“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

Maybe get something cooking in the whole what-will-Yahoo-do stakes, now that one of Yahoo’s more active board members is back.

And by “back,” I mean that Kenny — no longer a candidate for CEO — has no further need to recuse himself from the strategic process in which the Silicon Valley Internet company finds itself.

In an interview with Advertising Age last week, Kenny — the well-regarded online ad exec who recently stepped down as president of network infrastructure giant Akamai — released an unusual statement:

As a matter of policy, I do not comment on matters related to Yahoo as a Yahoo director. However, as a personal matter, I want to clarify that I believe Yahoo is a great company with enormous potential, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for the CEO position. I look forward to my continued service on the Yahoo Board of Directors.”

By removing himself from the fray, that means, according to several sources, that Kenny will be diving back into sleeve-rolling duties at Yahoo, as one of its — how can I put this? — less comatose board members.

In fact — until he was sidelined by the obvious conflict of interest inherent in wanting to be CEO, while also directing the fate of Yahoo for shareholder value — Kenny had been deeply involved in a lot of the changes that had taken place of late, after a long period of board inaction.

That included the ouster of CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired for a number of reasons, including lack of strategic vision. It was relatively new board member Kenny — he became a director in February — who led the strategy committee that had asked Bartz for her road map, which she did not deliver to their liking. Obviously.

Because of the swirl around his possible CEO candidacy — Kenny was a noticeable inside candidate, since he is well known in the Internet advertising world for running and then selling Digitas to the Publicis Groupe for $1.3 billion in 2006 — he gave up leadership of the committee to Intuit President Brad Smith.

Sources said it is unlikely Kenny will get that top job back, but he remains a member of the transactions committee, which is leading the strategic review of the company.

That’s the key slot for the independent board members of Yahoo, who must ultimately be the ones to determine what path or offer the company will take.

One plus: Kenny has close relationships with most of the bidders — largely private equity firms — looking at Yahoo, and also is well known among the media and tech companies poking around, too. He also has advertising — and now tech — experience, which will be much needed as Yahoo explores its options.

Most importantly, Kenny is an independent director, which will be very important to the process going forward, especially since a lot of the spotlight has fallen on Yahoo co-founder and director Jerry Yang.

Yang — who has been a bit of a Yahoo lightning rod at times — has been involved in some of the meetings with those interested, along with interim CEO Tim Morse. The company recently noted that this was at the behest of the board.

While these were only informational meetings so far — and not negotiations, as some reports have surmised — Yang’s involvement will likely have to be more curtailed, at least publicly, especially if any of the deals include using his own large stake in Yahoo.

“This process has to be above board, since it is so easy for those wanting a better deal to try to cause all kinds of trouble,” said one source. “The company is already under attack in that regard.”

That’s a reference to a recent salvo by hedge fund activist Dan Loeb, a major Yahoo shareholder who has taken aim at the board and, last week, at Yang. Loeb essentially accused Yang of double-dealing in the process.

Enter Kenny, along with Smith and — to an increasingly lesser extent, of late — Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock. While there are other independent board members involved, these are the three to watch most closely now.

While some think Kenny still would like to be CEO of Yahoo — he was also on the short list several years ago when Bartz was hired — sources said he is more likely to take a job at another consumer Internet company.

While he certainly could slot into a large advertising firm or into the digital division of a big media concern, sources said Kenny is looking to be a CEO.

Just not at Yahoo.

At least for now, since down the road it is unclear what will become of Yahoo and who will run it in years to come.

In fact, it might even be Kenny in the end.

It wasn’t until dinner this past Sunday night that CEO Léo Apotheker told Todd Bradley, the head of its Personal Systems Group, that he was about to push key parts of Bradley’s huge unit off the cliff.

That included stopping selling hardware — smartphones and TouchPad tablets — based on the webOS it acquired from Palm last year, a $1.2 billion deal that Bradley played a big part in.

In addition, HP said it was considering spinning out its PC business and would “explore options to optimize the value of webOS software going forward.”

But, until a few days ago, several sources close to the situation said, Bradley knew nothing of these plans and neither did webOS’s key driver of late, former Palm CEO Jon Rubinstein.

This surprising lack of disclosure by HP to two of its key execs begs the question: Will they stay or will they go now?

According to sources, staying put is the plan for both for now, although it depends on what such a spinoff will look like.

It’s clear at this point that Bradley — who was once the CEO of Palm himself and was once considered the most likely successor to former CEO Mark Hurd, before Hurd’s sudden resignation last year — is the leading CEO candidate of its spun-out independent PC company if that’s what HP decides to do.

But it’s not a lock, either. And, apparently, Bradley has not been locked in with regards to a spinoff either and would likely have a lot of offers from tech companies in Silicon Valley to choose from if he wanted.

“Who will they get if Bradley goes at this point, if they want to spin it off?” said one person at the company.

But, added another: “Bradley is in the catbird seat if he wants to be and it’s his to lose.”

That depends, of course, on what his is.

Questions include:

Will that new company include any of the consumer part of the printer business — a huge cash cow — if HP is indeed leaving the arena?

Will webOS go with the new set-up, so that it can take advantage of the patents and licensing income?

Will HP continue to be the brand name on the devices this computer company spinoff would make?

These are just a few of the issues in a deal of untold complexity. But perhaps the most obvious one is who would get custody of Rubinstein?

To begin: Bradley is a big fan and would certainly want him around if there were a spinoff, said several sources.

But to do what?

Rubinstein, a well-known tech exec, had been leading the webOS efforts for HP, but was recently moved upstairs to a larger but fuzzy role, to run product development and innovation for the PSG unit. He has been reporting to Bradley.

At the time, the move was seen by many as the first step out the door by Rubinstein, with one person joking that “he’d much rather be at his Mexican beach house than HP.”

Among the disgruntlements: Several sources said Rubinstein felt that TouchPad wasn’t ready to ship and that Apotheker has reneged on a public promise not to until the tablet was “perfect.”

That ire is no surprise, since the device was then subject to tough criticism, including by AllThingsD’s Walt Mossberg, who noted in his review:

“… In my view, despite its attractive and different user interface, this first version is simply no match for the iPad. It suffers from poor battery life, a paucity of apps and other deficits.”

In addition, unlike others there, Rubinstein has been more of a product guy and not an HP lifer. That begs the question of whether he’d like to sign up to another big company stint, even if he had more control.

“He’s been to that party before, and the reality is that he is not a career big company person,” said one person.

One important note: Rubinstein was unable to make webOS work when Palm was already a standalone independent company. And, although a new HP spinoff would be huge and better funded, it is still very much an uphill and competitive battle on the computer, smartphone and tablet fronts.

In addition, keeping a competitive operating system going is also a costly bear of an issue.

