To finance the buyout, Blackstone Group LP, Carlyle Group, Permira and TPG Capital plunked down $7 billion of their own money and borrowed the rest. Freescale returned to the public markets Thursday at an initial offering price of $18 a share, which its bankers cut from an expected range of $22 to $24.

Freescale’s shares rose 1.8 percent to $18.33 on their first trading day, valuing the roughly 82.5 percent stake still held by the private-equity firms at just $3.8 billion. But if heavily indebted Freescale performs well, their investment could still turn into a winner.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

And while a search for Meyer’s replacement is underway, I’m told it could easily extend into the summer.

It didn’t take long for rumors about “takeover chatter” concerning AMD to emerge, and briefly yesterday, Dell was mentioned as a possible buyer. AMD shares traded up 4 percent for part of the day but closed down 3 cents during the regular session. Dell more or less shot down the rumor. During its earnings conference call, CEO Michael Dell, answering a question on acquisitions, said, “…we’re looking for relatively smaller sized ingredient acquisitions where we can leverage them with our substantial customer access and distribution.” With AMD currently trading at a valuation north of $6 billion with about $2.2 billion in long-term debt, it’s not the kind of target that would qualify as “smaller sized.”

There will always be rumors of this sort about the perennial number two in the PC microprocessor business. Those who trade on them don’t get something fundamental about AMD: That it would be a complicated company to buy and to own.

Any deal to acquire AMD will necessarily include a third party: Intel. For decades Intel and AMD have operated under a series of patent cross-license agreements that give AMD access to the crown jewels of Intel’s intellectual property, including the x86 instruction set. These patents are on the technology that make a PC a PC, and they are fundamental to the success, or failure, of both companies.

When AMD first sought to spin off its manufacturing operations into the company that became GlobalFoundries, Intel asserted that AMD couldn’t assign access to these patents to a third party without its say-so. This dispute ultimately got the two companies talking and resulted in what I like to call the Treaty of Maui, the settlement of a sweeping antitrust dispute in 2009, a story I reported at the time for BusinessWeek.

There are, however, some limits governing Intel’s conduct in this scenario. When it settled an antitrust case against it last year, Intel agreed to hold off on suing any company that buys one of its competitors for a year, in order to hold “good faith negotiations” over the terms of that patent cross-license agreement. What this all means is that any company that first concludes a deal to buy AMD will then have to pivot and face the possibility of lengthy negotiations with Intel that could, if not successful, end in a costly and distracting patent lawsuit.

Intel may turn out to be willing to play ball, and cut a reasonable deal with any new owner, but the fact remains that every so often the cross-license arrangement has to be renewed. And that’s not to say a determined buyer couldn’t ultimately cut through all this and get a deal done. Dell has $15 billion in cash and could conceivably get a deal done, and being an AMD customer could arguably benefit from owning AMD over the long term, but it has signaled that it’s not interested, and probably never was in the first place.

There are other considerations: AMD is 20 percent owned by the Mubadala Development Company, the investment arm of the Arab Emirate of Abu Dhabi, which changes the potential deal dynamic a bit. Then there’s the big question concerning the wisdom of competing with Intel. As AMD’s prior CEOs will tell you, simply grappling with Intel in the marketplace is a dangerous, thankless job.

But the complication of the Intel cross-license agreement alone should be enough to give any company mulling an AMD buyout serious pause. At the same time it should serve as food for thought for anyone wanting to trade on the latest AMD buyout rumor. This surely is not the last.

It’s yet another big-dollar buyout for the game industry, which has been in an M&A frenzy for about a year, and one of the biggest investments by a Chinese company in an American digital property.

The transaction was first reported by Bloomberg, and Riot confirmed the deal to VentureBeat, though neither outlet has the financial details. Here’s how they break down, according to people familiar with the transaction:

• Tencent, which had already invested in the game maker, will pay “just south” of $400 million to buy out other investors, primarily Benchmark Capital and FirstMark Capital, which along with angels had put approximately $18 million into the company.
• The company’s management team will receive some portion of that buyout themselves, but will also retain an equity stake; some will receive “stay packages.”
• The total investment values the company at $472 million.

The chief appeal of Tencent is Riot’s League of Legends game, which is free to play but encourages players to pay for extra goodies via micro-transactions. (Thanks to readers who educated me about what you can and can’t buy with real-world money in the game.)

In that sense it’s like Zynga’s FarmVille and other popular social games. But it’s a much more sophisticated game, with arcade-style action: Think of World of Warcraft, on steroids and amphetamines.

The deal follows a string of Web-based game deals in the last year. Among the more notable ones: Walt Disney purchased Playdom, Electronic Arts purchased Playfish and DeNA purchased Ngmoco.

According to Mashable, Google is close to launching “Google Offers,” a service that will compete with Groupon, LivingSocial and their hundreds of clones.

In a fact sheet sent to Mashable, it says users will receive a daily email offering a local deal, and as with other sites, the discount will be activated once enough people have made the purchase. The deal will be promoted throughout Google’s ad networks.

Google confirmed the service at a very high level: “Google is communicating with small businesses to enlist their support and participation in a test of a pre-paid offers/vouchers program. This initiative is part of an ongoing effort at Google to make new products, such as the recent Offer Ads beta, that connect businesses with customers in new ways.”

To be sure, early providers have proven that the business can scale.

For instance, just yesterday LivingSocial sold 1.3 million $20 Amazon gift cards for $10 each to ring up a one-day sales total of $13 million. Groupon’s run rate is close to $2 billion, although about half of that is passed on to merchants.

It’s not surprising that Google is kicking off the service without acquiring a company in the space. Groupon would rather seek an IPO than sell, and LivingSocial has already teamed up with Amazon–and after those two, it’s slim pickings.

Google’s challenge won’t be in attracting a large audience but in executing the business.

Traditionally, Google has focused on a self-service advertising model, where merchants can go online to buy an ad without having to interact with a salesperson. But Groupon and LivingSocial have approached the business differently and have put hundreds of feet on the street. Groupon has roughly 3,000 employees, while LivingSocial has about 600–and both are growing extremely fast.

Google could try the approach it knows best, by automating the process and putting at least some of it online. After all, one of the reasons it was reportedly willing to pay so much for Groupon was for its local sales force.

So far, Google’s local track record has been spotty. Getting mom-and-pops interested in buying keywords online has been notoriously hard, as they have continued to prefer working with other mediums like newspapers and yellow pages (which do have local sales forces).

But if it is successful at automating any part of the process, Google could take a smaller cut of the deal than others do today, which could push down margins for everyone.

Photo Credit: Mashable.

Of course. But has it raised nearly $1 billion?

That’s the number being thrown around today by VCExperts, which claims to have seen documents filed by Groupon with the Secretary of State’s office.

And our sources say that’s the right number, with the company’s valuation placed at $4.75 billion, but that the deal hasn’t firmed up yet, and it doesn’t involve any one major new investor. A Groupon representative declined to comment on the report.

