Yesterday, Heavy Bits launched Snapguide, an iPhone app for making and viewing how-to guides.
Since we’re investors in Heavy Bits (through a personal investment Michael brought into the fund), I’ve had the privilege of trying the app out for a couple weeks. It’s both brilliant and beautiful.
The reality is that co-founder Daniel Raffel probably could have launched the app a couple months ago, but he was beyond meticulous here to make sure everything was just right. The dedication has paid off.
There are already guides ranging from how to bottle beer to how to make origami birds to how to catch crabs (the kind you eat). The app has exposed my utter lack of expertise in being able to make anything. But now I can learn!
Lots of good coverage yesterday, I like Brit Morin’s who is an ideal user, and has already made a few great guides.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Google will open up its own online store, where it will market and sell tablet devices directly to consumers. In an interesting twist, it’s said that the company won’t actually manufacture any of the offered hardware itself, instead leaving that duty to partners (Samsung and Asus are both named). The tablets will reportedly feature official Google co-branding, however. Google is even said to be considering subsidizing the cost of the tablets, in order to make them price-competitive with the Amazon Kindle Fire.
I’m somewhat bemused by this. On the one hand, the “Nexus” brand tends to effectively mean “reference implementation” in the Android world, and that’s good. And a great Android tablet that was priced like a Kindle Fire would certainly make inroads against the iPad.
But subsidizing the tablets to get to that point is boggling. This isn’t like a game console, where you expect to make all your money on the ongoing purchases. Apple makes most of their money on the hardware, and Google makes nearly all of their money on advertisements. If Google spends $100 to get a Nexus tablet into your hands, they’re going to need to serve you a lot of ads to make that up.
A lot of ads.
Watts Martin has this exactly right. If Google does intend to release even a halfway decent tablet for under $200, the still-just-hinted-at implication is that they may subsidize it. A tablet sold for under $200 and not sold at a loss is going to be a piece of shit, pure and simple.
So let’s assume that Google does sell it at a loss (subsidizes it). They only way they make their money back is if people click on Google ads. More than they do now. A lot more than they do now. Or the product is going to be a black hole of money. Sort of like Microsoft’s entire online services division.
Google’s long-awaited tablet might finally be on the way to becoming a reality. For at least two years, there have been reports that the search giant was working on something that could compete with Apple’s iPad. A Google employee briefed on the project now says it will be out later this year.
That makes it sound like Google hasn’t really been trying to compete with the iPad for the past two years. Of course they have — they’ve just failed. Miserably.
The sole purpose of Honeycomb was to invigorate the Android tablet market. It was an OS built for tablets. It was supposed to make Android tablets competitive with the iPad. It crashed and burned.
What they mean, of course, without specifically saying it, is a “Nexus” tablet. Not built by Google, but with Google branding. Maybe that competes better, maybe it doesn’t. At sub-$200, I fail to see how it can possibly compete with the iPad. We’ll see.
But it’s nonsense to imply that Google hasn’t been trying to compete with the iPad until now.
The writing is so very obviously on the wall here. And not just the consumer market, eventually all markets. If RIM exists in 5 years, I’d bet it’s solely in services and/or some suite of apps like BBM. If.
In just the past year, RIM’s stock has dropped from close to $60-a-share to under $15-a-share. After today’s totalbloodbath, their total market cap tomorrow may behalf of what Apple made in profit last quarter.
Google Doesn’t Not Make Four Times More Off The iPhone Vs. Android
Danny Sullivan argues that the conclusions about Android revenues based on the Oracle v. Google court document are flawed. That’s certainly possible, but it doesn’t sound as flawed as Sullivan seems to believe.
Sullivan says he struggled to figure out how Guardian editor Charles Arthur arrived at the $550 million number based on the document. But if you look at the document, it’s actually pretty obvious.
Google says the following in its proposal:
Specifically, in the event of a finding of patent infringement of the ’104 patent, Google is willing to stipulate that un-adjusted damages for the ’104 patent through 2011 are $2.72 million, and in the event of a finding of patent infringement of the ’520 patent, that un-adjusted damages for the ’520 patent through 2011 are $0.08 million.
Speaking of Android being a nice little business for companies not named Google, it’s only fair to point out that the iPhone is also a nice business for companies beyond Apple. In fact, as Charles Arthur writes for The Guardian:
The figures also suggest that Apple devices such as the iPhone, which use products such as its Maps as well as Google Search in its Safari browser, generated more than four times as much revenue for Google as its own handsets in the same period.