“It’s a cyclical, high-velocity business and there are other huge players from Apple and Google in smartphones and tablets to Lenovo and Dell in PCs,” said another source. “There might be a lot of great products in the pipeline for webOS, but it will not be easy to make them a success.”

That said, noted another person who knows Rubinstein well, “he really cares about webOS and does not want to see it go away.”

That might be true, although that is just what might happen if HP decides to sell it off to someone else or makes the spinoff a difficult endeavor.

In that case, it’s an offer Bradley and Rubinstein can refuse.

Related posts

• Hewlett-Packard Says Goodbye to PCs, webOS
• HP Pulls Plug on webOS Hardware, Leaves OS Future in Doubt
• HP And webOS: But They Seemed So Happy Together!
• Liveblogging HP’s “Everything Including the Kitchen Sink” Conference Call
• HP’s Apotheker: We Struck Out with WebOS, but Maybe Someone Else Wants a Swing?
• Viral Video: Like Palm’s Creepy Naked Lady, TouchPad’s Floating Celeb Heads Get the HP Boot
• Licensing webOS May Not Be Much of an Option for HP
• Hewlett-Packard’s PC Business: What Happens Next?
• Worth More Dead Than Alive: Could HP Turn a Profit on Palm’s Patents?
• With HP’s Raising of the World’s Biggest White Flag, Will Jon Rubinstein and Todd Bradley Surrender Too?

Back in 2006, one of the most dramatic moments of the “pretexting” scandal at Hewlett-Packard was when a very high-profile board member — legendary Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tom Perkins — quit in indignation over the company’s efforts to obtain the phone records of reporters.

“I resigned solely to protest the questionable ethics and the dubious legality of the chairman’s methods,” he said at the time about HP’s sneaky indiscretions, which included spying on a journalist from The Wall Street Journal.

But yesterday, in an interview with the New York Times, Perkins sounded a very different tone as a current independent board member of News Corp., which owns the Journal (and this site too) and, more importantly, is knee-deep in its own phone-hacking disaster.

Noting that the directors are “fully supportive of the top management,” Perkins added: “There’s no reason to believe top management was lying. That’s my very strong belief.”

Ironic? You bet, but apparently not to Perkins.

“This is not like the HP situation,” he told the Times. “The board supports top management.”

Jim Bankoff, the fomer AOL exec responsible for buying Engadget for the Internet portal, has grabbed eight staffers who had recently left the huge tech site amid tensions, in order to start a new gadget property.

The site–which is still unnamed and will be run by outgoing Engadget Editor-in-Chief Josh Topolsky–will debut sometime in the fall. It is the first content expansion at the Washington, D.C. sports news site SB Nation, which is helmed by Bankoff.

“The technology we built is applicable beyond sports,” said Bankoff, in an interview with BoomTown tonight. “It was an opportunity to apply our model…into another content category where there was an overlap in demographics.”

That would be fanboys and, well, boys-who-will-be-boys.

UPDATE: In related news, sources said that AOL has zeroed in on Tim Stevens, Engadget’s automotive editor to replace the outgoing Topolsky. The New York-based company had already named Darren Murph as its new managing editor.

Now Stevens will be competing with Topolsky, as well as managing editor Nilay Patel, who will also lead the Engadget tech-exodus (techxodus?). The others include former Engadget staffers Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Chris Ziegler, Justin Glow and Dan Chilton.

Stern and Ziegler are still on Engadget’s editors site as current employees.

All of the above had left Engadget in a series of departures of late, all due to increasing unhappiness with AOL’s management and content strategy.

Paul Miller and Ross Miller, who are not related, both stated publicly that they did not like the editorial direction AOL was going in, especially a controversial content strategy document titled “The AOL Way.”

In his blog post, Topolsky threw another smackadoo at AOL, noting “SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on.”

New AOL content head Arianna Huffington has shifted toward a more journalistic path, but the talent bleed began before AOL’s $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post.

In a blog post, which is embedded below, Topolsky said the new SB Nation gadget site will be similar in pace and topic, but it will be broader than Engadget.

The move is an interesting one for SB Nation, which completed a $10.5 million Series C round, led by Khosla Ventures, in the fall.

It had already raised about $13 million in total venture funding from Accel Partners, Allen & Company and Comcast Interactive Capital, as well as from angel investors such as Ted Leonsis and others in Silicon Valley.

In related news, also restarting tomorrow will be a popular gadget podcast that Topolsky, Patel and Paul Miller had done for Engadget.

The New York Times’ David Carr mentioned the new site in the middle of a column earlier tonight.

Here is Topolsky’s blog post on the move, titled “This Is My Next Project”:

As you may have already heard (or read), there’s some activity going on in the world of Joshua Topolsky. Earlier this evening, David Carr published a piece in the New York Times about a new project that I’m embarking on…and I want to just say a few things about it.

Firstly: yes, this is happening. I’ve decided to join the team at SB Nation to build something brand new in the tech space. Now I know it might seem odd to some that I would be partnering with a sports publisher to build a technology news site, but that’s only half the story. This isn’t just about sports, or tech, or lone silos. What we will build together at SB Nation is a new media company–buoyed by the absolutely incredible work SB Nation has already done in publishing–and part of that new media company will be the as-yet-unnamed gadget and technology site that I’ll be working over the next few months to create. When we launch (hopefully in the fall), I will be editor-in-chief of a property that I hope will inform, entertain, and engage fans of technology in whole new ways.

I should say that I wouldn’t want to build something like this alone, and thankfully, I won’t have to. I’ll be joined by some very good friends at this new venture–people like Nilay Patel, for instance.

Of course, the natural question I’m sure a lot of people have is: why SB Nation? The easy answer is that the people at SB Nation share my vision of what publishing looks like in the year 2011. They think that the technology used to create and distribute news on the web (and mobile) is as important as the people who are responsible for the content itself. And that’s not just pillow talk–SB Nation is actively evolving its tools and processes to meet the growing and changing needs of its vast editorial teams and their audience communities. They’re building for the web as it is now. From the perspective of a journalist who also happens to be a huge nerd, that’s a match made in heaven. SBN isn’t just another media company pushing news out–it’s a testbed and lab for some of the newest and most interesting publishing tools I’ve ever seen. In short, I was blown away when I saw what kind of technology they’re using to get news on their front page and engage audiences, and even more blown away when I started talking to them about what could come next.

But beyond the technology (and possibly more important than the technology), there’s another factor here that’s driving my decision. It’s that SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on. This is a group of people that not only think independent media works, but are reaping the rewards of new publishing done right. As the fastest growing online sports publisher, they’re seen as a source for credible and honest journalism, which is why industry stalwarts like Rob Neyer have recently joined their ranks (ranks which include hundreds of talented sports experts). This isn’t tabloid page grabbing or content farming–it’s news and insight by and for a passionate and informed group of people. And that’s exactly where I want to be.