In the meantime, Groupon has the gigantic round it raised eight months ago to lean on. BoomTown’s Kara Swisher reported in April that Groupon raised $135 million at a $1 billion valuation.

The big thing that’s likely changed since then is the company’s run-rate, now at $2 billion annually (up from the previously reported $500 million).

The group-buying site, which offers consumers discounts of 50 to 70 percent on things like trips to spas and restaurants, already has a plethora of investors.

It has raised money from the same Russian investors that backed social networking powerhouse Facebook and game phenom Zynga, as well as from Digital Sky Technologies and Battery Ventures. In December, Groupon nabbed $30 million in its second round of funding, led by Accel Partners.

The money in April was being set aside for growing the business and getting ahead of its numerous rivals.

One investment source that has since dried up is Amazon, which decided to back Groupon’s nearest rival, LivingSocial, with $175 million. Kleiner Perkins has been named as a potential candidate, but it would also be nice to see a deep-pocket media company step in.

Newspapers, specifically, have been hard hit by a shift in local advertising and classifieds. A Groupon partnership could make it less appalling that they’ve missed yet another trend.

But it’s hard not to make news when you turn down a $6 billion buyout offer from Google.

Meanwhile, Tim O’Shaughnessy, CEO and co-founder of LivingSocial.com, has remained relatively quiet. As the head of the second-largest company in the local, group-buying space, it wasn’t because he didn’t have anything to talk about.

Just about 24 hours before Groupon’s rejection leaked out, LivingSocial announced it had secured $175 million from Amazon, and $183 million in total new investments. In that same release, the Washington, D.C.-based company confirmed that it was booking revenues of more than $1 million a day on average and is projected to book well over $500 million in revenue in 2011.

To be sure, Groupon and LivingSocial are pulling away from the pack when it comes to defining the nascent daily-deals market. O’Shaughnessy, who claims that the two have 90 percent market share combined, said: “I think the idea conceptually that you can buy things online and go interact with merchants in offline is starting to take hold and be widespread. But it’s really been less than two years…It’s definitely the first couple of innings right now.”

Here’s our interview with O’Shaughnessy:

eMoney: Give me an update on where your business is today.

O’Shaughnessy: As of yesterday [Dec. 16], we were in 136 markets. We launched five new markets yesterday. We tend to do them in batches, and five or eight will go out at once. Overall, we’ve been averaging a market a day.

What about up-to-date figures on uniques?

We are at more than 10 million, or I think the last number we said publicly was 12 million. That’s primarily Canada and the U.S. that are signed up for the daily deal. We are in five countries today. [LivingSocial is in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland and Australia.]

What’s the competition like internationally?

Groupon has been acquisitive, and they’ve become established in lots of places. The U.S. is the most mature by a large margin, and there’s some countries with a few players that have established themselves, and finally, there’s some countries out there that’s a fairly green-field environment.

It’s fairly established that Groupon is No. 1, and LivingSocial is No. 2. But there’s a huge debate about who is No. 3?

There’s a pretty big gap. One of the things I’ve said is that it’s a pretty easy business to get into. All you have to do is know how to process a payment, and have a brother-in-law that has a restaurant that is willing to participate. But it’s a hard business to scale.

We have a competitive spreadsheet with 200 names on it, and if you do a couple of filters on how many deals someone has run, starting with 100, the vast majority drop off. And then if you up it to 500, you are up to the top two. It’s a pretty big drop-off.

Six months ago, we [Groupon and LivingSocial] collectively had 90 percent market share, and last month that was still true.

In that time, the market got bigger, and some others have grown for sure, but our market share has grown quite a bit. The signal-to-noise ratio is off, relative to who is doing what.

Is that what gives you confidence?

That’s one data point to look at, but what gives me confidence is what I see and I know we do every day. The degree of effort that goes into it and how many things can go wrong when you are managing merchant relationships, that’s what gives me the confidence.

What about the critics who say there’s no loyalty in this business–a consumer will always go with the provider who has the best deal for the business they want to visit.

There’s some loyalty that’s there, and I think people buy through us pretty regularly. They know that it’s going to be a merchant that’s vetted, and we work really hard at that. We are a good solid legit company that’s able to deliver. People place value on that. The brand matters, and enhancing user trust is an important thing.

What about the critics who say the margin will erode over time?

I think that the erosion of margins is just like any single other business if you stop innovating and do the same thing over and over. If we continue to innovate and provide additional value to merchants, the value per dollar increases. I don’t tend to be hugely concerned about the margin front.

The conduit has been 50 percent off a service, but there’s additional value we can provide to merchant communities and consumer communities. Overall, we aren’t not going to do the same thing over and over.

Can you give me an example?

We’ve started working with merchants in completely different ways, and sometimes we are going and operating events. We just did something called “tubbing and tasting,” where we worked with three merchants.

You could pick 10 to 12 Saturdays, and you’d meet in Midtown Manhattan, where a coach bus would take you to a snow hill, where you’d go snow tubbing. At the lodge, there was a bonfire and s’mores, and a beer tasting with a bunch of microbrews.

In that circumstance, we worked with three merchants–a coach company, a ski mountain and a brewery–in an entirely different way than how they associate with folks. I think it cost $60 and it sold out virtually every Saturday in January and February. I don’t see anyone else doing that, by finding unique hand-picked, curated ways to work with local businesses.

So, how will you be working with Amazon?

Right now, our first step is focusing on getting the relationship from a financial perspective locked down, and we’ll figure it out at a later point.

I assume the funding will go toward expansion?

We will be very aggressive on additional market launches as we build up our brand and user base. It’s very much a global game, and this is a global opportunity. We’ve gone from one country to five, and we’ll likely continue to expand globally.

A lot of this year was laying a foundation and the building blocks, and adding more value for the merchants, like LivingSocial Escapes. It’s on fire right now. It’s a weekend getaway, or a “staycation.” They are curated packages that are within a short driving distance from where you live. We also have LivingSocial Family Edition, which has things parents can do with their kids.

Your plans include tripling your employee count next year to 1,800 and more than doubling the number of cities you are in to 300?

We will continue to be pretty aggressive. Earlier this year, we were in six markets and we added 130 markets this year. We are a little more mature and one would hope that means we could move faster next year. We were around 30 employees, and over 600 now. It’s been a pretty crazy ramp-up.

The timing of your investment was so closely timed to Groupon-Google’s negotiations.

I’m a firm believer that we can’t control what other people do. Obviously, the deal we did with Amazon takes time to put together. We had decided awhile ago, if we want to become the biggest player in local commerce, we should be aligned with the biggest e-commerce company. That’s a lot of [what was] driving it. The timing was very coincidental.

So, no regrets?

No, not at all. We are thrilled and excited and expect to gain more market share over the coming year.

While a merger of AOL and Yahoo is a fervent dream of bankers looking for fees, the reality is a little more–shall we say–premature.

In fact, it’s likely it was just those dealmakers, looking to gin up some activity, who are behind the latest spin-riffic article in The Wall Street Journal that reports on machinations by AOL to hire unnamed advisers to carry out all kinds of complex deals.