So while Android may have only made $550 million in revenue for Google in the past three years combined, at least they’ve been able to squeeze over $2 billion out of Apple’s devices in the same span.
Of course, Apple has squeezed well over $100 billion in revenues just on the sale of those products alone over the same span.
For future damages, Google proposed paying Oracle 0.5 percent of Android revenue on one patent until it expires this December and 0.015 percent on a second patent until it expires in April 2018.
Oracle rejected the offer for being too low, but it’s interesting that Google (if found to be infringing on Oracle’s patents) was willing to pay a percentage of all the revenue they make from Android. This would have continued the trend of the mobile OS being a nice little business for everyone not named Google.
Om Malik says Google is planning to launch Google Drive next month (maybe as soon as next week). Yes, finally.
He touches upon some of the illustrious history of the Google Drive rumors throughout the years, but they haven’t actually been rumors. Google had a project several years ago that they were widely using internally, but they killed it. The project started up again last year and again, Google started widely testing it internally, which they’ve been doing for months now to make sure it’s just right.
Just in case my love letter last November didn’t make it abundantly clear, I’ll reiterate: I love Square. We’re not investors, but I wish we were. I love both the business and the product. And if that level of admiration makes this post biased, then color me conflicted.
Apparently well aware of my tweets and posts, the company brought me in to show me the latest thing they’ve been working on. It’s the evolution of their Card Case product to morph it into a more central part of their overall strategy. It’s technically called “Pay with Square”, but when installed, the new app simply reads “Square”.
That’s telling. Square, the card reader (now appropriately called “Square Card Reader”), has been the way most people think of the product and company. But that’s limiting because it’s so focused on merchants. It’s a great business, and an important one — but if Square is truly going to revolutionize payments, they need to get the consumers fully on board.
Enter Pay with Square. Using Card Case has been nothing short of magical. It’s one of those experiences that when it happens, you wonder how the hell they did it — and also why the hell it hasn’t been done like that before?
But there’s a flipside. Because the experience is so magical — so natural — it almost seems as if something is wrong when it happens. It simply can’t be that easy. You can’t possibly pay for something simply by saying your name and doing nothing else, right? The most common reactions I’ve seen to Card Case in public are “now what?” and “that’s it?”
That’s Square’s biggest barrier to entry with Pay with Square: they need to convince people that they don’t need to put up with the nonsense they’ve been doing for decades. You don’t have to swipe a card. You don’t have to sign anything. You pay by having your smartphone on you. And your payment is verified by your name (and face).
With Pay with Square, Square is ditching the wallet metaphor (of Card Case) and simplifying things to just be a list of venues of interest that are close by. At first, I was a bit surprised by this change because I liked the design and the card metaphor (which is still sort of in place). But this actually makes a lot more sense. Don’t cater to the baggage of the past, replace the past.
I’ve been using Pay with Square this past weekend and it’s great. The transition from Card Case is seamless because it’s essentially the same thing, just reworked in an attempt to take it more mainstream.
To that end, Square also put in quite a bit of work to make Pay with Square work on Android as well. Because Android doesn’t have the same geofencing capabilities native to their SDK like iOS does, this was undoubtedly a huge pain in the ass. Square essentially had to build the technology from the ground up to make their Android app work in the same way that the iOS one does.
Thanks to this work, Square has managed to do the seemingly impossible: make Google Wallet look even worse. While Google is wasting time (and apparently employees) trying to move from a credit card swipe to a tap-to-pay by way of NFC, Square has been busy building the future. A tap is a bit more simple than a swipe, I suppose. But screw that. You should be able to pay by doing nothing at all.
As you may be able to tell from my posts on our portfolio company Highlight, I love the idea of mobile apps that work without the user have to do anything. Highlight alerts you as you move around. Pay with Square allows you to pay for things by walking into the place you wish to buy something.
The next trick is signing up more vendors to accept Pay with Square. Luckily, products like Square Register are complimentary. They just need iPad adoption to keep growing at the pace it has been. And it will.
And Square needs to convince people that the ability to pay without doing a thing isn’t actually magic, it’s just one of those things that should have always been done this way that technology now allows for. It’s a more natural way of doing payments that just happens to seem like magic because of the baggage we all carry.