So, what happens next? We get to work.

In the coming months I’m going to be laser focused on one thing: building the best tech site in the world–and I would love to hear what you guys think the next phase in technology and gadget news should look like. Ping me with ideas, gripes, or even better–come and work here! SB Nation is looking for new developers as we speak, and as we ramp up to launch, we’ll be bringing on lots of talent to work both on the front page and behind the scenes.

I couldn’t be more excited and enthusiastic about what we can build right now, and I can’t wait to share what we’re going to make with the rest of the world. The months ahead are going to be filled with lots of early mornings and sleepless nights, intense debates, triumphs, and trials–and I can’t wait.

Nordstrom will acquire the company for $180 million in stock. However, the transaction size could jump to as much as $270 million over time if the company meets certain performance goals and vesting requirements for the existing management team.

At that price, the transaction gives a lot of weight to a burgeoning new area of e-commerce, fueled by private/flash sales and other group-buying trends.

Los Angeles-based HauteLook offers discounts of 50 to 75 percent off home, beauty, travel and local services for women, men and kids. In the last two years, HauteLook says it has conducted 2,500 private sales events for 1,000 high-profile brands.

Seattle-based Nordstrom said HauteLook will operate as an independent, wholly owned subsidiary, to be managed by its current leadership. The HauteLook brand and Web site will remain separate from Nordstrom, and there are plenty of incentives to keep the management team in place.

While Nordstrom is primarily a physical department store, it has a fairly sizable online presence and recently has spent time integrating its online and store presence, so customers can see what inventory is online and what’s available in the store.

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2011 and is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory and HauteLook shareholder approval.

Andreessen Horowitz has invested more than $80 million in Twitter via purchasing stock in private secondary markets.

When called about it by BoomTown, a spokeswoman at the high-profile Silicon Valley venture firm confirmed the purchase.

To be clear, Twitter does not get this money–early investors and employees able to sell their privately held Twitter shares do.

Buying into the secondary markets–which have recently attracted some controversy and regulatory scruntiny–has become a common way for VCs to invest in a hot start-up without a complex and competitive funding bake-off.

The move is an interesting one, since Andreessen Horowitz was not part of the recent $200 million round of venture funding at the San Francisco microblogging company, led by Kleiner Perkins at a $3.75 billion valuation.

Sources said that the firm made the move because it is already deeply invested in other key companies in the social space, including gaming giant Zynga, location-focused Foursquare, local discounting phenom Groupon and general social networking behemoth Facebook.

Apparently, Twitter makes it a full basketball team.

The investment by the firm gives more perceptual boost to Twitter, which is still trying to create a lucrative business model for itself, focused on advertising.

It needs to, if it want to stay independent for the long haul.

While an IPO is a possibility, so is an acquisition. Several months ago, while it was doing its funding round, Twitter had incoming interest from Facebook, which lobbed in a $5 billion soft offer, as well from Google.

Word of a new probe comes in response to a shareholder lawsuit in federal court in California claiming that HP paid Hurd too much in severance when he left. In the meantime, both HP and the shareholders suing have asked the judge to put the case on hold until the investigation is complete.

Hurd says he wants to see a copy of the shareholder demand that led to the lawsuit, and will oppose the delay in the case until that happens. HP says that as a subject of the inquiry, Hurd isn’t entitled to see any of the documents in question.

In the Delaware case, Hurd’s lawyers argued that the original letters from Jodie Fisher, a onetime actress and a former HP contractor who accused Hurd of sexual harassment, shouldn’t be made public.

Hurd, you’ll recall, went on to become co-president of Oracle, after Oracle CEO Larry Ellison raked HP’s board over the coals for its handling of the incident. Ellison wasn’t alone, as former General Electric CEO Jack Welch later piled on.

SnagFilms, the online video distribution site for professional documentaries, has nabbed $10 million in funding from Comcast’s investment arm and New Enterprise Associates, and will also now be distributing fictional independent film releases.

That and the new investment giving SnagFilms a valuation of $50 million should be big news at the 11th Sundance Film Festival, the famous independent film gathering opening in Park City, Utah, on Thursday.

And SnagFilms also announced that well-known industry exec Bingham Ray is joining the start-up to spearhead its distribution of fictional narrative and foreign-produced independent films.

The service, unlike the subscription-based video giant Netflix, currently distributes free non-fiction documentary films with advertising, as well as offers rental streaming and purchase options.

And it is profitable, said Ted Leonsis, the former AOL exec who is the founder and has been the driving investor in SnagFilms.

“It was always my personal frustration as a backer of documentaries that you could not get distribution far and wide,” he said in an interview earlier today.

He noted that while Netflix is really now focused on big studio fare, “what we’ve discovered is a big supply of independent video that has never seen light of day, but that has a big audience.”

SnagFilms’ strategy is to give broader reach to these films, which often don’t even have a theatrical opening–or, if they do, are very small.

Along with its site, which digitizes the films and adds advertising to them, SnagFilms also encourages Web sites and others to grab films and create a “virtual movie theater.” (You can see my effort below.)

It also has video-on-demand deals with Comcast, Verizon and more, as well as purchase options with Apple’s iTunes and others.

Earlier this month, SnagFilms also launched an impressive and free iPad full-movie-watching app.

SnagFilms also owns a popular news site called indieWIRE, which covers the independent film market, and the new funding will also be used to expand it.

That market has been in need of a boost of some kind, since it has been struggling as financing has dried up for the production of quality documentaries and outside-the-Hollywood-machine movies.

It has long been hoped that the Internet would perhaps save and strengthen the genre, with its supposed long-tail magic.

But the going has been slow. Currently, SnagFilms has 2,000 films in its online library, although Leonsis said the aim is to use the new funds to get 10,000 films on the service as soon as possible.

“We’re trying to build a beachhead in the independent film world,” he said of SnagFilms, which currently has about 40 employees in Washington, D.C., and New York. “We think we have a niche and video is the killer app on Web now.”

Leonsis, who has backed such notable documentaries as “The Rape of Nanking,” said NEA’s Peter Barris will join the board, along with existing investor Steve Case.

Case and Leonsis, of course, were the dynamic duo of AOL’s glory days.

So, I am rooting for another win in an arena that needs it.

Thus, here’s my own movie palace online and also the official press release from SnagFilms:

Watch more free documentaries

Industry Powerhouses NEA and Comcast Invest in SnagFilms

$10 million in new funding to distribute documentaries and fictional independent films on all digital platforms and devices, globally

Washington D.C.–January 17, 2011 – SnagFilms announced today it has received $10 million in growth capital from new investors New Enterprise Associates (NEA) and Comcast Interactive Capital (CIC). Existing investors, including Ted Leonsis (SnagFilms’ Founder) and Steve Case, also participated. The financing will be used to expand its distribution of independent films–including, for the first time, fictional independent releases–across all digital platforms and devices, and on a global basis.