Actually, it is the complexity of any of those deals that has put a lot of the takeover, buyout, merger and other scenarios that center around Yahoo–with a side of AOL, as well as News Corp., Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, the Alibaba Group–on ice.

Among the issues being grappled with: Onerous tax implications around a variety of deals; a need for complete cooperation from too many players; and the realization that a hookup of AOL and Yahoo might cause more problems than it solves.

“It looks great conceptually and everyone gets all hot and bothered,” said one prominent investor who did his own strategizing about Yahoo and AOL. “But when you actually do the numbers, you hit a pretty big wall of impossible.”

Still, any whiff of a deal makes for a spate of overreaching stories in the press, such as the Journal’s, which sources at both Yahoo and AOL tell me started out as one about how the pair were in preliminary merger discussions.

They are not, unless a call or two between AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz on how to handle the hubbub constitutes preliminary.

It doesn’t, of course, unlike serious merger discussions the companies held several years ago, well before the arrival of either Armstrong or Bartz on the scene.

The Journal story then apparently morphed into one about how AOL was on the hunt to figure out what to do–especially about Yahoo–by hiring new advisers.

Actually, the company has had its same old one, Allen & Co., since it was spun off from Time Warner last year. It has since also retained Bank of America.

Yahoo’s longtime banking adviser has been Goldman Sachs, which was re-engaged more than six weeks ago, only due to all the incoming attention.

That would be from other bankers, private equity firms and others, many of whom have ginned up a variety of schemes and have then pinged both AOL and Yahoo.

Curiously, this kind of activity was reported extensively a month ago here and in the Journal too.

Read the Journal article on October 13:

“AOL Inc. and several private-equity firms are exploring making an offer to buy Yahoo Inc., according to people familiar with the matter, devising a bold plan to marry two big Internet brands facing steep challenges.”

A bold plan to marry? You might want put the honeymoon reservations on hold for now.

That’s because interest does not mean result, especially when it comes to merger scenarios (and, if you are bored, you can read a whole bunch BoomTown came up with in late September).

But, in fact, because the big Yahoo-AOL deal is harder to realize in practice than in theory, things have quieted down and there are no proposals being evaluated by Yahoo or offered by AOL.

And, thus, the dealmakers must begin to chatter again to get things hopping.

Ironically, both boards of AOL and Yahoo should be considering a spate of ideas–however outlandish–to spur growth and innovation in their lackluster businesses.

And, in truth, if some very big players, such as Microsoft, got involved, the smoke around both AOL and Yahoo could someday become a real fire.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns both this site and the Journal.)

Given the meeting’s length, it’s hard to imagine the buyout talk extended much beyond a casual mention of the idea, though the two companies have held more in-depth discussions on the matter in the past. It’s far more plausible this was largely an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” chat, with Apple (AAPL) in the villain’s role, with some peripheral jawing about getting Flash running on Windows Phone 7.

But who knows, right? By purchasing Adobe (ADBE), Microsoft would gain a lot of IP and recent Adobe acquisition Omniture, whose Web traffic measurement software is that industry’s standard. And with nearly $37 billion in cash and short-term equivalents, Microsoft (MSFT) is certainly capable of writing the $15.5 billion check it would likely take to acquire the company.

If that’s the final determination, Dell (DELL) will have three days to sweeten its offer, or 3Par (PAR) will begin merger negotiations with Hewlett-Packard (HPQ).

In its filing, 3Par stresses that its board of directors has not yet made any determinations with respect to HP’s acquisition proposal and continues to unanimously recommend that its stockholders accept Dell’s offer, but its mandate to the company is clear: Raise the stakes or cede the battle.

Dell hasn’t yet commented on the filing, but it’s said to be drawing up a better offer for 3Par, though some question whether it is capable of mounting a new bid large enough to knock HP out of the running.

[Image credit: icanhascheezburger]

According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing released Friday, Palm (PALM) shareholders have approved the company’s buyout by Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), clearing the way for a $1.2 billion deal to close July 1–this Thursday.

Then begins the hard work of transition and integration, a process that will see Palm CEO Jon Rubinstein taking the reigns of HP’s new mobile devices unit and rolling out some new webOS-based devices, hopefully sooner than later.

Asked about the company’s near-term product road map at a developer event Thursday, Palm’s Josh Marinacci had this to say: “I’m not allowed to talk about future road maps, especially because we’re in the process of being acquired by HP. But yes we have a road map. We are working on future devices. And a new version of the OS. So I think you’re going to find the next year very exciting.”

“We’re not cutting Sun to profitability, we’re growing Sun to profitability.”

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison said that back in January as the company closed its $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun. Interesting, then, to read Oracle’s latest 8-K filing in which the company adds up to $825 million in restructuring costs to the buyout–some 80 percent of them evidently earmarked for employee severance payments at Sun’s European and Asian outposts. The company had initially projected about $325 million in restructuring costs for the Sun integration, so this is a significant increase.

Oracle (ORCL) refuses to say how just many employees will lose their jobs in this latest round of the cuts, but it’s safe to say the number will be significant, judging by the size of the restructuring charge it plans to take. Prior to the close of its acquisition by Oracle, Sun sacked 3,000 employees, about 10 percent of its global workforce, and took a restructuring charge of $75 million to $125 million.

The new restructuring charges Oracle just announced are nearly seven times that figure. And while it’s impossible to accurately extrapolate the number of jobs to be eliminated this time around from that earlier figure, it’s easy enough to see that it’s going to be a large one.

A new Securities and Exchange Commission filing from the company reveals that the buyout was the result of a process that began in February with a list of 24 potential acquirers that was subsequently winnowed down to 16 companies, then to five and finally to three.

“From February 25 to April 1, Palm management, Goldman Sachs and Qatalyst Partners were in contact with a total of 16 companies including HP,” Palm says in its Preliminary Merger Proxy. “Of these, six companies, including HP, entered into nondisclosure agreements and participated in meetings with Palm and its advisors to review non-public information concerning Palm regarding a strategic transaction.”

And of those six, three made formal acquisition proposals after Palm (PALM) determined that it preferred an outright sale to the intellectual property transaction that at least one of those companies had been leaning toward.

The two companies in addition to HP that presented acquisition proposals are referred to as Company A and Company B. A fourth company, referred to as Company C, had initially been in discussions with Palm regarding an intellectual property transaction and later made a proposal to acquire Palm….A fifth company, referred to as Company D, contacted Palm on March 18 to discuss an intellectual property transaction but did not make a proposal to acquire Palm. Company D did not enter into a nondisclosure agreement and did not review non-public information about Palm. Discussions with Company D continued intermittently until April 15.

So what are companies A, B, C and D? HTC, Lenovo, Dell (DELL) and Huawei, most likely, though there’s a chance that ZTE (Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company Limited), which was believed to be interested in Palm, could be one of the four as well.