You’ve probably already read it from the 1,000 others who have linked to it, but just in case, I’ll add to the chorus: read Mat Honan’s take on Google in its current form.
The most interest takeaway to me is the notion that Google isn’t being evil in the traditional sense of the world (they’re not killing people, for example), but they are being “evil” now by their own previous definitions. In hindsight, it was a mistake to try to set a definition, but who knows, maybe Google doesn’t get to where it is now without taking such a stance initially.
Honan’s entire piece is thought-provoking. Most people I talk to are opposed to the new Search Plus Your World (SPYW) Google (read: Google Search infused with Google+). But from Google’s perspective, they likely view themselves as having no choice. Get busy living, or get busy dying, as it were.
I just think the social components are the wrong choice for Google. I agree that they should do something different to stay ahead in the game, but to me, social feels done already. They should be trying to go after what’s next after social. Instead, they’re shoving the social stuff in our faces. And it’s just doesn’t work. It’s unnatural.
Maybe in some parts of the company (Google X) they are going after what’s next, but now it feels like a race to see if they can get there before the Google+ initiative drive the company into a downslope of negativity that they’ll have a hard time recovering from.
iOS and Mac developer David Smith on the latest iOS 5.1 upgrade numbers based on the data from his popular Audiobooks app:
It took iOS just 15 days to get the same percentage of users on the latest OS version as are currently on any single version of Android.
It took just over two weeks to get 61% of users on iOS 5.1. This is the same distribution percentage as the most widely-used Android version, 2.3, Gingerbread — which is a year and a half old. Two major Android versions have been released since then, but combine for under 5% of total usage still.
And if you narrow it down to only include those who can get iOS OTA updates (iOS 5 users), the adoption rate of iOS 5.1 in two weeks is almost 80%.
So Google wrote to my zeldman.com address, which they won’t allow me to associate with my Google+ address, to invite me to start a Google+ account (which I already have) on my zeldman.com account, which they won’t support. And if I do that (which I can’t), and some other complicated stuff, they promise that I will then be able to participate in Google IO, whatever that is.
It’s a robust three sentences of analysis linking to other analysis. And it’s the same basic idea: OMGPOP was dumb to sell — one year after their analysis that OMGPOP was crazy to think they could compete with Zynga.
Compete they did. Forced Zynga’s hand they did. It’s a great exit for everyone involved — entrepreneurs, investors, and Zynga. No second-guessing required.
After nearly two years off the air, Mad Men starts up again on Sunday. Can’t wait.
Obviously, I’ve been bitchinga lot about the new season of Game of Thrones because I can’t watch it (legally) for a year since I don’t have cable. But the same isn’t true of Mad Men — I already bought the season pass through iTunes. I have to wait a day longer than those with cable (well, technically until midnight most of the time), but I’m fine with that.
Amazon also emailed this morning to say they have a season pass option for the new season of Mad Men through Amazon Instant Video. Also cool. One problem: I can’t for the life of me find a price anywhere. And there are about 17 possible buttons to click. This entire design really needs to be re-thought.
Anyway, good on AMC for giving me options to give them money for their great content.
Actor/comedian Aziz Ansari shares myGames of Thronespain. As he tells GQ:
The way people release media is so far behind the way people actually consume it. There’s so much frustration. I mean, I get frustrated. I want to watch Game of Thrones. I’d love to see it before it comes back. Is it on iTunes? Do I watch it on HBO On Demand? What’s going on? What do I do? I bought the DVD, but I can’t watch it on my iPad?
This is $5, and you have a video file that you can watch anywhere. I think people like the simplicity. Many surveys have people who stream TV shows or steal content saying that if it was available at a fair price and in a convenient form, they wouldn’t steal. And I believe that. Let’s say you hear that show Homeland is great, and you don’t have Showtime. You want to buy it. You go to Amazon, it’s not there. You go to Netflix, it’s not there. OK, fuck it, you’re just going to steal it from a torrent. But if you saw that it was $10, you could get all the episodes and watch it on anything, wouldn’t you do that? If you knew that the quality was proper and everything?
And unlike me, Ansari is in a position to do something about it on his end. He has put his comedy special online Louis C.K.-style.
For $5, you buy it, you own it, you can watch it anywhere. Support sanity.
