>It is simple. I wrote some good dirt on Yahoo (all of which is true), and they liked
>it. It then snowballed into the Meeker letter, which is fine journalism.
The 'meeker letter' that you posted starts with "A local buddy of mine e-mailed me this letter that he said he sent to Mary Meeker", yet since its been highlighted on SI (...for how many months now?) you elude to yourself as the author -- are you?
And as far as 'dirt' on Yahoo, I don't disagree with you, however nothing you told us was not already known or reported (i.e. the 'Softbank' connection was widely known and discussed before you posted it on SI).
>In addition, Yahoo is arguably the most overvalued and corrupt
>company around. To boot, the Japanese thing is intriguing.
You're way off base calling them corrupt.
The really intriguing. thing is how of all the overvalued and bloated internet companies out there, why does SI only choose YHOO to highlight on their main page? This is really intriguing to me. When Blodget said AMZN (at $200) was worth $400, and AMZN soared to $600 that was real news, yet SI (gotonet.com??) said nothing. When a new net stock IPO's at $14 and opens at $40 (making millions for the firm and clients of the house that took them public), SI says nothing.
As a matter of fact, SI used to post a graph on their main page showing how the 'portals' were soaring, and even though YHOO wasn't the highest gainer, YHOO is the only portal that SI posts negative highlights on on their main page.
It is obvious that SI (or is it really gotonet.com?) has it out for Yahoo -- the question remains as to why. |
