Even though all of these gains, plus more as core yahoo lost value was from Alibaba this does look impressive at a first glance.....
> We oversaw the creation $43B in market capitalization and shareholder value. Our market cap has gone from $18B to $51B (increasing our valuation by $33B), while we returned nearly $10B in cash to shareholders.
Sadly the list of employee gains seems very spartan compared to the shareholder gains.
For those of you wondering what the Yahoo/Altaba shell contains now...
- approximately 15 percent equity stake in China’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.,
- about 36 percent in Yahoo Japan Corp.,
- cash and marketable debt securities,
- certain minority investments and Excalibur IP, which owns some patent assets.
> approximately 15 percent equity stake in China’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
15 percent of Alibaba is about $52.5 billion. I'm not sure why we're even discussing anything else. It's like saying that my contribution to family finances is:
a) not selling my parents' house, which is now worth half a million.
b) having $1.32 in change in a little ashtray by the door.
You can thank Jerry Yang for the market cap increase since he bought the alibaba stock. They could be worth twice as much if they haden't sold 1/2 their stake back to alibaba.
Can someone explain how Yahoo's valuation increased by $33B, and yet it was sold for only $4.5B? Was Yahoo terribly in debt when Marissa took over? Or does the metric for valuation have no basis in reality?
By my read, the list of accomplishments for customers is notably short of anything positive that Yahoo did during Mayer's tenure, except for the fantasy sports. Non-rhetorical question: do people really think she did a good job because of how she managed the negatives?
I don't follow Yahoo! that closely, so the below is primarily based on headlines I've seen in the past few years... let me know if I have butchered any of the details. The bulleted points quote Mayers' statement.
* We became 1 of 3 internet companies in the world with more than 1B monthly users
* We grew our monthly mobile users to more than 650M (one of the largest in the world) by launching and improving our products for mobile devices
Translation: We rode the wave of massive Internet trends, with negligible profit taking, and are now taking credit for the aforementioned trends, which every global Internet company experienced.
* We dramatically focused our product strategy, dispensing 150+ subscale products and features
Translation: We admitted that a large part of our holdings/investments were non-performing or ill-advised.
* We invested in search, building an offering that drew on strengths from Microsoft, Google and Yahoo, to provide dramatically improved search to our users and attract impactful partnerships, like Mozilla
Translation: We admitted total defeat in the business most consumers still think of as defining us, to the point that we now resell the services of the competitors who won.
* We fundamentally improved Yahoo Mail, completely rewriting much of the infrastructure to provide a far more flexible and reliable system, while creating a robust mobile offering. Mobile Mail recently surpassed desktop Mail in daily users, which shows the power of the product and the platform we reinvented
Translation: After taking for granted one of the few Yahoo products with a lot of users, we finally started adopting the UI patterns that allowed our competitors to outdo us in new user acquisition. But we managed to make headlines for confusing/tricking users who wanted to leave after massive security breaches.
* We invested in our homepage and key verticals – news, sports, finance, and lifestyles – with each remaining as the go-to destinations in their categories. And, they have found new followings on mobile through the Yahoo app, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Sports, and Yahoo Fantasy. It’s hard to believe, but, in 2012, we didn’t have any of these 4 now-cornerstone apps on iOS or Android, we weren’t developing native apps, and we didn’t use these sought-after brands outside of desktop. Today, our users collectively spend an equivalent of 1,400 years on these products EVERY day.
Translation: We avoided losing some key properties that people used think were worth a lot before Google came along. Plus fantasy football!! We found a way to say many millions people use or sites daily, which sounds ever more impressive to people who are bad at math.
* We bolstered our security defenses with cross-company initiatives like SSL, HTML5, Account Key, and HTTPS
Translation: We started improving security, mostly after some of the largest and most publicized security breaches in history.
* We committed to and invested in technical excellence in our architectures, reducing user-impacting incidents by more than half over the past 5 years
Translation: we fixed a lot of bugs in our products.
* We won 2 Apple Design Awards in 2013 and 2014, and put unified product design front and center with Fuji
Translation: A company who beat our pants by almost every measure in the marketplace, said we made 2 good things, which are not worth specifically naming... the important thing is that Apple liked them, even though they apparently killed off the Apple Design Awards after commoditizing "flat design".