Too early to call it dead-in-the-water, but Google Wallet seems like one of Google’s biggest missteps yet. Olga Kharif of Bloomberg reports that Google is now considering giving AT&T and Verizon a cut of the transactions to get them interested. But I still don’t see why the carriers do this, it would totally undercut their own ISIS strategy.
Another option Google is exploring: sidestepping the carriers altogether and relying more heavily on in-store terminals to complete mobile-payment transactions, the people said. This approach could involve additional hardware or software for the terminals, coupled with software that runs on Google’s servers, they said.
So instead of requiring phones to authenticate payments — something that needs assistance from carriers — the system might send transactions to Google’s servers for approval and then clear it with the retailer.
So Wallet will be Google’s mobile payment solution for Android that doesn’t actually use phones. Brilliant.
Instead, Google hopes customers will be willing to send all their purchase data to Google servers for no good reason. This sounds like a total clusterfuck.
Great partnership and nice scoop by Austin Carr. Hipstamatic has always been a great app, but they’ve lacked the graph for sharing their photos as widely as possible with the best audience for them. That would be Instagram.
Interested to see how Instagram works as a platform for other photo apps — my hunch is really well. People always ask “what app did you take that picture with”, and now it can be baked right into the stream itself.
In response to my PandoDaily post about Game of Thrones earlier, Trevor Gilbert tries his hand at parody. Not all bad, but a few quick problems:
1) You can buy an unlocked iPhone.
2) Even if you stole the iPhone, you wouldn’t actually be able to use it on a carrier’s network without paying them.
3) Pretty much everything else.
But Gilbert knows this, I have to assume. From the comments, it seems he takes issue with my “sense of entitlement”. Clearly lost on him (and plenty others!) is the point.
The point is the very essence of piracy.
Piracy does not exist because there are evil people out there who are thieves and/or hate capitalism and/or feel entitled. Sure, there are some bad eggs, but they’re the exception, not the rule. Piracy exists because it’s often an easier way of obtaining content than the legal means. And sometimes, it’s the only way.
HBO doesn’t care right now because they’re raking in the money. Good for them. But they’re fools if they think the status quo will be maintained indefinitely. We’re seeing the beginning stages of where this is going right now. The pirating of Game of Thrones is all about ease of access to content.
Right now, you could wait a year to pay to get the content legally, or you could get it today for free. Remove the money element. It matters, but it’s not the key. The key is that it’s today versus a year from today. That’s the problem here.
Much of the arguments in defense of HBO today have been that it’s their content and they can do what they want. True! But they’re doing so blindly as gatekeepers who have total faith in their wall. The problem is that the wall is already full of holes.
Currently, they’re pretending the wall is perfectly intact. In a year, they’ll admit it’s been breached, and they’ll try to rebuild it. But they won’t be able to. 5 years from now, hardly anyone will be using the gate.
So why not just let everyone in now and charge them all a fee? Because admitting the wall is crumbling will mean accepting less money. Supply/demand. No one ever wants to take less money. But what they’ll have to come to terms with in the future is that less money is better than no money at all.
And yes, perhaps that means the end of high-end content like Game of Thrones which features massive, movie-like budgets. That sucks. But it is what it is.
My post was merely meant as a wake-up call for HBO and other content providers. Winter is indeed coming. A lot of people pirate today because it’s easier than getting the content legally. In a couple years, as younger people not accustomed to paying for cable grow up, so will the number of pirates for artificially restrained content like Game of Thrones. In five years, it’s not going to be pretty at all.
Unless HBO and the others get out ahead of this, that is.
The cable empires are going to die. It’s just the way it is. Nothing lasts forever. The backup plan of the premium content players should be what Netflix is doing. Content everywhere at a fair price. And they should start right now. But they’re all scared shitless to even think of walking away from that cable money.
So it will have to start walking away from them.
And make no mistake, it will. It’s just a question of when.
One year? Two years? Five years? HBO and the rest just better hope that they don’t mistime the retreat because they’re drunk on the wine from a dying resource. If piracy becomes the norm rather than the fringe, they’re going to get royally screwed on the deals for someone else to bring their house back in order. See also: the music industry.
This Consumer Reports headline almost makes it seem as if you’re going to be holding a hotplate. The reality is that it’s only about 12 to 13 degrees warmer than the iPad 2 at these warm levels. And more importantly, farther down in the CR story:
During our tests, I held the new iPad in my hands. When it was at its hottest, it felt very warm but not especially uncomfortable if held for a brief period.