SnagFilms is a leader in distributing free, ad-supported titles from a library of over 2,000 non-fiction films. Last year, SnagFilms entered the transactional world with launches of video on demand channels on Comcast and Verizon FiOS, as well as titles for sale through the Apple’s iTunes store. Earlier this month, SnagFilms debuted its iPad application with the largest collection of award-winning U.S. films offered free to iPad users.

“As a profitable company with substantial private investors, SnagFilms didn’t need to raise outside capital,” said company founder Ted Leonsis. “However, we saw overwhelming strategic value in involving NEA, a pioneer and leading venture capital firm, and CIC, the investment arm of Comcast. SnagFilms is very well-financed and uniquely positioned now to bring the full array of independent films–fiction and non-fiction, U.S. and foreign–to global audiences on all platforms and devices. We’ve amassed a library of 2,000 documentaries since our launch, and we’re now building distribution opportunities for tens of thousands of independent films in both categories. That’s great news for film fans and for filmmakers.”

“SnagFilms is perfectly positioned to fuse technology and content in a manner that has marked many of the transformational industry leaders we have helped build in the past,” said NEA Managing General Partner Peter Barris, who joins the Company’s Board of Directors. “New devices and digital platforms will allow consumers unprecedented access to quality content, and SnagFilms will be there to delight them. We are pleased to be able to invest in SnagFilms at this time, and to help them add fictional indie films to their expertise with documentaries–and to take both genres to the full swath of digital platforms and devices.” Among many other investments, Barris serves on the board of Groupon as its first VC investor.

“We are excited about the new opportunities SnagFilms creates, especially for independent filmmakers who historically could not get distribution,” said David Horowitz, Managing Director of Comcast Interactive Capital. “This investment reflects our view that consumers are demanding a diverse selection of high-quality content that can be watched on any platform or device.”

SnagFilms also announced that industry veteran Bingham Ray will join the Company to help guide its entry into distribution of fictional narrative and foreign-produced independent films. Ray, former President of United Artists, October Films and Kimmel Entertainment, and honored for Lifetime Achievement by the Gotham Awards, has deep experience in the acquisition, marketing and distribution of motion pictures, including “Hotel Rwanda,” “Bowling for Columbine,” “Secrets & Lies,” “War Room,” “High Art,” “Last Days” and “Breaking the Waves.”

“Bingham has been an advocate for filmmakers throughout his career,” noted Rick Allen, SnagFilms CEO. “His record of successful distribution on traditional platforms provides a strategic sense and depth of relationships that will be invaluable as we extend our model into a broader array of films. Bingham will be a key member of our large presence at the Sundance Film Festival this week and beyond.”

“I’ve been a big fan of SnagFilms from their earliest days, and am truly thrilled to be part of the team as they expand the service, bringing more filmmakers to bigger audiences on a wider array of platforms,” said Ray. “This is the future of our business.”

“SnagFilms plus Bingham Ray is a great combination,” said Tom Bernard, co-president and co-founder of Sony Pictures Classics. “Bingham knows the indie world as well as anyone alive and is admired for his experience and for always delivering for filmmakers. He’ll be a big asset to SnagFilms’ expansion.”

In addition, SnagFilms intends to use its new growth capital to expand its indieWIRE unit, now in its 15th year as the leading web source of news, reviews and analysis of independent film.

“indieWIRE’s traffic is now ten times what it was when we purchased it two and a half years ago,” Allen said. “Before the Academy Awards are announced later this month, you’ll see new editor-in-chief Dana Harris add ongoing features to our coverage of the indie world, and exciting new blogs to our Network, like the recently-added blog The Playlist.”

About SnagFilms

SnagFilms features free ad-supported viewing of more than 2,000 award-winning titles from some of the greatest names in documentary film. All films are shareable across the web. Since its launch in July 2008, SnagFilms’ library has been featured on over 2 billion web pageviews, with more than 325 million minutes of SnagFilms titles streamed across over more than 100,000 affiliated sites and webpages, including through partners such as Aol, Comcast, Hulu, the Starbucks Digital Network, IMDb, the Miami Herald, hundreds of non-profits, special interest sites and blogs. SnagFilms also offers selected titles via VOD (with Comcast and FiOS), on iTunes and through a new free application for the iPad.

OVGuide has twice named SnagFilms a Top Site and MovieMaker Magazine named SnagFilms to its annual list of “50 Best Websites for Moviemakers.”

Yesterday, star venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins forked over $150 million in funding to Twitter.

At at $3.7 billion valuation, that got him a big chunk of the San Francisco microblogging site.

But what it didn’t get him was a seat on the board of Twitter, which many figured he would be given for after handing over so much moolah.

According to sources familiar with the situation, that’s due to Doerr’s being a director on another board: Google.

Several sources who BoomTown spoke to, after breaking news of the massive funding, said that his being on the board of the search giant was seen as too much of a conflict of interest.

A conflict because Google has plans to wade deeply into the social space. And also, of course, because it is the No. 1 potential acquirer of Twitter, as the Silicon Valley company seeks to gather more tools to fight its latest rival, Facebook.

Doerr has very deep ties at Google, having been on its board since mid-1999.

He got that seat, along with Sequoia Capital’s Mike Moritz, after he ponied up a critical $25 million equity round for Google in June of that year.

Interestingly, no other Kleiner partner was named to a Twitter board seat either.

But, some speculate, it might make sense for Mary Meeker–who just joined Kleiner to head up digital investing efforts, after a long-time stint as a Wall Street analyst for Morgan Stanley–to eventually become a Twitter director.

Meeker has, of course, deep IPO and M&A experience.

And, frankly, after adding Flipboard’s Mike McCue and former DoubleClick exec David Rosenblatt yesterday and former Netscape exec Peter Currie recently to its all-boy board band, a woman director might be a good idea to consider.

Other directors at Twitter include Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, Union Square Venture’s Fred Wilson, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, Co-founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey and CEO Dick Costolo.

I reached out to Doerr for a comment, but he has not yet replied; Twitter declined to comment.

Even more interesting to consider is what Kleiner will invest in next after this mega-funding, given how aggressively many sources said Doerr had pushed to lead the Twitter round.

And, in fact, sources said that Kleiner is looking closely at new funding rounds for both the Spotify music streaming service and Groupon, the social buying start-up that recently decided to turn down a $6 billion acquisition offer from Google and an earlier $3 billion one from Yahoo.

Groupon is now seeking more funds to remain independent and hold onto its lead in the fast-growing local discounting market, sources said.

(Bloomberg also reported on Groupon’s new fundraising efforts, although it was written about after it turned down the Google offer.)