Those accomplishments are mostly things they attempted, not successful outcomes they achieved. Like bragging about building products that consumers didn't buy.
Her mega-salary, like that of other comparable executives, is decided by other mega-rich people. It's no hardship for them to hand her (one of their own) enough cash to buy a small town.
Let's ponder that $260M compared to every time an outgoing job offer was dialed down from $145K to $135K. Or when the yearly bonus for a rank and file is a healthy $25K (1/1000th her accumulated comp).
Sour grapes? Yes, and why not? We're all giving our lives to these same companies.
I have tried to examine what role gender plays in my visceral dislike for Marissa Mayer. I hope it is a small one. I give myself some consolation that I recoil almost equally when reading any news coverage of Travis Kalanick.
Small consolation, then. The activities which took place under Kalanick's watch -- sexual harassment, greyballing, the Waymo trade secret case -- are much more reprehensible than what Mayer has done. I think gender plays a big factor for many people's opinions of her.
The comparison with Steve Jobs is particularly telling. Steve was notoriously cruel and difficult to please, yet he is much-loved as a visionary. Women are given a very hard time for being unlikable, no matter how talented they are. Granted, she was no Steve Jobs. Despite being in a glass cliff [0] situation, she was far more successful than any of the Apple CEOs prior to Jobs' return.
I find it interesting that the comments section of the WSJ (a pretty capitalist-friendly corner of the internet) is filled with complaints about Mayer's "overpay" as CEO and outrage over her "golden parachute," while HN (a much less capitalist-friendly corner of the internet) has gone through 40 comments and I've only seen a couple questioning her pay as CEO, and several comments praising her job in the role.
Take away Marissa Mayer from this story, and replace her with a generic CEO, and I'm not sure we'd see the same mood in either comment section.
Why is this? Is this because she's from Google? Because she's a former engineer? Because she's a female CEO? Is she just a politically polarizing topic ala Elon Musk?
IMO it's because she's a female CEO who, when viewed through the lens of consumer products, failed miserably but was still paid a sum of money that sounds absolutely ludicrous to most Americans. She's an easy target for people who want to claim that she only got the job for being an attractive female.
I think HN readers remember a bit more about the state that Yahoo was in when she took over (hint: not good.) I personally viewed her job as managing the divestiture of the valuable part of the company (Alibaba) in such a way that it delivered maximum value to the shareholders of Yahoo. I think she succeeded on that front: the market was probably undervaluing Yahoo's other assets, and she was able to sell those to Verizon for a fair price after divesting the Alibaba stake.
tl;dr: Yahoo was long dead before she arrived. WSJ readers forget that. HN readers don't. Plus she's an attractive woman, which will always paint a target on your back as an executive.
Personally, I assumed that all CEO's are massively overpaid and that they all negotiate substantial "golden parachutes". I think I'm a bit numb to the dollar amounts as they all seem inconceivably large to me. It all strikes me as buisiness-as-usual.
I think any CEO that takes $1M/week out of a failing company and claims credit for a predecessors' good bets is going to get some negative attention. Add a little dash of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do workplace policy making, some obviously stupid acquisitions, throwing huge parties where you're the guest of honor, hiring retirement-age network news anchors to spruce up a new media play, and you're infamous.
>Take away Marissa Mayer from this story, and replace her with a generic CEO, and I'm not sure we'd see the same mood in either comment section.
Uhh.. What are you talking about? Everyone complains about the pay scale of CEOs. Especially CEOs of failing or under performing companies. That's been a thing for years. She's a failed CEO. She was brought in to turn Yahoo around and didn't.
She is a rising star before joining Yahoo, and she basically turns Yahoo from a 20B company into a 5B one, and rewarded with a huge chunk of money for leaving the company.
And among all those astounding achievements, you only think people are judging her because she is a female, you must being living in a bubble.
>"I find it interesting that the comments section of the WSJ (a pretty capitalist-friendly corner of the internet) is filled with complaints about Mayer's "overpay" as CEO and outrage over her "golden parachute," while HN (a much less capitalist-friendly corner of the internet) has gone through 40 comments and I've only seen a couple questioning her pay as CEO, and several comments praising her job in the role."