One other slight downside which I have to assume is related to either the battery or the LTE functionality is that unlike previous iPad models, the new iPad does get noticeably warm in the lower left corner after prolonged use. It’s never hot, just warm. But again, I never noticed this on other models.
It definitely runs warmer (which CR says is directly related to processor-intensive gaming — read: the graphics part of the A5X chip) than other iPads have previously. But it’s not a big deal.
Just imagine if the product hadn’t been such a massive letdown for everyone.
Snark aside, it is sort of interesting that Apple didn’t issue a release touting any actual numbers. They tend to do that when they have something to crow about. Instead we just get Tim Cook saying it was a “record weekend” when talking about the stock dividend/buyback this morning.
In the end, it was the fairly obvious thing: dividend + stock buyback. Starting in July, Apple will begin offering a quarterly dividend of $2.65-a-share. And in September, they’ll initiate a $10 billion stock buyback (which will be executed over three years).
Pretty straightforward and both moves will ensure that Apple will continue to have a shit-ton of cash.
We have used some of our cash to make great investments in our business through increased research and development, acquisitions, new retail store openings, strategic prepayments and capital expenditures in our supply chain, and building out our infrastructure. You’ll see more of all of these in the future. Even with these investments, we can maintain a war chest for strategic opportunities and have plenty of cash to run our business. So we are going to initiate a dividend and share repurchase program.
Googler Jed Christiansen takes issue with my previous post about battery life. As he writes:
MG comes across as an Silicon-Valley-centric arrogant jerk saying that “battery technology is really ripe for disruption.” It implies that all he needs to do is call attention to this problem, and two hackers in a garage will start experimenting and build a battery that’s better than anything else on the market. The reasons improving battery technology is tough is because the chemistry and material science problems are orthogonal; the work isn’t x*2, it’s x^2. Even once you’ve solved the key problems, manufacturing at the scale required for specific use cases becomes a third problem, since it forces a re-evaluation (and sometimes a complete re-design) of the original chemistry and material science problems.
Ad hominem aside, it’s a fair point. But I also don’t claim to know how to solve the problem, nor am I arrogant enough to think a short post on my blog will lead to a solution. I’m simply pointing out the obvious: that this is a major problem. And it’s going to get worse.
Obviously, a lot of people are working on this problem. And many are doing good work, no doubt. But I still hold out hope that there’s something out there right now that no one has thought of yet that will completely change everything in the space. True disruptions are never obvious. And it’s foolish to brush the possibility aside. Then again, that mentality often opens the door to disruption…
The obvious answer is that they’re going to do a dividend. But remember that Apple doesn’t always do what’s obvious. Also remember that the majority of their cash (and cash equivalents) is overseas. If they try to bring that money stateside, it’s going to be taxed accordingly.
I’d still bet on dividend, but I wouldn’t bet against something else. Maybe building more of their own facilities overseas? Committing money towards something that allows them to control even more of their build process would make sense.
To that end, maybe crazy, but what about buying Samsung? It would both harm Google (Samsung is by far the most successful Android partner) and help Apple (which still heavily relies on Samsung chips and screens, etc). They don’t have quite enough cash to do that (but almost!), but the cash they do have could surely sweeten a deal.
But would they be allowed to do that? And would they want to? The Google/Motorola deal looks to be a nightmare, why would Apple want to take on something similar? Unless, of course, they’re about to get into the television business…
Anyway, I’m just dreaming out loud here. It will probably just be a boring old dividend.
Update: A number of folks have pointed out how odd it would be for Apple to have a press conference just for a dividend. Agreed, that would be weird — but there has been an abnormal amount of interest in this topic due to Apple’s $100 billion stockpile.
Maybe a stock buyback is more likely? Or maybe it really will be something fairly crazy?
It’s not a dividend. That’s a boring old press release, not an interactive conference call.
I’m with him that SXSW was far from an ideal place for the app to fully break out for a number of reasons, but remember that Highlight didn’t actually launch at SXSW, it has been out for weeks. Instead, I viewed SXSW as more of an interesting challenge for them to figure out how the service would/will work at scale. I think they learned a lot in a few days.
I also think Brenden focuses too much on one use case: meeting people. It’s easy to see why that is — that’s the most obvious application, and the one that apps in the space have clung to in the past. But in my opinion, if Highlight is to be a success, it won’t be primarily devoted to meeting people. This will always be a part of the app, but ideally just one part.