Recall that HTC was rumored to have dropped out of the bidding for Palm in late April. At that point, speculation on potential acquirers focused on Lenovo, though already, some–ahem–were suggesting the more likely suitor was HP (HPQ).

Dell and Lenovo would have been interested in Palm for many of the same reasons as HP–a turnkey smartphone division with a robust, scalable operating system. And for telecommunications equipment suppliers Huawei and ZTE, the acquisition of Palm would have been a quick and easy way to leap into the smartphone market with a known brand and strong OS.

Anyway…ultimately the bidding war for Palm came down to a battle between HP and that mysterious Company C. HP’s first offer was for $4.75 a share in cash. A second company matched that bid, and a third proposed an all-stock deal. At this point Company C was interested only in an intellectual property deal.

After Palm balked at those $4.75 bids, the company that had proposed the all-stock-deal dropped out. And Company C suddenly circled back with an acquisition offer of $6 to $7 per share, evidently having determined that its need for Palm’s patent portfolio merited the acquistion price. That sounds to me like HTC, which is facing a nasty patent battle with Apple (AAPL), a battle in which Palm’s patents could have proven quite handy.

But C’s proposal included a $60 million kill fee and some other conditions Palm didn’t much care for. Then the company reduced its bid to $5.50 a share. At that point Palm approached HP and closed the deal.

On April 24 Palm’s CEO and advisors communicated to HP and its advisors that, to remain in the process, HP must improve its offer significantly and immediately. Later that day, HP’s financial advisors verbally delivered a proposal to acquire Palm for $5.70 per common share in cash. HP’s financial advisors also requested a five-day exclusivity period. On April 25 HP delivered a letter confirming this proposal with a target announcement date of close of business on April 27 and sent a draft exclusivity agreement covering such period on April 26.

Though the company’s fast-declining fortunes might suggest its endgame is either buyout or bankruptcy, things aren’t quite so dour–not according to Rubinstein, anyway. The commercial success that has so far eluded Palm isn’t unobtainable, he says, it’s just, you know…a bit farther off than than the company and its investors would like.

“I believe Palm can survive as an independent company,” Rubinstein told the Financial Times. “We have a plan that gets us to profitability.”

Sadly, Rubinstein didn’t provide much detail about the plan beyond the just-you-wait-and-see promises we’ve heard from him before. “[We're working] fast and furious on new handsets,” he said. “We do have a strong pipeline of products in the future.”

Rubinstein also noted that Palm (PALM) would consider licensing its webOS mobile operating system to other companies, given the right circumstances. “Of course we would licence webOS because obviously the more scale we get the more the benefit there is to us.”

Obviously.

But this, too, is something we’re heard from Rubinstein before. And without any insight into how such licensing deals would be structured or who might be interested in them, it’s tough put much faith in them.

To me, these claims, and some others made in this “upbeat” MarketWatch interview, read like simple posturing–the CEO of a foundering company positioning it for a sale with some always-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life proclamations. Conjure a vision of new killer handsets and lucrative licensing deals, do your best to breathe some life into the stock and hope for a good price when you’re finally up on the block.

Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see.

This sounds alarming, but you can think of it as an amicable divorce: Spark gets back all of its bubble-era investment and Eqal gets to keep going, with fresh money from new and existing investors.

Spark led a $5 million series A round in the company in April 2008. Eqal co-founder Miles Beckett wouldn’t tell me how much of the round Spark accounted for, but did say that the VCs were made whole in a transaction that closed at the beginning of this year.

So what happened? As far as I can tell, it’s a straightforward story: Eqal changed directions and Spark didn’t want to stay on board.

Eqal began life as a video-production house spawned by the surprise success of “lonelygirl,” the supercheap, superpopular Web series that crested on YouTube in 2006, just as that site was acquired by Google (GOOG). But by 2009, as the market for Web video ads was slow to develop, Eqal was shifting from developing its own Web video to helping other people make and distribute stuff.

If you want to paint that in a positive light, you can say that Eqal had become a Web video-platform company. A less attractive way to describe Eqal is as a Web video-services company. The difference is meaningful if you’re an investor because “platform” is a scalable business while a service company requires more money and effort and offers less lucrative returns.

Any way you slice it, Spark wanted out. “They wanted to zig and we wanted to zag,” Beckett says. He notes that current management and some original investors, including Ron Conway, helped finance the buyout; Eqal also rounded up new money from investors like Scott and Cyan Banister.

The deal is a much better outcome for Spark than Veoh, another Web video bet, was. That one collapsed in a bankruptcy-protection filing earlier this year. The firm still has money in two other Web video investments: Next New Networks and 5Min.

Meanwhile, I’m still looking for examples of companies that can say they’re doing a booming business by concentrating solely on making original Web video. Anyone?

Here’s a clip of “lonelygirl,” the series that put Eqal on the map. Below it is an example of the company’s new work, a promotional campaign for Kraft’s (KFT) Philadelphia Cream Cheese, starring food celebrity  Paula Deen.

Today, it’s Sun co-founder Scott McNealy who is bidding farewell. Sources close to the company tell me that he too will leave Sun following the close of Oracle’s $7.4 billion buyout.

Word of McNealy’s fate comes a day before Oracle is to unveil its strategy for Oracle (ORCL) and Sun (JAVA) at an event tomorrow.

McNealy’s farewell memo to employees, below.

Gang,

When I interviewed many of you for employment at Sun over the years, one commitment often made was that things will change above, below, and around you faster than any place you have ever been. Looks like this was one area we exceeded plan for 28 years. While it was never the primary vision to be acquired by Oracle, it was always an interesting option. And this huge event is upon us now. Let’s all embrace it with all of the enthusiasm and class and talent that we have to offer.

This combination has the potential to put Sun, its people, and its technology at the center of yet another industry and game changing inflection point. The opportunity is well documented and articulated by Larry and the Oracle folks. Not much I can add on this score. This is a very powerful merger. And way better than some of the alternatives we were facing.

So what do I say to all of you now this is happening?

It turns out that one simple message to the large and diverse Sun community is actually quite hard to craft. Even for a big mouth who is always ready with a clever quip. The community includes our resellers and customers, our current and former employees, their friends and families who supported our employees on their mission to change the industry, our investors, our supply and service partners, students and educators, and even our competitors with whom we often collaborated.

But let me try. Though nothing I could write comes close to matching the unbelievably strong and positive emotions I have for you all. See, I never was able to master dispassion. I truly loved starting, running, and living Sun. And the last four years have not been without serious withdrawal. And the EU approval rocked me more than it should have.

So, to be honest, this is not a note this founder wants to write. Sun in my mind should have been the great and surviving consolidator. But I love the market economy and capitalism more than I love my company.

And I sure “hope” America regains its love affair with capitalism. And except for the auto industry, financial industry, health care, and some other places (I digress), the invisible hand is doing its thing quite efficiently. So I am more than willing to accept this outcome.

And my hat is off to one of the greatest capitalists I have ever met, Larry Ellison. He will do well with the assets that Sun brings to Oracle.