A CEO's compensation is used to retain and motivate that talent to create value for the company. If investors feel dissatisfied with how much they paid for the level of value creation they received on a particular asset that is very much a capitalist sentiment. There is nothing even remotely anti-capitalist about that.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars in CEO pay have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is increasingly company stock. Company stock is an asset that belongs to the company and that company is owned by shareholders. Money spent on "rock star CEOs" is money that could have otherwise been used to deliver more value to shareholders, an example would be returning money to shareholders in the form of dividends.
I am not sure that a 'generic' CEO would have had a different result.
Broadly there are commentators who seem nostalgic for the 'old' Yahoo (and by that I mean the turn of the century Yahoo) and they often express angst in 'over paying' the CEO more along the lines of "we could have used that money to may Yahoo! great again" rather than pay it to some CEO.
Then there are people who have some idea of the level of change Yahoo! has gone through and the number of founding assumptions that didn't work later in its life. Those people understand what Mayer was up against at least.
And there are a number of entrepreneurial folks who made lifestyle businesses out of one or more of the many Yahoo! APIs that powered a lot of web sites over the years.
My point is that the opinion of the commentator will often have more to do with their relationship to Yahoo! and less to do with how well or poorly Marissa did her job.
Yesterday there was a post about Marissa resigning, and it was nothing but "I can't believe she has been payed this much for sinking Yahoo".
My pet theory is that the first comment or so sets the mood, and the opposing camp can't be bothered to participate where their opinion will be met with critique.
One other thing I noticed is that every time there is a post about her here, everyone calls her Marissa, or Marissa Mayer, or Ms. Mayer (seriously!)... never Mayer. I might be "attributing to malice" but dudes never get called "first name", only "last name".
It might just be the way it is in the US, but I can't help read it as a way to depower someone. I dunno if "depower" is the right term, but it feels something like that.
Again, that might just be a cultural thing that I'm not aware of.
IMO it's because she was intentionally not a generic CEO. The high profile approach to publicity was part of her plan, and brand, to turn around Yahoo. It just failed.
Because she made big PR how she will make yahoo new again and then did super tiny things thay changed the logo, made random acquisitions and removed remote workers, which will absolutely change a failing company.
I was expecting a new revolutionary product, a complete refocus of the company, such as Apple. She sure must have had this in her plan or she probably actually didn't.
Sounds to me like someone didn't know what they were doing instead of someone who really has a plan.
CEOs are often also capitalists, and often specifically major capital holders in the firms of which they are CEO, but, as CEOs, they are elite, highly-compensated employees.
HN may be less pro-capitalist than the WSJ (though it's still pretty pro-capitalist, overall), but if anything it's more pro-elite-employee than the WSJ.
I'm a capitalist and think that some CEOs are overpaid and that golden parachutes for failed CEOs are obscene. That doesn't mean that I want the government to do something about it. Shareholders are getting ripped off and that's their problem ultimately. Caveat emptor.
I don't know if being a female CEO has much to do with it. She was making a lot of money because she was supposed to turn things around and save the company. Instead Yahoo made a ton of huge blunders, sold off Alibaba and then finally sold the company to Verizon for a fraction of what it used to be worth.
I don't know what gave you the impression that HN isn't capitalist-friendly. We have long had a whole lotta kool-aid going around here about markets, entrepreneurs, etc. In many ways startup culture is the embodiment of capitalism.
How is HN less capitalist-friendly? Articles about high valuations, venture capitalists, raising rounds, praising mega corporations like amzn, fb, Google, etc. often get to the top without many criticizing remarks. Many HNrs benefit greatly from capitalism and its mechanisms like raising capital or stock market while working for very large corporations.
I really wonder what the ultimate fate of Flickr and Tumblr will be, especially the latter since the acquisition was deemed "essentially worthless" lol
Congratulations to Marissa on a job well done. That boat was a sinking ship that no one wanted to captain, and she kept it alive long enough to a satisfactory outcome.
Kind of a sad day for me. Yahoo was so instrumental in the early web where I cut my teeth. Seeing it now sold to some telecom giant at around what a handful of unprofitable mobile apps go for is a bit depressing. For Millenials, imagine if Google was sold to AT&T 5-10 years from now after beaten by hungrier competitors. I guess all these companies fold eventually but Yahoo had quite the terminal illness and it lasted far longer than I assumed and often with bouncebacks that made you think things were getting better.