And Spotify, which is hugely popular outside the U.S., is trying to enter this market, but needs more funding to expand and perhaps strike better deals with music labels.

Both are the just the kind of companies Doerr has targeted in what looks like a serious effort to compete with other firms–especially Andreessen Horowitz and Russia’s DST Global.

They have garnered the heat Kleiner used to have, largely by backing more of the top entrepreneurs recently.

Doerr has already put money into social gaming phenom Zynga and also started an sFund for social-focused investments.

Add Twitter to the pile and you can see where this is headed: Except for the board seat, John Doerr will no longer be denied.

Lots of today’s Google eBook launch has already been covered in the past (this Wall Street Journal piece from last week got a lot of it). And since I haven’t been able to actually take the store and software out for a run, I can’t vouch for any of it so far.

But here’s what you need to know at the start:

• Google is opening its own store, but the big goal is to set up an ecosystem and e-commerce channel that works across the Web.
• That means you can buy ebooks directly from Google, and you can also buy books from the sites of independent book shops, like Powell’s Books.
• That also means you can read the books on multiple platforms: There’s an Android app, of course. But there’s also an Apple-approved app in the iTunes store. And since the system is Web-based, you can read the books you buy on PCs and tablets, too. As well as e-readers from Sony, Barnes & Noble and Borders. The only place you can’t read Google-purchased titles–Amazon’s Kindle.
• Google says its catalog will be competitive with everyone else’s, though it’s hard to assess that without really digging in. It says it will have some three million books available in the store, “hundreds of thousands” of which which are commercial titles. Amazon, by comparison, boasts of 750,000 titles, but it’s including periodicals in that total.
• One distinct advantage Google has over a particular rival: Unlike Apple, it has access to Random House titles, which aren’t available on the iBooks platform due to a dispute about pricing.
• Speaking of pricing: Google says it supports both the traditional wholesale/retail model, as well as the new “agency” model that Apple has been pushing.
• Where’s all this going? Good question! Google executives argue that this is just a natural extension of its ongoing books project, which is supposed to make as many books available to as many people, period–it’s just that they happen to be selling some of them now. But view it from a different lens, and it looks like yet another attempt by Google to move from pointing to stuff, and selling ads along the way, to selling stuff, period. It hasn’t worked yet, but the company seems dead set on making a go of it.

Negotiations between the two companies heated up over the past week but Groupon’s board, many of whom are investors, was divided on whether to accept Google’s offer.

The company continued to consider remaining independent and pursuing an IPO in the future, people familiar with the matter have said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The acquisition talks between Google and Groupon have ended.

“It’s as over as these things get,” said one person close to the situation.

The reasons for the collapse of the discussions are not clear at this moment, but it seems to center on the decision by the social buying site to remain independent and perhaps go for an IPO.

There are sure to be conflicting stories over the next few days. Did Google get cold feet first? Was there a tussle over a breakup fee, in case of too much regulatory scrutiny? Were the cultural differences too much?

As BoomTown reported earlier today, the annual revenue run rate for Groupon is $2 billion.

Groupon gets to keep about half of that and the rest goes to the myriad merchants it strikes deals with worldwide.

That’s still tremendous growth since its founding in 2008.

And that’s why Silicon Valley search giant Google and Chicago-based start-up Groupon have been in talks in recent weeks about a mammoth acquisition at a $6 billion price tag.

Groupon had turned down a bid of $3 billion from Yahoo earlier this year.

Now, it’s likely that the company will begin a new funding process.

Its closest competitor–LivingSocial–just got $175 million in a strategic investment from Amazon.

Chicago Breaking Business first posted a report of the talks ending, also citing a desire to be independent on the part of Groupon.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

According to sources close to the situation, Groupon’s actual run rate for this year is clocking in at $2 billion in revenue, rather than the widely quoted $500 million.

Who knew hawking spas treatments and stripper pole lessons could be so lucrative?

About 50 percent ofhat revenue is paid out to the myriad of local merchants–called a pass-through–that the social buying phenom does discount deals with, those kind of numbers give some insight into why Google has been willing to entertain paying up to $6 billion to acquire Groupon.

The pair have been in discussions about an acquisition by the search giant, which was first reported here.

Over the last several weeks, a much lower $500 million to $600 million annual revenue figure has been used for Groupon–including here.

Apparently, that’s only in one quarter of the year.

The Chicago-based start-up is privately held and does not have to release its financial information.

As in all acquisition talks, there is a chance they will not result in a purchase. Google and reviews site Yelp, for example, held serious discussions that resulted in no purchase by the search giant.

[UPDATE: The Google-Groupon talks are over, as Chicago-based start-up decided to go it alone.]

One thing not true: A split between CEO Andrew Mason and his two original partners–Brad Keywell and Eric Lefkofsky over the possible sale.

That tension has been rumored by some, with Mason more interested in keeping Groupon independent and focused on an IPO and the others wanting to sell.

Sources said the trio are not at odds over the future of Groupon.

Amazon will invest $175 million in LivingSocial, the No. 2 player in the fast-growing social buying space.

(The press release is below.)

BoomTown reported yesterday that the massive investment was in the works.

The online retail giant’s big bet on the Washington, D.C.-based start-up comes in the wake of ongoing acquisition talks between Google and Groupon, the category leader in the local deals business.

While it appears to be a reaction to those discussions, sources said Amazon and LivingSocial have been talking for some time about a variety of deals between them.

Sources said the Amazon investment put a very hefty valuation of over one billion dollars on LivingSocial.

Interest in LivingSocial has heightened of late, given the $6 billion in cash, stock and earnouts that BoomTown has reported Google is considering ponying up to purchase Chicago-based Groupon, and grab ahold of its 12 million users across the globe and $500 million in annual revenue.

But LivingSocial–which has been thriving even in Groupon’s flashier shadow–has 10 million subscribers worldwide in more than 120 markets and five countries, including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland and Australia.

And, as LivingSocial noted when it announced its acquisition of Australia’s Jump On It recently, it is currently booking an average of more than $1 million a day and is projected to book well more than $500 million in revenue in 2011.

And that is what has attracted Amazon, which has almost no profile in this lucrative local space, despite some attempts at its own solution. It bought a small and quirky daily deals site, Woot, for $110 million in June.

But sources said that, rather than sell, LivingSocial management wanted to keep the company independent, and thinks a sale of Groupon will give it a huge opportunity for growth.

Why? Well, even though Groupoogle or Goopon are fun to say, the inevitable regulatory review could drag on, resulting in a slowing down of innovation in the bigger Google culture and the distinct possibility of newly rich Groupon execs flying the coop (in private planes).

More investment money should help LivingSocial move ahead faster. Sources also said there is likely to be deep integration between its and Amazon’s services.

