Who actually uses any Yahoo service as a matter of choice?
It beggers belief that they haven't gone under yet.
Yahoo! had little to say on its looming tie-up with Verizon, as the Purple Palace turned in quarterly numbers that managed to beat analyst expectations. Speaking only briefly on the recent comments from Verizon about adjusting the $4.8bn acquisition deal in the wake of security and privacy problems, Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer …
1. Can we trust Yahoo's claim that DuckDuckGo's Yahoo Server is off-limits?
2. Yahoo rolled over and let the US Govt slurp despite public corporate protests...
3. Yahoo covered up a billion user hack / leak, apparently that's the real figure...
4. Search results have started to tank, far worse than when DDG used Google.
5. Corporate animals don't change their nature, I had this bookmarked away:
6. Time to return to Startpage or give Qwant a try: https://lite.qwant.com/....???
7. Hope the Verizon deal crumbles and Yahoo end up being sold for $1 like Excite etc...
The P0wnage Palace was reporting the quarter to 30 Sept. I'm not convinced the full effects of the 500 million user hack and Yahoo secretly handing over info to the US Government would have been reflected at all in those numbers.
IIRC the hack appeared on the dark web sometime in July but was only confirmed by Privacy sell-out Yahoo! a week or two before the quarter end (that was good timing, eh?!). The USG spying news started to break in early October (i.e. after the quarter end) so any revenue consequences on the NSA's bed warmer from this won't be reflected in these figures.
TL;DR big surprise it all stinks of bullshit. I'd be more interested in the figures for the current quarter (to 31 Dec) and the quarter after that (to 31 March) as they will really show the effects of people actually going elsewhere and presumably not coming back. If I was Verizon I'd be demanding access to current numbers to see any hit.
Nobody except for a few old DSL customers (AT&T, Kimo, KDDI) has anything to do with Yahoo yet they claim a profit?
The money isn't in direct user services; it's in the ad networks.
Verizon doesn't give a sh!t about Yahoo Mail, any more than they cared about AOL Mail when they bought AOL.
Yahoo and AOL both have large ad networks which display targeted ads on lots non-Yahoo and non-AOL properties. Each of those ad networks individually is smaller than Google / Doubleclick or Facebook, but combined they are larger.
VZW plans to integrate the Yahoo and AOL ad delivery networks with their own system that tracks users at the network level. The combined ADN will be a major player in the ad business and a huge cash cow that does not depend on new-subscriber acquisition.
I still use a Yahoo service directly, Flickr (as do plenty of other people) as despite them managing to make it worse over the years, none of teh alternatives are that great & (for many Flickr users) little point migrating if lots of the people / communities they interact with most are still on Flickr so that tends to keep some users
That's a yahoo service with a "stickiness" factor.
The yahoo groups probably still have a bit of life in them too as the mailing list functionality still seems to be used a lot.
Yahoo Groups used to be pretty good, but is now a shadow of its former self having been hacked to bits during refurbishments and upgrades over the last few years to the point it's barely usable. I know of several groups that have migrated away either to custom solutions or groups on Facebook (yes, I know). One group remains there, clinging to the wreckage, simply because they can't provide their own bespoke solution and it's not been possible to locate a suitable alternative.
I can only conclude that Yahoo Groups is a loss maker for the P0wnage palace and they've deliberately broken it to encourage people to sod off. If it was profitable then paid for alternatives would have popped up to grab those departing the mess at Yahoo. I've looked and nothing I've found (paid for or adverts) offers anything close to the same features and functionality.
Doesn't that phrase sound reassuring?
If someone tells me out of the blue "You can trust me", I prepare to hear some lies. Similarly, Marissa Mayer's assurance that:
"To that end, we take deep responsibility in protecting our users and the security of their information."
means that when she was asked for a copy of all the information, she handed it over without even bothering to put up a token fight.
AIUI if the US Government demands that a computer service lets USG spy on its users, it is not allowed to say that this is happening.
For this reason, some services have announced publicly that the USG is not demanding to spy on the service users. They may be allowed to say that. And if in the future they stop staying that, the conclusion to be drawn, since it is the purpose of setting the thing up, is that the USG is now spying on the users.
Anyway - if the USG demands that a computer service allows spying, and the computer service wants to resist the order by legal argument, it seems to me to be obvious that the service and everyone else must be not allowed to reveal that in public, as well.
So, Yahoo may have resisted vigorously and we wouldn't be allowed to know it. So I think we can't complain that they didn't resist. We do not know.
We do know that they didn't terminate and shut down their business and delete all the data, as some others have in a similar case - protecting users by withdrawing the service, and making their own staff unemployed and shareholders served a total loss. It's a hard choice to make. And possibly an illegal one, since duty to shareholders comes first - that's the law.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019