What we did right and wrong at Sun over the years might make for interesting reading. However, I am not a book writer. I am a husband, father of four, and a builder and leader of people who want to make a difference.

But spare me a bit of nostalgia. Not of the mistakes we made, and lord knows I made a ton. But of the things we did right and well.

First and foremost, Sun innovated like crazy. We took it to the limit (see Eagles). And though we did not monetize our inventions as well as we could have, few companies have the track record in R&D that we had over the last 28 years. This made working at Sun really cool. Thanks to all of you inventors and risk takers who changed how we live.

Sun cared about its customers. Even more than we cared about our own company at times. We looked at our customer’s mission as more important than ours. Maybe we should have asked for more revenue in return, but our employees were always ready to help first. I love this about Sun which I guess makes me a good capitalist if not a great capitalist.

Sun did not cheat, lie, or break the rule of law or decency. While we enjoyed breaking the rules of conventional wisdom and archaic business practice and for sure loved to win in the market, we did so with a solid reputation for integrity. Nearly three decades of competing without a notable incident of our folks going off course morally or legally. Not all executives and big companies are bad. Really. There are good companies out there. Special thanks to all of my employees for this. I never had to hide the newspaper in shame from my children.

Sun was a financial success. We paid billions in taxes, salaries, purchases, leases, training, and even lawyers and accountants for devastatingly cumbersome SOX and legal compliance (oops, more classic digression). Long term and smart investors made billions in SUNW. And our customers generated revenue and savings using our equipment in countless ways. Many employees started families, bought homes and put them through school while working at Sun. Our revenues over 28 years exceeded $200B. Few companies make it to the F200. We did. Nice.

Sun employees had way more fun than any other company. By far. From our dress code (“You must!”) to beer busts to our April Fools pranks to SunRise to our quiet enjoyment at night of a long hard well done day of work, no company enjoyed “work” more than Sun. Thanks to all of our employees past and present for making Sun such a blast.

I could go on for a long time reminiscing about the good and great stuff we did at Sun, but just allow me one last one. We shared. Not the greatest attribute for a capitalist. But one I could not change and was not willing to change about Sun while I was in charge. We shared in the success of Sun with our resellers. With our employees through stock options, SunShare, beer busts, and the like (for as long as Congress would allow) and through our efforts to keep as many of them on board for as long as possible during the inevitable down cycles. With our partners through the Java Community Process, through our open source collaborations, and licensing strategies. With our customers through our commitments to low barriers to exit. Sun was never just about us. It was about we. And that may be a bit of the reason we are where we are today.

But I have few regrets (see Sinatra’s “My Way”) and will always look back at Sun and its gang with only pride. Enormous pride. You are the best this industry ever had though few outside of Sun recognized it.

And what we are about will live on in Sparc, Solaris, Java, our products, and our spirit. Well past everyone’s recollections of what we did together. I will never forget though.

Oracle is getting a crown jewel of the technology industry. They will do great things with Sun. Do your best to support them and keep the Sun spirit alive and well in the industry. Our children will be better for it.

Thanks for the off the charts support to everyone who ever carried a Sun badge, used our products, or helped our company through the years.

And thanks to my wonderful wife, Susan, who gave this desperado (see Eagles) a chance to choose the Queen of Hearts before it was too late.

Someday, hopefully, you will all get to see or meet her and my other life’s works named Maverick, Dakota, Colt, and Scout. If you do, perhaps you will understand why I stepped back from the CEO role four years ago. And why I feel like the luckiest guy in the whole world.

My best to all of you, and remember: Kick butt and have fun!

Scott

FURTHER READING:

• Sun CEO Set to Resign
• Sun CEO: Go Oracle, Beat IBM [Internal Memo]
• EU Approves Oracle-Sun Deal
• EU Poised to Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Oracle Sack Half of Sun’s Workforce? Ridiculous, Says Sun.
• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Oracle: IBM, Come Out to Play-ee-ay
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

Essentially–although AOL is located in New York and not California–it’s going to be like tremors before the Big One at the online company today, as about 100 employees are laid off.

Sources said the cuts, first reported by Valleywag’s Ryan Tate, will be widespread across AOL, even as the company inches ever closer to being spun off from its corporate overlord, Time Warner (TWX).

That will come within the next month, once the spate of regulatory comments and approvals is in place, said sources.

And during this time, AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s “Project Everest”–the code name for cost-cutting across the company–will be chugging along to its final destination.

After tomorrow’s small cut, sources said, Armstrong has told employees he is seriously considering a suggestion made to him on a listening tour of AOL, which he took in his first 100 days on the job, of asking for voluntary departures that would include some sort of buyout.

It’s unlikely that that will be enough to achieve the kinds of cuts needed to bring costs in line with depressed revenue at AOL.

At its third-quarter earnings call last week, Time Warner reported that AOL revenue was down 23 percent. In addition, subscription revenue, which will continue to shrink, was down another 29 percent, and advertising revenue, which is supposed to improve one day, was down 18 percent.

Thus, with that performance, AOL is likely to do a massive layoff of upward of 1,000 employees.

That action will take place right before or, more likely, at the same time or right after the spinoff.

In other words, not very happy holidays for some.

But AOL is not alone in making cuts in the tech space. Last week, both Microsoft (MSFT) and RealNetworks (RNWK) laid off staff, as did Electronic Arts (ERTS) yesterday.

Here is a recent interview I did, while in Germany, with Armstrong, where he talked about AOL’s prospects:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091110/aol-small-layoff-today-a-voluntary-buyout-and-then-the-big-one/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20091106/all-is-forgiven-its-a-clean-slate-says-andreessen-about-lawsuit-mad-skype-co-founders/ http://allthingsd.com/20091106/all-is-forgiven-its-a-clean-slate-says-andreessen-about-lawsuit-mad-skype-co-founders/#comments Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:28:48 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=20364

Silicon Valley legend and now VC Marc Andreessen was making the interview rounds after the settlement between the litigation-addled co-founders of Skype and all the various people they were suing was announced this morning.

He has been tight-lipped until now, due to the morass of lawsuits.

But, as Andreessen told BoomTown in a phone interview about the aggressive legal tactics of Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis that resulted in them finally seizing a stake in the Internet telephony giant by suing him and many other Silicon Valley players:

“We did not take it personally. It’s a clean sheet of paper.”

Well, it is actually a torn, stained and very worn out piece of paper, due to all the various machinations, but bygones!

Andreessen–who knows a thing or two about legal tussles, if you recall Netscape-Microsoft (MSFT)–said the real point is that it is time to focus on the business of Skype rather than fighting over who controls Skype.

“It’s really good to have everyone lined up and rowing in the same direction. We have to capitalize on the opportunity, because Skype is poised for a new wave of growth,” said Andreessen. “They have an amazing head of steam, because the logical way for voice and video communications to be conducted will be over the Web.”

Thus, Zennström and Friis now join the winning buyout group, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, along with eBay, in owning Skype.

