and a few office and "back office" products, but they don't want them to have an opportunity to create a similar monopoly on the Internet.
In the London Times today, Microsoft have threatened to kick out all the Board if they resist this hostile take over.
Note well everyone, the caring sharing Microsoft. The seriously wounded (meat eating) Tyrannosaurus Rex
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3300964.ece
-
#18 Posted by sorlag on 04 Feb 2008 - 11:27
- Google shouldn't be stopped but it needs some major competition...
I hope microsoft succeed in buying yahoo and building web services etc...
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Magallanes on 04 Feb 2008 - 11:48
- Microsoft and Yahoo = good match.
Google and Yahoo = Monopoly. -
#19.1 Posted by boho on 04 Feb 2008 - 17:06
- Can you explain this monopoly that Google has? I have never paid Google a bean for any of their services. When they start charging I'll switch, simple as that. All they are is an advertiser, with a few very nice free services. Microsoft have had MSM (originally called Microsoft Network) from the days I was beta testing Windows 95 (1994)! What have they been doing in the 7 years Google has been in existence? Yahoo have been around even longer, and Altavista longer still Webcrawler before that.
I don't see how Google has prevented all these companies from becoming top dog other than others, lack of vision. If you wish to advertise with Google's mighty user base, pay up, or switch to someone else. I don't see Google using lawyers to strangle others, or stealing others ideas, unlike a company I could mention
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by Brandon on 04 Feb 2008 - 12:41
- Whats with all the google haters?
If you haven't noticed, MS/Yahoo's search is nowhere near as good as google's -
#20.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 04 Feb 2008 - 14:45
- So you would prefer it stays that way and let Google have free reign over the web?
-
#20.2 Posted by toadeater on 04 Feb 2008 - 17:17
- (Skyfrog said @ #20.1)So you would prefer it stays that way and let Google have free reign over the web?
No one said that. But no one, except maybe two or three Microsoft fanatics on Neowin, would want Yahoo bought by MS. How could THAT possibly be a good thing? It would be a disaster for consumers and the tech industry.
We need more choice, not more duopolies (Nvidia & ATI, or Intel & AMD), or monopolies (Microsoft, AT&T).
I hope some foreign search engines will be able to compete with US ones soon. I mean someone besides China.
-
(1 reply)
#21 Posted by OceanMotion on 04 Feb 2008 - 12:51
- Google search isn't infinitely better, it's just synonymous with search. "Google it". Live search is fantastic for video and pictures for instance. Try the video search on Live, you will be surprised. For example, put you mouse cursor over the video in the search result and see what happens.
-
#21.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 04 Feb 2008 - 14:35
- It's becoming infinitely worse in my opinion, more and more spam results or things like "these search terms only appear in links pointing to this page". WTF is that all about. If I search for "purple dogs" I want pages returned with info about them, not completely unrelated pages that other pages about purple dogs linked to.
-
(2 replies)
#22 Posted by xSuRgEx on 04 Feb 2008 - 13:23
- thats just bells and whistles, i dotn care to much for live serch or yahoo.
in the old days Av.com was my prefiered search engine. but google has become my default search engine as i can find almost anything i want.
if yahoo joined forces with google that would be a good thing, Ms needs to stop trying to own everthing.
what will Ms try and buy next? a small country, a supermatket chain thats a possabel threat to microsofts software? who knows. -
#22.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 04 Feb 2008 - 14:40
- So it's ok for Google to buy other companies or branch out into other markets, but if Microsoft tries to compete with them they are evil. Got it...
-
#22.2 Posted by ichi on 04 Feb 2008 - 23:28
- (Skyfrog said @ #22.1)So it's ok for Google to buy other companies or branch out into other markets, but if Microsoft tries to compete with them they are evil. Got it...
Google is not buying Yahoo (TFA talks about a "business aliance" )
Also if MS buys them they would stop funding projects like Zimbra and php, which wouldn't happen if they sided with google.
-
(2 replies)
#24 Posted by lbmouse on 04 Feb 2008 - 16:20
- Here is some powerful straight shooting from Google:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/yah...f-internet.htmlCould Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.
Competition is what drives innovation and efficiency. -
#24.1 Posted by C_Guy on 04 Feb 2008 - 16:29
- Yes. And as Microsoft pointed out, Google is the dominant player for web searching and advertising. They are just throwing out childish (and groundless) flamebait because they are scared of competing against Microsoft.
-
#24.2 Posted by lbmouse on 04 Feb 2008 - 16:43
- (C_Guy said @ #24.1)Yes. And as Microsoft pointed out, Google is the dominant player for web searching and advertising. They are just throwing out childish (and groundless) flamebait because they are scared of competing against Microsoft.
How the hell is the merging of two companies driving competition and diversity? Google is discussing a business alliance; Microsoft is going for the jugular with a hostile take over. If MS was truly interested in competition, they should compete against Google with better products rather than resorting to cannibalistic business practices. The consumer is the one who loses in the end especially with how MS treats sectors they monopolize. The more diversity there is, the more innovation and competition there is in a market.
-
#25 Posted by C_Guy on 04 Feb 2008 - 16:25
- Yahoo doesn't need either company, really. (But they should thank Microsoft for the nice boost to their stock price)
Google is just acting in their typical 5-year-old "I want everything my way" fashion and Microsoft is hungry for more and more.
Stay solo and enjoy the bump in your publicity and stock price while you can Yahoo.
-
(1 reply)
#26 Posted by blueboy75 on 04 Feb 2008 - 23:21
It makes no sense for Yahoo to join Google. Yahoo is supposed to be a competitor and they are trying to beat Google. They can't do that if they're partners with Google. That's actually stupid.
They are in financial trouble and need to continue going it alone or merging with someone other the Google.
If they go with MS, they actually have a chance be on par with Google. Why else do you think Google doesn't want it to happen.
And for the record, Yahoo search is actually pretty good and very much on par with Google. Have any of you nay sayers actually tried it lately. They just have some brand issues to fix.
Also, the second part of the threat to Google is going to be Facebook which is still the dominant social engine. Yahoo search could easily be integrated into Facebook.
Third, R&D,
Microsoft needs help with there online services in general and will have it with the merger.
Google defences have gone up and for good reason!-
#26.1 Posted by A Clockwork Lime on 05 Feb 2008 - 05:28
- (blueboy75 said @ #26)It makes no sense for Yahoo to join Google. Yahoo is supposed to be a competitor and they are trying to beat Google. They can't do that if they're partners with Google. That's actually stupid.
"If you can't beat them, join them." Google advertises on Yahoo sites, Yahoo advertises on Google sites. As opposed to Yahoo being strongarmed out of business and their board of directions fired by Microsoft. Yeah. Tough choice to make there.
-
#27 Posted by MulletRobZ on 05 Feb 2008 - 20:42
- I even heard rumors that Apple was courted to join in the Yahoo bid war (link here)! Chances are, that's false, but seriously, Apple should get a few partners and launch a joint bid to counter Microsoft's! But if that doesn't work, I just hope American and European regulators block this hostile takeover! After all, Microsoft has a tendency to stifle innovation when it acquires other companies!
At $31 a share, Yahoo believes the bid undervalues the company, two sources said. In other words, it is quite possible that Yahoo's efforts to find an alternative bidder could simply be a measure to pressure Microsoft to boost its bid. At the end of the day though, there is still no information of an alternative bid being placed, be it from Google, News Corporation or yet another company. I'll try to stay on top of things as more information becomes available.