LivingSocial announced in April that it had raised $14 million in a Series C round, after grabbing $25 million in a Series B venture funding only a month before. And it has raised $10 million on top of that since 2008.

Sources estimated at the time that the valuation for LivingSocial was several hundred million dollars.

The newest round was led by Lightspeed Venture Partners; earlier investors include U.S. Venture Partners, Grotech Ventures and former AOL head Steve Case.

Lightspeed also invested $8 million more on top of Amazon’s funding.

Here is the official press release:

LivingSocial Announces $175 Million Investment by Amazon.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2010 /PRNewswire/–LivingSocial (www.livingsocial.com) has secured a $175 million investment from Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN). LivingSocial has also secured an additional $8 million investment from Lightspeed Venture Partners. LivingSocial will use this investment to maintain a steady drumbeat of worldwide launches and overall business growth while continuing to serve more than 10 million subscribers across the U.S., Canada, UK, Ireland and Australia in more than 120 locations. Because of LivingSocial’s rapid expansion, the company is currently 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 the biggest player in the local commerce space there is no one better to work with than Amazon,” said Tim O’Shaughnessy, CEO of LivingSocial. “As the social shopping space continues to heat up, LivingSocial is committed to staying focused on providing the high level of quality that consumers and merchants have come to expect when working with us.”

As the online source to find amazing experiences at an unbeatable value, LivingSocial lets anyone experience the hottest restaurants, shops, activities and services in their area. The company has dedicated area experts on the ground in every location working directly with business owners, and constantly researching the best in local adventures to bring a savings of 50% to 70% for consumers.

Recently, LivingSocial expanded its business by acquiring adventure company Urban Escapes, and launching three new verticals including LivingSocial Family Edition, Campus Deals and LivingSocial Escapes, a travel site that offers unbeatable savings on curated adventures. In addition, the company continues a regular flow of launches–on average one per day–and has expanded its reach in Australia with a controlling stake in Jump On It, making it live in five countries.

With the red-hot acquisition dance between Google and Groupon sucking up all the attention, it’s easy once again to ignore the No. 2 player in the fast-growing social buying space–LivingSocial.

But not everyone is–according to sources close to the situation, the Washington, D.C.-based company that also focuses on local deals is in advanced talks for a major strategic investment–as high as $150 million–by online retail giant Amazon, at a very hefty valuation of over one billion dollars.

Sources said there will also be a deep operating partnership between the pair, as part of the deal.

Sources said the investment negotiations with Amazon is not complete yet, of course, and could fall apart.

But interest in LivingSocial has heightened of late, given the $6 billion in cash, stock and earnouts that BoomTown has reported that Google is considering ponying up to purchase the category leader, Chicago-based Groupon, and grab ahold of its 12 million users across the globe and $500 million in annual revenue.

But LivingSocial–which has been thriving even in Groupon’s flashier shadow–has 10 million subscribers worldwide in more than 120 markets and five countries, including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland and Australia.

And, as the start-up noted when LivingSocial announced its acquisition of Jump On It recently, it is currently booking an average of more than $1 million a day and is projected to book well more than $500 million in revenue in 2011.

That is what is apparently attracting Amazon, which has almost no profile in this lucrative local space, despite some attempts at its own solution. It bought a small and quirky daily deals site Woot, for $110 million in June.

But, rather than sell, sources said LivingSocial management wants to keep the company independent, and thinks a sale of Groupon will give it a huge opportunity for growth.

Why? Well, even though Groupoogle or Goopon are fun to say, the inevitable regulatory review could drag on, resulting in a slowing down of innovation in the bigger Google culture and the distinct possibility of newly rich Groupon execs flying the coop (in private planes).

More investment money should help.

LivingSocial announced in April that it had raised $14 million in a Series C round, after grabbing $25 million in a Series B venture financing only a month before. And it raised $10 million on top of that since 2008.

Sources estimated at the time that the valuation for LivingSocial was several hundred million dollars.

The newest round was led by Lightspeed Venture Partners; Earlier investors U.S. Venture Partners, Grotech Ventures and former AOL head Steve Case.

A report of the Amazon interest in LivingSocial was first posted several weeks ago in a in VentureBeat, a day before BoomTown first broke the news of the Groupon and Google discussions.

Both Amazon and LivingSocial declined to comment.

But here is an October video interview I did with LivingSocial CEO Tim O’Shaughnessy on a recent visit to Silicon Valley.

The entrepreneur has worked at AOL, as well as at Case’s Revolution Health in Washington, before moving on to the local deals start-up.

Enjoy:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101201/amazon-poised-to-make-a-major-strategic-investment-in-livingsocial-to-counter-groupoogle-threat/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20101119/google-turns-its-local-eyes-to-groupon-but-who-else-could-enter-bidding/ http://allthingsd.com/20101119/google-turns-its-local-eyes-to-groupon-but-who-else-could-enter-bidding/#comments Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:38:06 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=37521

According to multiple sources close to the situation, Google is in discussions with local deals powerhouse Groupon about buying it.

Without making the requisite joke about the deal of the day, sources said the price being considered is certainly no discount–well above the $2 billion to $3 billion that Yahoo offered Groupon in acquisition talks that took place earlier this year.

But sources cautioned that the talks are not complete, and could also end up without any result, as the Yahoo discussions did.

In an email, a Google spokesperson said with some style: “Per usual, we don’t comment on rumor or speculation. If we did we’d be busy 24/7!”

A Groupon spokesperson was also sassy, noting: “Thanks for the heads-up!”

Still, the company appears to be engaged in a pattern of shopping itself around, via its bankers Allen & Co., even though Groupon investors have expressed a desire to stay independent many times.

But could there be other interested parties poking around, given the explosive revenue growth of Groupon–whose revenues are reportedly upward of $50 million a month–in the huge local retail market?

Sources said only three could pay such a high price: Microsoft, Amazon and, perhaps the most logical buyer, eBay.

Facebook is another company that could be interested, of course, although this would be a sizable purchase in both cost and also staff for the social networking giant, which has fewer employees than Groupon.

As does Google, all–except perhaps Facebook, which is not public yet–have more than enough cash reserves, as well as stock, to pay up for one of the more promising start-ups in a lucrative arena.

That would be local commerce. Currently, despite a plethora of clones, Groupon dominates socially fueled couponing across cities globally.

Owning the hot space around local purchasing and consumer information, combined with the social element, would be a tasty treat for Google.

The Silicon Valley search giant has struggled to deliver social tools to users, even as Facebook has morphed into a potent rival.

Google had looked at social reviews site Yelp for purchase previously, but that deal fell apart.

It has been introducing various local advertising and commerce efforts, efforts that would be turbocharged given Groupon’s quick progress.

In April, Groupon garnered a valuation of well above $1 billion in a massive venture funding.

It has used that money to buy up companies in the U.S. and internationally, trying to solidify itself as the major player in the marketplace.