But Index Ventures, which was in, is–as Heidi Klum might say–out!

Under the terms of the agreement, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis will take a 14 percent stake in the company they founded and then sold to eBay (EBAY), which will include an undisclosed investment by them.

I reported yesterday that the total was 13 percent–10 percent for the rights to key Skype technology held by the co-founders and the option to invest $83 million for three percent more.

In exchange, the pair will give Skype software essential to its operation and drop their various lawsuits against eBay and Skype’s buyers.

As for Zennström and Friis’s egregious use of the courts to grab their 14 percent stake in Skype, litigation they waged after losing their bid to buy Skype back from eBay, Andreessen was being very politic.

“We love working with aggressive founders and are in favor of founders being involved in their companies,” he said. “Great founders are not known for being shy and reserved. Look at Bill Gates. It’s not a question of personality, but of accomplishment.”

Noting that he had not worked with the pair before, Andreessen (pictured here) said, “We have a lot of respect for them. We think they’re geniuses.”

But, I queried, would he have used such tactics?

“It’s not a book club, it’s a super-serious, high-stakes game,” said Andreessen. “I don’t know; I’ve not been in the situation they’re in. If your goal in life is to avoid drama, this is probably the wrong industry for you.”

Perhaps, but I told him that I doubted even a battle-hardened entrepreneur like Andreessen would use the courts in such a manner to achieve business goals.

To each his own, said Andreessen!

“One of our investing mottos is that we invest in strength, not lack of weakness,” he said. “The question is how big is the opportunity.”

And, apparently, it is big enough to overlook all the drama that has gone on.

Andreessen said he expects to be more involved at Skype–which, with his $50 million investment, is the biggest deal in his $300 million fund–than other board members, noting different directors have different roles.

It’s a big board of 23, as I had previously reported. Zennström and Friis are each getting a seat.

“We are going to be helpful,” Andreessen said about his fund’s role at Skype. “We’re a company picker, looking for those that have the greatest potential.”

Andreessen, ever the diplomat, made sure to add that that also means doing business with Index, the member of his Skype consortium that departed as Friis and Zennström (pictured here) entered, due to stark tensions between the two sides.

“I have a lot of respect for [Index partners Danny Rimer and Mike Volpi] and expect to work with them a lot in the future,” said Andreessen. “In fact, I am talking to them today about two other deals.”

In other words, in Silicon Valley, the big wheel just keeps on turning.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091106/all-is-forgiven-its-a-clean-slate-says-andreessen-about-lawsuit-mad-skype-co-founders/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20091019/new-york-times-to-sack-100-staffers/ http://allthingsd.com/20091019/new-york-times-to-sack-100-staffers/#comments Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:16:54 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=26881 If newspapers are suffering a death by 1000 cuts, the next 100 will be made at the New York Times.

The company today announced plans to reduce its newsroom staff by eight percent by the end of 2009. Cuts will be made by buyout, but the company will resort to layoffs should its hand be forced.

“As before, if we do not reach 100 positions through buyouts, we will be forced to go to layoffs,” New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote in a note to employees. I hope that won’t happen, but it might. I won’t pretend that these staff cuts will not add to the burdens of journalists whose responsibilities have grown faster than their compensation. Like you, I yearn for the day when we can do our jobs without looking over our shoulders for economic thunderstorms.”

Sad, sad news for a storied newspaper and an imperiled industry.

Keller’s memo in full, below:

Colleagues,

I had planned to invite you to the newsroom and break this news in person today, but I’ve been hit by something that seems to be the flu. Though I strongly believe in delivering bad news in person, I don’t want to add insult to injury by spreading infection.

Let me cut to the chase: We have been told to reduce the newsroom by 100 positions between now and the end of the year.

We hope to accomplish this by offering voluntary buyouts. On Thursday, the Company will be sending buyout offers to everyone in the newsroom. Getting a buyout package does NOT mean we want you to leave. It is simply easier to send the envelopes to everyone. If you think a buyout may be right for you, you have up to 45 days to decide whether you will accept it or not.

As before, if we do not reach 100 positions through buyouts, we will be forced to go to layoffs. I hope that won’t happen, but it might.

Our colleagues in editorial and op-ed, and on the business side, also face another round of budget cuts.

In recent years, we’ve managed to avoid the disabling cutbacks that have hit other newsrooms. The Company has chosen to protect the journalism by cutting production and other business-side costs, and the newsroom itself has managed its resources frugally. These latest cuts will still leave us with the largest, strongest and most ambitious editorial staff of any newsroom in the country, if not the world.

I won’t pretend that these staff cuts will not add to the burdens of journalists whose responsibilities have grown faster than their compensation. But we’ve been looking hard at ways to minimize the impact–in part, by re-engineering some of our copy flow. I won’t promise this will be easy or painless, but I believe we can weather these cuts without seriously compromising our commitment to coverage of the region, the country and the world. We will remain the single best news organization on earth.

I doubt that anyone is shocked by the fact of this, but it is happening sooner than anyone anticipated. When we took our 5 percent pay cuts, it was in the hope that this would fend off the need for more staff cuts this year. But I accept that if it’s going to happen, it should be done quickly. We will get through this and move on.

In my absence, Bill Schmidt and John and Jill have volunteered to take your questions this afternoon. Feel free to bring additional questions to me as soon as I’m back, or check with Bill Schmidt or John or Jill privately, or save them for the next Throw Stuff at Bill session, which is in a couple of weeks.

We often–and rightly–voice our gratitude that we work for a company and a family that prize quality journalism above all. I hope you know that the company and the family, and I, feel an equal debt of gratitude to all of you whose sacrifice and loyalty have kept us strong.

Like you, I yearn for the day when we can do our jobs without looking over our shoulders for economic thunderstorms.

Bill

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091019/new-york-times-to-sack-100-staffers/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20090630/here-comes-the-video-shakeout-joost-scales-down-ceo-mike-volpi-steps-out/ http://allthingsd.com/20090630/here-comes-the-video-shakeout-joost-scales-down-ceo-mike-volpi-steps-out/#comments Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:49:51 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=8803 Here’s the beginning of the inevitable online video shakeout: Joost, the once-hyped video service that was supposed to rival Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, is restructuring to focus on “white label” services, i.e., a back end for other video players.

The service is laying off the majority of its employees, and CEO Mike Volpi (pictured right) is out, replaced by Matt Zelesko, who had been SVP of engineering. The Joost.com portal site will stay open, but best to think of it as an ad for the company’s hosting and distribution services, which it will try to sell to cable companies and the like.

A Joost spokesperson declined to say how deep the layoffs will be; but I’m told that the company, which had more than 100 employees last fall, will be down to a couple dozen after the cuts are done. In a post on Joost’s Web site, Volpi said the company “will say goodbye to many of our colleagues and friends.”

This isn’t a shock: Joost’s fate has been the subject of whisper and rumors for the last year or more. The service made an initial splash in 2007 by raising $45 million from the founders of Skype and an array of high-profile investors and media companies, including Sequoia Capital and Viacom (VIA), and was initially supposed to deliver copyrighted content via a peer-to-peer distribution system and a player that users downloaded to their desktops.