Perhaps Verizon can do something useful with the brand, but the Yahoo I knew is dead and probably has been since Mayer took over. She was brought in as a hatchet-woman to get an acquisition and got the job done.
When she took over, there were numerous articles about how Yahoo's core business had negative value (the business plus the Alibaba investment was worth less than the Alibaba investment).
Since then she's given a lot of cash to shareholders, raised the stock price, and is selling the "negative value" core business for $4.5 billion.
Marissa Mayer took on a shit job to pull a losing company out of a hole. She knew what she was getting into, and she knew what was going to happen.
She deserves every penny for the reputation hit that she's taking over this. This entire thread is why she deserves the money. Most people in tech hate her for some reason. (Let's guess what that could be . . .)
Good for her for bargaining well and pulling a dream deal out of an assclown.
Yahoo was a joke when she took over, and now when she leaves it's a much more valuable joke. On paper, at least. But still a joke.
If you're going to leave google to run the laughing stock of the internet, you damn well better get paid the big bucks to get it sold for more than it has any right to be worth.
Good for her.
<shameless pandering>
(Also, if you're reading, Marissa, hit me up. I know you're going to start something up soon. No way you are just going to sit still.)
</shameless pandering>
I thought the job of a CEO was to increase shareholder value. Yahoo stock is up roughly 230% since she was officially signed on as CEO. Sounds like she did her job to me.
I for one hope this works out well, more diversity is good for consumers. IMHO, anything that chips away at the dominance of Google and Facebook are positive too.
Marissa Mayer was already on the sinking ship - but I admire her ambition on trying to make that thing work. God speed on her future en-devours for sure.
[+] [-] chollida1|8 years ago|reply
https://marissamayr.tumblr.com/post/161775943139/nostalgia-g...
Even though all of these gains, plus more as core yahoo lost value was from Alibaba this does look impressive at a first glance.....
> We oversaw the creation $43B in market capitalization and shareholder value. Our market cap has gone from $18B to $51B (increasing our valuation by $33B), while we returned nearly $10B in cash to shareholders.
Sadly the list of employee gains seems very spartan compared to the shareholder gains.
For those of you wondering what the Yahoo/Altaba shell contains now...
- approximately 15 percent equity stake in China’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.,
- about 36 percent in Yahoo Japan Corp.,
- cash and marketable debt securities,
- certain minority investments and Excalibur IP, which owns some patent assets.
[+] [-] zeteo|8 years ago|reply
> approximately 15 percent equity stake in China’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
15 percent of Alibaba is about $52.5 billion. I'm not sure why we're even discussing anything else. It's like saying that my contribution to family finances is:
a) not selling my parents' house, which is now worth half a million.
b) having $1.32 in change in a little ashtray by the door.
[+] [-] samfisher83|8 years ago|reply
https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/09/30/how-jerry...
[+] [-] Infernal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threepipeproblm|8 years ago|reply
I don't follow Yahoo! that closely, so the below is primarily based on headlines I've seen in the past few years... let me know if I have butchered any of the details. The bulleted points quote Mayers' statement.
* We became 1 of 3 internet companies in the world with more than 1B monthly users * We grew our monthly mobile users to more than 650M (one of the largest in the world) by launching and improving our products for mobile devices
Translation: We rode the wave of massive Internet trends, with negligible profit taking, and are now taking credit for the aforementioned trends, which every global Internet company experienced.
* We dramatically focused our product strategy, dispensing 150+ subscale products and features
Translation: We admitted that a large part of our holdings/investments were non-performing or ill-advised.
* We invested in search, building an offering that drew on strengths from Microsoft, Google and Yahoo, to provide dramatically improved search to our users and attract impactful partnerships, like Mozilla
Translation: We admitted total defeat in the business most consumers still think of as defining us, to the point that we now resell the services of the competitors who won.