If Google were to complete a deal to buy Groupon, it would have echoes of its purchase of YouTube in 2006 for $1.6 billion.

Many felt it a high price at the time, but it looks cheap today given how the site almost completely dominates Web video.

A purchase this size would also likely require bankers. Google’s favored one is Morgan Stanley.

But there is one major issue in a possible Google purchase of Groupon: Even more regulatory scrutiny by the federal government over its power online.

Google narrowly missed getting approval for its $750 million purchase of mobile advertising start-up AdMob.

And it is currently under fire from numerous critics for its proposed purchase of huge flight data firm ITA Software for $700 million.

Those opposed to the acquisition, on antitrust grounds, contend that Google would control travel search in a way that would invite abuse.

Having Groupon would garner Google even more powerful pricing information from both customers and merchants across the globe.

Stay tuned, but check out this video interview I did with Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason this summer in Vancouver, where I asked him specifically about Google’s interest (actually, I suggested he mug Google co-founder Larry Page):

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101119/google-turns-its-local-eyes-to-groupon-but-who-else-could-enter-bidding/feed/ 16 http://allthingsd.com/20101117/federated-media-makes-another-buy-foodbuzz/ http://allthingsd.com/20101117/federated-media-makes-another-buy-foodbuzz/#comments Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:00:48 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=37449

Federated Media Publishing, which recently bought a community platform aimed at parents, announced tonight that it was making another acquisition.

This time, it’s a site called Foodbuzz.

According to the site, which calls itself a “food blog community,” it has exclusive deals to sell advertising for 4,400 independent food bloggers, making it a top food property.

Foodbuzz has raised $1.75 million in funding.
FM declined to give any financial details of what it paid for the San Francisco-based start-up.

FM bought community platform BigTent earlier this month, as it seeks to create large networks of niche content to better sell premium advertising.

In an interview with BoomTown after the BigTent acquisition, FM CEO John Battelle said the move was to further strengthen its tools for both the advertisers and publishers it serves, especially to create better “content conversations.”

Battelle also said that the additions to FM’s offerings are moving it toward helping content makers and advertisers create more relevancy, well beyond simply serving ads.

Here is the official press release from FM:

Federated Media Publishing Acquires Foodbuzz

Combination creates the largest and best collection of independent food bloggers

SAN FRANCISCO–Federated Media Publishing (FM), a media company that powers the best of the independent web, today announced the acquisition of Foodbuzz, the leading online food property.

Exclusive relationships with more than 4,400 independent food bloggers allow Foodbuzz to reach more than 14 million unique users per month. Combined with FM’s premier food sites, including Serious Eats and Bakerella, the new offering is the best way for marketers to engage with top-quality audiences discussing food.

“There’s a reason so many people share recipes, watch their favorite chefs on TV and talk about where they ate last night,” said Deanna Brown, President and Chief Operating Officer of FM. “Food is a universal topic that everyone loves to discuss. With Foodbuzz, FM can invite brands into the very best of those discussions at significant scale.”

“When you look at the innovative display-ad units, content marketing and blogger outreach programs created by both of our companies, this combination is a natural fit,” said Ben Dehan, the Founder and CEO of Foodbuzz, who is joining the senior management team at FM. “The sales teams, product mixes and great bloggers from both FM and FoodBuzz belong together, and we can’t wait to put this new offering in front of the best brands.”

FM’s purchase of Foodbuzz comes on the heels of three other significant transactions:

• The acquisition of BigTent, the leading community platform for local groups, especially groups of parents.

• The acquisition of semantic-search technology from TextDigger.

• A partnership with the Clever Girls Collective to reach audiences on more than 1,000 top-quality lifestyle blogs.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101117/federated-media-makes-another-buy-foodbuzz/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101005/zynga-makes-another-acquisition-dallas-bonfire-studios/ http://allthingsd.com/20101005/zynga-makes-another-acquisition-dallas-bonfire-studios/#comments Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:00:58 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=34890

Zynga announced another small acquisition today, as it continues to vacuum up small independent online game developers across the U.S. and internationally.

This time it’s Dallas-based Bonfire Studios, which the San Francisco-based social gaming start-up said would now be called Zynga Dallas.

Bonfire makes titles for the PC and Xbox 360, such as “Age of Empires,” “Age of Mythology” and “Halo Wars.”

Zynga said Bonfire’s three founders–David Rippy, Bill Jackson and Scott Winsett, will become GM, creative director and senior art director, respectively, of Zynga Dallas.

Zynga’s other recent purchases include Challenge Games, which is based in Austin, as well as several others abroad.

Financial terms of the deal were not released by Zynga.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101005/zynga-makes-another-acquisition-dallas-bonfire-studios/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20100727/will-googles-pending-search-dominance-in-japan-rile-regulators-there-too-maybe-it-should/ http://allthingsd.com/20100727/will-googles-pending-search-dominance-in-japan-rile-regulators-there-too-maybe-it-should/#comments Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:50:10 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=31296 Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

If at first you don’t succeed, at least according to Google…try Japan.

In what amounts to an even more aggressive move than it made in trying–and failing due to regulatory objection–to strike a search partnership deal with Yahoo in the U.S. in 2008, Google and Yahoo Japan announced yesterday that the search giant will take over both the algorithmic and paid search businesses from, well, Yahoo.

If that sound confusing, it is because the Silicon Valley-based Yahoo owns only 35 percent of Yahoo Japan, which is an independent and separately traded company.

In fact, early Yahoo investor and Japanese telecommunications giant SoftBank Corp. has a larger stake and essentially controls Yahoo Japan.

Which is now free to leave Yahoo (YHOO) and to do a deal with Google (GOOG), it seems, after Yahoo struck a wide-ranging search technology and online deal of its own with Microsoft (MSFT) last year.

Under the terms of the deal, Yahoo outsourced its search technology to Microsoft’s Bing service.

Both Yahoo and Microsoft had hoped to keep Yahoo Japan in the fold, using Bing too, but it’s clear Google decided to get very competitive in a market where it has been the No. 2 player since it debuted its Japanese-language service in 2000.

Interestingly, Google was Yahoo Japan’s search technology provider for several years soon after it arrived, but that job then went to Yahoo.

In order to compete better with Yahoo Japan, which has a 53 percent market share compared to Google’s 38 percent, Google has tried a range of efforts unusual to its standard modus operandi

Those include PR stunts, brand advertising and even mucking up its pristine white main page with text and other noisy visual elements.

Because of that, Google has made market inroads, to be sure, cutting Yahoo Japan’s share slowly.

It’s an accomplishment that might have prompted Yahoo Japan to make a lucrative deal with the search giant, while the getting was good and before it lost more share.

As for Google, it stopped playing around and went for the actual business itself by effectively hip-checking Yahoo out of its spot.