But YouTube, and later Hulu, conditioned users to watch video via their browsers, and Joost’s software never caught on. By last fall, the company had retooled and began offering video via the browser like everyone else, but it has never been able to generate a significant audience. In November, a month after the company launched its Web browser, it said it was attracting 2.1 million unique users world-wide, a fraction of YouTube’s audience, and well behind rivals like Hulu, MetaCafe, Veoh and DailyMotion.

Here’s the service’s unique visitor count, per Comscore (SCOR); Joost’s unique viewer count, which is the more relevant metric for video sites, is considerably smaller (click to enlarge):

Joost has been a frequent candidate for buyout rumors, and the company hasn’t gone out of its way to deny them. The supposed buyers would be cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) Time Warner Cable (TWC) or telcos like AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ), which would presumably use Joost’s technical team to help build out their own Web video plays.

But some of the cable guys and telcos insist that they’re fine with the people they have. And if they do want to buy a video player, they have plenty of options: Just about all of Joost’s peers have been on the block, formally or informally, for the past few months.

JOOST TO PROVIDE WHITE LABEL ONLINE VIDEO PLATFORM

NEW YORK AND LONDON – June 30, 2009 – Joost, the online video startup, announced today that, along with Joost.com, it will focus on providing white label online video platforms for media companies, including cable and satellite providers, broadcasters and video aggregators. This technology and service offering will support content owners’ efforts to build comprehensive branded environments online.

Media companies around the world are embracing internet-based video portals as a key path to distribute their premium video, but building a world-class video portal is increasingly difficult and expensive. Joost will focus on this issue and provide the market with a cost-effective, end-to-end solution for media companies to publish video under their own brands.

As a part of this new direction, Joost will reorganize and restructure its business. A core team in New York and London will work on providing these solutions, as well as operating and supporting Joost.com and its associated video applications. Joost also will wind down operations in its Leiden development center.

Matt Zelesko, currently SVP of Engineering at Joost, will take over as CEO while continuing to lead the engineering organization. Stacey Seltzer, currently SVP of international business development and content acquisition at Joost, will run the business operations. Mike Volpi has stepped down as CEO of Joost but will remain actively involved as Chairman of the Board.

Joost plans to make its white label video platform commercially available to media companies around the world. This offering will provide a solution for companies looking to build a branded experience for their content on their own site as well as other sites and platforms in their distribution networks.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090630/here-comes-the-video-shakeout-joost-scales-down-ceo-mike-volpi-steps-out/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090409/who-will-be-twitters-bestest-search-friend-google-and-microsoft-engage-in-yet-another-pick-me-face-off/ http://allthingsd.com/20090409/who-will-be-twitters-bestest-search-friend-google-and-microsoft-engage-in-yet-another-pick-me-face-off/#comments Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:24:41 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=11998

[UPDATED: With added information about range of product discussions.]

In this digital era’s version of “Spy Vs. Spy,” Microsoft and Google find themselves in yet another sharp-elbowed battle to be the one to strike some kind of commercial search deal or product partnership with Twitter, many sources with knowledge of the situation said, as they also jockey for position to evaluate the potential of the much-hyped microblogging start-up.

After last week’s explosive rumor that Google was in “late-stage” talks to acquire Twitter, which BoomTown reported was wildly premature, I set out to try to sort out exactly what was going on.

As I found out, there was a lot–mostly much talking related to possible product and distribution partnerships, centered around Google or Microsoft, especially around a deal to become the one to exclusively deliver search or other similar services to Twitter properties.

The reason for the interest? Many think Twitter’s real-time search of its 140-character “tweets” posted by users on the service will become the next great battlefield in search. Google currently dominates the general search market, with third-place Microsoft struggling to get more share.

But how to do that is in flux, as past efforts at various third-party search arrangements have had mixed success for both Google and Microsoft. Both companies and also Twitter are trying to figure out new ways to do such deals.

On top of that, it is also unclear if Twitter wants to strike a deal purely to get a payment from either Microsoft or Google, as others have done. Twitter management has indicated that they are much more interested in growth and distribution over a revenue focus.

Twitter Co-founder Biz Stone said as much on the start-up’s Web site recently, as well as in many media interviews, noting that it will begin experimenting with its own business ideas this year.

In other words, the talks Twitter is having with both Google and Microsoft could also lead exactly nowhere too.

Along with the commercial talks, both Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) are also trying to figure out if Twitter is simply one of the many shooting stars that are far more typical in Silicon Valley or if it is sea-change start-up worth pursuing and paying up big-time to acquire.

“As impressive as what Twitter has done, we are all overexcited,” said one source. “And so it’s hard to figure out the right thing to do with all the pressure to do something.”

Thus, while an offer for Twitter from Microsoft, Google or a plethora of other players–from News Corp. (NWS) to Yahoo (YHOO) to Cisco (CSCO) to Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL to big telcos–could come at any time, said many sources, only a huge price would lead to an acquisition, especially since the growth of the service has been accelerating more rapidly in recent months than has been reported publicly.

This all makes for dicey times at Twitter, which sits at the center of all this noise, trying to build a company, while also being fully cognizant that trying to engineer a massive buyout could be its best outcome.

Further complicating the situation: The fact that Twitter co-founder and CEO Evan Williams–who has already sold one company, Blogger, to Google and eventually left after a lackluster experience, a common one of many entrepreneurs who sell out early to large companies–is less interested in selling out than in growing the company.

But without the kind of control of the company’s fate–which allowed Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to effectively block similar buyout pressures early in its history–Twitter’s founders also might not get the last word in the event of an unusually attractive offer.

While a $500 million stock-and-cash one from Facebook last fall was turned away by Twitter due to worry about the social-networking site’s market valuation, the massing interest is overwhelming and forcing it to make some clear decisions about it path.

“When you are in a situation like Twitter is in, you have to wonder if this is the high-water mark and it is time to sell out or if you are underestimating yourself badly by even considering that,” said one Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has been in a similar spot in the past. “It can be very hard to think straight.”

Indeed, all the attention is both distracting and slightly surreal for its top execs and small 30-person staff in San Francisco, said many sources close to the situation, especially the mass of media that resulted due to that now-discounted rumor that Twitter was poised to be sold off for a giant pile of money.

In fact, Twitter has its hands full enough scaling its recent surge in growth and keeping the service humming along (it has had tech snafus in the past).

But for Google and Microsoft, this geopolitical one-upsmanship by the Internet’s two most important companies is quite familiar, and they have not hesitated to jump into the Twitter tempest.

If that sounds a lot like the two-month fire drill in 2007 that resulted when Microsoft and Google competed to see who could sidle up closest to then-belle-of-the-Silicon-Valley-ball Facebook, you are exactly right.

After much huffing and puffing back and forth and this way and that way, it resulted in a Microsoft “win,” which gave it the distinct honor of forking over $240 million to own 1.6 percent of Facebook at an astonishing $15 billion valuation.