* We fundamentally improved Yahoo Mail, completely rewriting much of the infrastructure to provide a far more flexible and reliable system, while creating a robust mobile offering. Mobile Mail recently surpassed desktop Mail in daily users, which shows the power of the product and the platform we reinvented
Translation: After taking for granted one of the few Yahoo products with a lot of users, we finally started adopting the UI patterns that allowed our competitors to outdo us in new user acquisition. But we managed to make headlines for confusing/tricking users who wanted to leave after massive security breaches.
* We invested in our homepage and key verticals – news, sports, finance, and lifestyles – with each remaining as the go-to destinations in their categories. And, they have found new followings on mobile through the Yahoo app, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Sports, and Yahoo Fantasy. It’s hard to believe, but, in 2012, we didn’t have any of these 4 now-cornerstone apps on iOS or Android, we weren’t developing native apps, and we didn’t use these sought-after brands outside of desktop. Today, our users collectively spend an equivalent of 1,400 years on these products EVERY day.
Translation: We avoided losing some key properties that people used think were worth a lot before Google came along. Plus fantasy football!! We found a way to say many millions people use or sites daily, which sounds ever more impressive to people who are bad at math.
* We bolstered our security defenses with cross-company initiatives like SSL, HTML5, Account Key, and HTTPS
Translation: We started improving security, mostly after some of the largest and most publicized security breaches in history.
* We committed to and invested in technical excellence in our architectures, reducing user-impacting incidents by more than half over the past 5 years
Translation: we fixed a lot of bugs in our products.
* We won 2 Apple Design Awards in 2013 and 2014, and put unified product design front and center with Fuji
Translation: A company who beat our pants by almost every measure in the marketplace, said we made 2 good things, which are not worth specifically naming... the important thing is that Apple liked them, even though they apparently killed off the Apple Design Awards after commoditizing "flat design".
[+] [-] grafporno|8 years ago|reply
Wat. HTML5 is a security measure now?
[+] [-] valuearb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristianp|8 years ago|reply
Didn't shareholders get stock options as part of their package?
[+] [-] fjdlwlv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khazhou|8 years ago|reply
Let's ponder that $260M compared to every time an outgoing job offer was dialed down from $145K to $135K. Or when the yearly bonus for a rank and file is a healthy $25K (1/1000th her accumulated comp).
Sour grapes? Yes, and why not? We're all giving our lives to these same companies.
[+] [-] brookside|8 years ago|reply
http://gawker.com/5162532/marissa-mayer-googles-biggest-fail....
Subsequent reporting has hardend my opinion: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/magazine/what-happened-wh...
I have tried to examine what role gender plays in my visceral dislike for Marissa Mayer. I hope it is a small one. I give myself some consolation that I recoil almost equally when reading any news coverage of Travis Kalanick.
[+] [-] chongli|8 years ago|reply
The comparison with Steve Jobs is particularly telling. Steve was notoriously cruel and difficult to please, yet he is much-loved as a visionary. Women are given a very hard time for being unlikable, no matter how talented they are. Granted, she was no Steve Jobs. Despite being in a glass cliff [0] situation, she was far more successful than any of the Apple CEOs prior to Jobs' return.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff
[+] [-] urda|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chibg10|8 years ago|reply
Take away Marissa Mayer from this story, and replace her with a generic CEO, and I'm not sure we'd see the same mood in either comment section.
Why is this? Is this because she's from Google? Because she's a former engineer? Because she's a female CEO? Is she just a politically polarizing topic ala Elon Musk?
Genuinely curious. Anyone have any ideas?
[+] [-] exelius|8 years ago|reply
I think HN readers remember a bit more about the state that Yahoo was in when she took over (hint: not good.) I personally viewed her job as managing the divestiture of the valuable part of the company (Alibaba) in such a way that it delivered maximum value to the shareholders of Yahoo. I think she succeeded on that front: the market was probably undervaluing Yahoo's other assets, and she was able to sell those to Verizon for a fair price after divesting the Alibaba stake.
tl;dr: Yahoo was long dead before she arrived. WSJ readers forget that. HN readers don't. Plus she's an attractive woman, which will always paint a target on your back as an executive.
[+] [-] cmiles74|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nihonde|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|8 years ago|reply
Uhh.. What are you talking about? Everyone complains about the pay scale of CEOs. Especially CEOs of failing or under performing companies. That's been a thing for years. She's a failed CEO. She was brought in to turn Yahoo around and didn't.