I still think we have yet to see the actual break-out application of the app. (Though I do still likethis idea.)
Just to use networking/meeting people as an example at SXSW, clearly many of us don’t need a way to network more. My schedule, for example, was already packed nearly solid with meetings while I was there. But I remember going to SXSW for the first time a few years ago when I had just taking my first writing gig at VentureBeat. I knew almost no one in the industry. And I was alone in Austin. An app to help guide me to who I should connect with (or at least know) would have been very useful.
Having said that, the networking issue would likely remain from the other side. Even if I wanted to connect with someone, that person may have been busy already. Still, just going up and introducing myself would have been nice. Many people did that to me this year at SXSW, which is great. Hopefully some of them saw that I was around thanks to Highlight.
One more quick related story: I was at brunch one day with Paul Davison, the co-founder of Highlight, in Austin. A young woman came up and tapped him on the shoulder asking if he was the co-founder of Highlight. She had seen that he was nearby on the service and wanted to introduce herself and talk a bit about the app. She went on and on about how she and her group of friends loved the app.
For those of us who have seen thousands of apps come and go, it’s easy to be cynical. But cynicism doesn’t make or break services; the real world does.
My single biggest takeaway from SXSW was all the talk about battery life. Every single person. All the time. People changing plans because they needed to recharge their phones. People walking around with chargers. People who were chargers. Mophies galore. People uninstalling apps that would drain power. People putting phones into airplane mode in areas of weak signal. People borrowing other phones so they didn’t have to waste the power on their phone.
Power. Power. Power.
This talk is nothing new of course, but it’s ramping up. As we transition into an LTE world, it’s going to be more and more of an issue, as Farhad Manjoo points out today. One of the most impressive things about the new iPad is the fact that it maintains the 9 to 10 hour battery life even with the addition of LTE. The next question is if they can do that with the iPhone as well. We’ll see. It’s gonna need a bigger battery.
To me, the most impressive thing about my MacBook Air isn’t its size, it’s the battery life. I routinely get 6 to 7 hours on one charge. Just a few years ago, this was unthinkable for a laptop (especially one this size). Part of that is better technology, but a large part is also simply a larger battery.
Manjoo is right that unlike the rest of the technology we use everyday, battery technology hasn’t evolved all that much over the past few decades. It’s constantly being refined and perfected, but it’s still largely the same. Want more battery life? Get a bigger battery.
If someone can truly disrupt this space, it will act as a lubricant that accelerates our already amazing pace of technological transformation.
I want a laptop that lasts for a week on one charge. I want a cellphone that lasts a month. I want to be able to go to SXSW without a Mophie in each pocket. I don’t want to have to be constantly worrying about battery life every single time I leave my house.
Today’s battery technology is holding back several other advances in technology in major ways. And we are about to see just how bad the situation is in the coming months. Maybe wireless power sources that constantly charge and re-charge devices is the ultimate answer. But it just seems like battery technology is really ripe for disruption.
I’ve been thinking about the situation with Yahoo suing Facebook regarding some older patents, and observing the reactions online in blogs and on Twitter. I’ve been struck by how unanimous it’s been, and the emerging narrative that Yahoo has somehow crossed a line, that Internet companies don’t…
A smart take on the Yahoo/Facebook patent situation by John Lilly. I think he’s right, there’s more fueling the outpouring of hatred directed at Yahoo than just their patent maneuvers. BUT, I also think their maneuvers are particularly bullshit in this case. Look at what it is they’re suing Facebook over. It’s things that nearly all social services use. It’s obvious things. Things that existed before Yahoo patented them.
Lilly is right that many other patent lawsuits are bullshit as well — particularly in software. But Yahoo is being unreasonably evil and stupid here. Why didn’t they sue, say, 5 years ago? Why aren’t they suing 200 other companies “infringing” their silly patents?
It’s because, like Kodak, they’re dying. And these are the actions that a dying company resorts to. With Kodak, it’s obvious — they’re bankrupt. And people feel sort of sorry for them as a result. Yahoo is not bankrupt, so it’s not-so-obvious. But they are still very much dying. And they clearly know it, hence, the lawsuit.
Maybe we should feel bad for Yahoo here too. But we don’t yet. But we will someday in the not-too-distant future. The saddest thing now is that they probably really think this lawsuit will help save them. It won’t.