Even as Facebook has grown quickly in size since then–to 200 million users, as announced yesterday–its valuation has dropped to $3 billion to $5 billion.

Microsoft had previously struck an search ad deal in the U.S. with Facebook in which it paid a guaranteed revenue to Facebook and later also did a deal to do some of the search on the site.

Such kinds of deals have become common for both Google and Microsoft in recent years. Google struck one with News Corp. social-networking site MySpace, as well as with AOL (which will also soon come up for renewal).

And Microsoft grabbed the right to pay Digg a guaranteed fee in another online ad deal. And the pair also fought more recently over a mobile search distribution deal with the wireless unit of Verizon (VZ).

And so it goes now with Twitter.

No partnership deal has been made as yet, of course, since such a thing would say a lot about Twitter’s future, since the prospect of marriage overhangs such a choice, which is also–in essence, a declaration of allegiance in the cold war between Google and Microsoft.

If that also sounds like a plot of a James Bond movie, with geeks armed with algorithms instead of gadgety weaponry, you’re also exactly right.

More, obviously, to come…

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090409/who-will-be-twitters-bestest-search-friend-google-and-microsoft-engage-in-yet-another-pick-me-face-off/feed/ 7 http://allthingsd.com/20090406/raise-the-yangtanic-again-sunibm-gets-new-tech-metaphor-thrown-at-it-also-not-so-currie-licious/ http://allthingsd.com/20090406/raise-the-yangtanic-again-sunibm-gets-new-tech-metaphor-thrown-at-it-also-not-so-currie-licious/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:05:38 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=11801

BoomTown is not going to go all servers and Solaris on you, as I am leaving the complicated details of the collapsed IBM (IBM) bid for Sun Microsystems (JAVA) to Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski to sort out.

But perhaps the best headline and first sentence of the plethora of stories about the $7 billion buyout debacle, which seems sure to get horribly messy now, is from Andy Greenberg of Forbes.com:

The headline: “Sun May Be Pulling A Yahoo!”

And lede: “Sun Microsystems is facing its Jerry Yang moment.”

I wonder if every failed tech merger with a squabblefest and a board in chaos will now be accused of blowing it, as most think the Yahoo (YHOO) co-founder and former CEO Yang did in rejecting the $41 billion offer from Microsoft (MSFT).

In an interesting aside, speaking of the chaotic Sun board, one of its members is none other than Peter Currie.

Currie (pictured here) just inherited another potential mess over at Facebook, when he agreed to step in to take over as a financial adviser to the social-networking site, which abruptly replaced CFO Gideon Yu last week.

Sounds like Currie, the former Netscape CFO and investor–who knows from unnatural disaster from his long years in Silicon Valley–has his hands full now.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090406/raise-the-yangtanic-again-sunibm-gets-new-tech-metaphor-thrown-at-it-also-not-so-currie-licious/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang/ http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:22:51 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16086 What’s Sun going to do now?

Shares in the company dropped more than 27 percent percent to $6.48 in premarket trading following reports that Sun’s board rejected a formal acquisition offer by IBM (IBM). After weeks of negotiations, the two companies were thought to be finalizing a deal for about $7 billion. But IBM lowered its offer over the weekend and then withdrew it after Sun balked at the price and terms of the sale. IBM is believed to have originally offered $10 and $11 a share for Sun, but subsequently reduced that bid to $9.40 a share, which was a bit too low for the fading company’s taste.

Seems Sun (JAVA) has quite a bit more in common with Yahoo (YHOO), which notoriously balked at a $44 billion buyout offer from Microsoft (MSFT) last year, than you’d think.

Whether the deal is dead is unclear, but things certainly aren’t looking good–for future negotiations and for Sun, as Sanford Bernstein & Co. analyst Toni Sacconaghi suggested in a research note to clients this morning. “While press reports suggest that the fall-out in discussions may be attributable to brinkmanship, we do think that a collapse in the talks has considerably weakened Sun’s hand, as we see no other likely suitors, and a considerably higher potential for weakened (fiscal year third quarter) results,” he wrote. “… Given the size of the premium and the fact that Sun’s board has presided over a decline in the company’s stock price over the last eight years from over $250/share to less than $5 prior to the acquisition talks being leaked, we believe that (Sun Microsystems) is likely to face significant shareholder unrest, similar to what occurred when Yahoo declined Microsoft’s offer.”

Which means things are about to get ugly–really ugly–for Sun, which doesn’t appear to have any other likely suitors and will almost certainly see its third-quarter results weakened by the doubt it has just instilled in potential customers.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang-2/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:22:51 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16086 What’s Sun going to do now?

Shares in the company dropped more than 27 percent percent to $6.48 in premarket trading following reports that Sun’s board rejected a formal acquisition offer by IBM (IBM). After weeks of negotiations, the two companies were thought to be finalizing a deal for about $7 billion. But IBM lowered its offer over the weekend and then withdrew it after Sun balked at the price and terms of the sale. IBM is believed to have originally offered $10 and $11 a share for Sun, but subsequently reduced that bid to $9.40 a share, which was a bit too low for the fading company’s taste.

Seems Sun (JAVA) has quite a bit more in common with Yahoo (YHOO), which notoriously balked at a $44 billion buyout offer from Microsoft (MSFT) last year, than you’d think.

Whether the deal is dead is unclear, but things certainly aren’t looking good–for future negotiations and for Sun, as Sanford Bernstein & Co. analyst Toni Sacconaghi suggested in a research note to clients this morning. “While press reports suggest that the fall-out in discussions may be attributable to brinkmanship, we do think that a collapse in the talks has considerably weakened Sun’s hand, as we see no other likely suitors, and a considerably higher potential for weakened (fiscal year third quarter) results,” he wrote. “… Given the size of the premium and the fact that Sun’s board has presided over a decline in the company’s stock price over the last eight years from over $250/share to less than $5 prior to the acquisition talks being leaked, we believe that (Sun Microsystems) is likely to face significant shareholder unrest, similar to what occurred when Yahoo declined Microsoft’s offer.”

Which means things are about to get ugly–really ugly–for Sun, which doesn’t appear to have any other likely suitors and will almost certainly see its third-quarter results weakened by the doubt it has just instilled in potential customers.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090406/whos-your-ma-consultant-sun-jerry-yang-2/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081208/whats-up-with-seagate/ http://allthingsd.com/20081208/whats-up-with-seagate/#comments Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:07:39 +0000 Eric Savitz http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=6639 To answer my own question, there’s probably nothing up with Seagate (STX). But the stock has spiked today even more than the broad market; and the stock Web site TheFlyOnTheWall.com asserts that the disk drive maker is being lifted by “renewed buyout chatter.”

Now, certainly you can see why people would fantasize about a Seagate LBO; the company was taken private in 2000 in a highly profitable buyout by Silver Lake Partners; the theory would be, well, why not give it one more go-round.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081208/whats-up-with-seagate/feed/ 0