Feeds

Microsoft rejects Yahoo! rejection

You ungrateful 'unfortunates'

Build a business case: developing custom apps

Steve Ballmer still wants to swallow Jerry Yang's company.

Just a few hours after Yahoo! rejected Microsoft's $44.6bn purchase offer, the Redmond-based software giant has responded, reiterating that it "reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!'s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal."

In a statement released this afternoon, Microsoft calls Yahoo!'s rejection "unfortunate".

"It is unfortunate that Yahoo! has not embraced our full and fair proposal to combine our companies," the statement begins. "Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of all parties."

In other words, Ballmer and company will continue its talks with the Yahooligans and will likely increase - or hell maybe even decrease to teach Yahoo! a lesson - its bid. Chances are, Yahoo! rejected the initial offer in a shameless effort to push the price tag higher.

In any event, Microsoft still believes that this acquisition is one great idea. "We are offering shareholders superior value and the opportunity to participate in the upside of the combined company. The combination also offers an increasingly exciting set of solutions for consumers, publishers and advertisers while becoming better positioned to compete in the online services market.

"A Microsoft-Yahoo! combination will create a more effective company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. Furthermore, the combination will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising."

With Google as the number one competitor, we question how compelling this number two will really be. Google controls about 60 per cent of the worldwide search market. Microhoo! would control about half that. But one thing's just about certain. Microhoo will happen. One way or another. ®

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

More from The Register

next story
Assange™: Hey world, I'M STILL HERE, ignore that Snowden guy
Press conference: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME (cont'd pg 94)
Premier League wants to PURGE ALL FOOTIE GIFs from social media
Not paying Murdoch? You're gonna get a right LEGALLING - thanks to automated software
Caught red-handed: UK cops, PCSOs, specials behaving badly… on social media
No Mr Fuzz, don't ask a crime victim to be your pal on Facebook
Ballmer quits Microsoft board to spend more time with his b-balls
From Clippy to Clippers: Hi, I see you're running an NBA team now ...
Online tat bazaar eBay coughs to YET ANOTHER outage
Web-based flea market struck dumb by size and scale of fail
Amazon takes swipe at PayPal, Square with card reader for mobes
Etailer plans to undercut rivals with low transaction fee offer
Call of Duty daddy considers launching own movie studio
Activision Blizzard might like quality control of a CoD film
US regulators OK sale of IBM's x86 server biz to Lenovo
Now all that remains is for gov't offices to ban the boxes
prev story

Whitepapers

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup
IT departments are embracing cloud backup, but there’s a lot you need to know before choosing a service provider. Learn all the critical things you need to know.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.