[+] [-] tanilama|8 years ago|reply
And among all those astounding achievements, you only think people are judging her because she is a female, you must being living in a bubble.
[+] [-] bogomipz|8 years ago|reply
A CEO's compensation is used to retain and motivate that talent to create value for the company. If investors feel dissatisfied with how much they paid for the level of value creation they received on a particular asset that is very much a capitalist sentiment. There is nothing even remotely anti-capitalist about that.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars in CEO pay have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is increasingly company stock. Company stock is an asset that belongs to the company and that company is owned by shareholders. Money spent on "rock star CEOs" is money that could have otherwise been used to deliver more value to shareholders, an example would be returning money to shareholders in the form of dividends.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|8 years ago|reply
Broadly there are commentators who seem nostalgic for the 'old' Yahoo (and by that I mean the turn of the century Yahoo) and they often express angst in 'over paying' the CEO more along the lines of "we could have used that money to may Yahoo! great again" rather than pay it to some CEO.
Then there are people who have some idea of the level of change Yahoo! has gone through and the number of founding assumptions that didn't work later in its life. Those people understand what Mayer was up against at least.
And there are a number of entrepreneurial folks who made lifestyle businesses out of one or more of the many Yahoo! APIs that powered a lot of web sites over the years.
My point is that the opinion of the commentator will often have more to do with their relationship to Yahoo! and less to do with how well or poorly Marissa did her job.
[+] [-] wodenokoto|8 years ago|reply
My pet theory is that the first comment or so sets the mood, and the opposing camp can't be bothered to participate where their opinion will be met with critique.
[+] [-] mrspeaker|8 years ago|reply
It might just be the way it is in the US, but I can't help read it as a way to depower someone. I dunno if "depower" is the right term, but it feels something like that.
Again, that might just be a cultural thing that I'm not aware of.
[+] [-] arcticfox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wellboy|8 years ago|reply
I was expecting a new revolutionary product, a complete refocus of the company, such as Apple. She sure must have had this in her plan or she probably actually didn't.
Sounds to me like someone didn't know what they were doing instead of someone who really has a plan.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
HN may be less pro-capitalist than the WSJ (though it's still pretty pro-capitalist, overall), but if anything it's more pro-elite-employee than the WSJ.
[+] [-] wildmusings|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlarocco|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cacti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polskibus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invincibles|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panzer_wyrm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pram|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rb808|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps Verizon can do something useful with the brand, but the Yahoo I knew is dead and probably has been since Mayer took over. She was brought in as a hatchet-woman to get an acquisition and got the job done.
[+] [-] jellicle|8 years ago|reply
Since then she's given a lot of cash to shareholders, raised the stock price, and is selling the "negative value" core business for $4.5 billion.
That's an astounding success.
[+] [-] signal11|8 years ago|reply
I've been on Flickr for a long time now and it works well for me, should I be worried?
[+] [-] justboxing|8 years ago|reply
Nice!
I dream of a day when the Engineers who make the Tech Company what it is, are also offered 'Golden Parachutes' as part of a Job Offer.
[+] [-] Simulacra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianamartin|8 years ago|reply
Marissa Mayer took on a shit job to pull a losing company out of a hole. She knew what she was getting into, and she knew what was going to happen.
She deserves every penny for the reputation hit that she's taking over this. This entire thread is why she deserves the money. Most people in tech hate her for some reason. (Let's guess what that could be . . .)
Good for her for bargaining well and pulling a dream deal out of an assclown.
Yahoo was a joke when she took over, and now when she leaves it's a much more valuable joke. On paper, at least. But still a joke.
If you're going to leave google to run the laughing stock of the internet, you damn well better get paid the big bucks to get it sold for more than it has any right to be worth.
Good for her.
<shameless pandering> (Also, if you're reading, Marissa, hit me up. I know you're going to start something up soon. No way you are just going to sit still.) </shameless pandering>
[+] [-] CodeSheikh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troxwalt|8 years ago|reply
In all seriousness, Yahoo! has done an amazing job with their fantasy sports.
[+] [-] dopamean|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zw123456|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PayForPeenus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2008/02/01/wow-microsoft-offers-446-b...