And, at least in Japan, Google said regulators have already decided that its ambitious reach was not too much, even given the overwhelming share that will result with the Google-Yahoo Japan union.

Said a Google spokesman: “The companies have consulted with the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and confirmed that the JFTC has no objection to the proposed transaction.”

Incredible. And not in a good way.

That’s because a monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly, no matter which language you say it in.

Even with apparent Japanese government approval, Microsoft is sure to try to scotch the deal, making hay with the fact that practically all the paid and algorithmic search in Japan would be under the control of one entity, especially so if it also includes mobile elements.

A lot is at stake for Microsoft, which is now in much bigger trouble in its quest to increase global market share for Bing.

That’s because Japan has close to 100 million active and wired consumers, many of whom are on the cutting edge of digital innovation. Japan is also a huge advertising market, second only to the U.S.

Given how important global growth is, it’s a market too juicy for growth-craving Google to pass up.

It is striking then that regulators will let the company enmesh its search service as deeply as it will with the Yahoo Japan move.

As with its scotched deal with Yahoo here–which Google abandoned after it was clear the U.S. government was not going to tolerate such market power in the hands of one player. At the time, Google said there would be plenty of competition, which it is now saying again.

In an email to me, Google PR dude Adam Kovacevich made the following salient points that I render here in their entirety:

It’s actually a different situation from the 2008 deal. To wit:

* Google will only be licensing its advertising platform services to YJC, and will not be providing its ads to appear on YJC. YJC will continue to manage their own advertising system and advertiser relationships, and both companies’ advertisers and advertising data will remain entirely separate.

* YJC will continue to compete as an independent online search and advertising company, and will be able to customize Google’s search service for their users–including how they see and experience search on YJC. Users should continue to expect to have very different experiences on YJC–whose portal approach to search is very popular in Japan–versus when they are on Google.

* This kind of arrangement is commonplace in the business world, and it doesn’t foreclose robust competition. Toyota sells its hybrid technology to Ford, even though they compete against one another in selling cars. Canon provides laser printer engines for HP, despite also competing in the broader laser printer market. And this is not the first time we’ve licensed our search technology to another portal site.

* The companies have consulted with the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and confirmed that the JFTC has no objection to the proposed transaction. We believe this is the correct outcome for a number of reasons, including the fact that the license will be non-exclusive, and both parties will be free to explore better products and services and work with third parties as they see fit. Competition between Google and YJC, as well as others in the online advertising market, will remain vigorous because their advertising operations will stay independent of one another, and there is competition with other online advertising service providers. In addition, from an advertiser perspective, online advertising is just one of many options available to them—including placing advertisements in traditional media.

Yes, the thriving newspaper business is a option! Wait a minute…

In any case, you might imagine the Japanese government would be a little more concerned.

It should be.

Regarding the Yahoogle attempt, as I also noted then:

“It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

But Japanese regulators don’t have to take my word for it–they can listen to a 2008 quote by SoftBank head Masayoshi Son, who plays a critical role on the board of Yahoo Japan and presumably blessed this new deal:

“Google is a worthy competitor. The common threat is Google. I say that with respect.”

And, with respect, perhaps Japanese regulators need to take a little bit more time in waving any such deal on through so quickly and without public comment.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100727/will-googles-pending-search-dominance-in-japan-rile-regulators-there-too-maybe-it-should/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20100625/going-going-almost-gone-foursquare-poised-to-get-new-vc-funding-after-being-one-inch-from-sale-to-facebook/ http://allthingsd.com/20100625/going-going-almost-gone-foursquare-poised-to-get-new-vc-funding-after-being-one-inch-from-sale-to-facebook/#comments Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:32:32 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=29848

According to numerous sources close to the situation, Foursquare is in the final stages of striking a funding deal with the very venture firm–Andreessen Horowitz–that had publicly dissed the hot social location site and walked away from earlier talks.

The deal is likely to be completed and announced by early next week, at a valuation of about $80 million, barring unusual hiccups.

“Light at the end of a very long and very twisty tunnel,” joked one source familiar with the situation.

Indeed, the wrapping-up of what has been a very convoluted funding process comes after a series of missteps and switchbacks over what’s next for the start-up, which allows users to “check in” from various places.

The last curve came with serious talks for Foursquare to be acquired by Facebook, which came very close to happening–“one inch to the end zone,” as one person close to the situation described it.

But those discussions broke off largely due to price, strategy and control issues, sources said.

In addition, Foursquare had recently been in serious acquisition talks with Yahoo (YHOO) as well, along with endless rounds of chatter with a variety of prominent Silicon Valley VCs–including Khosla Ventures, Accel Partners and Institutional Venture Partners–over the last several months.

The overhyped interest is because Foursquare and many others like it have seen strong growth and much innovation, although it is not clear yet if that will translate into solid businesses. Still, many location-based companies are girding up with investments in order to race ahead.

That has also been the case with Foursquare, except its funding process has been unusually complicated, in part due to indecision and in part due to some very noisy deal-making.

In fact, that’s what initially scotched very advanced funding talks between Foursquare and Andreessen Horowitz.

But after discussions with Andreessen Horowitz and other firms were leaked to the media, the high-flying New York-based Foursquare was smacked back hard by the higher-profile Silicon Valley firm, which is helmed by Internet icon Marc Andreessen and his longtime partner, Ben Horowitz.

In an exclusive interview with BoomTown in April, Horowitz took the unusual step of talking publicly about VC frustrations that are typical in deals around hot companies.

At the time, Horowitz acted as if he were checking out of Foursquare:

“We withdrew our funding offer to Foursquare and we are out,” said Horowitz in an interview with BoomTown. “This is playing out too much in public and clearly someone has an interesting agenda here, so this is not something we want to participate in.”

In addition–after making an offer three weeks ago at valuations lower than have been reported, though he would not specify the exact number–Horowitz said he felt the company had conducted a “process that is very long and undefined.”

A company run by VC-pampered young geek dudes centered on game-playing was playing silly, immature deal games? This comes as a complete shock to…well, no one!

At the same time, Horowitz left the door open. “If the process was changed, we still like the company,” he said then. “But since it has been long and undefined, it is prone to manipulation.”

That sentiment obviously changed recently, as TechCrunch reported two weeks ago.

And indeed, it looks like Horowitz finally won that contest of hardball with Foursquare CEO and co-founder Dennis Crowley.

But it was a very close call, said many, who noted that Foursquare thought acquisition talks with Facebook were almost in the bag, something many sources said Crowley had wanted most of all.

And in fact, Facebook would have been a natural fit for Foursquare, on paper. The only fit, really: Facebook’s users already get the status-update concept, as well as the game-play part of the service.

And as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka previously wrote:

“[Facebook] has something Foursquare won’t be able to boast of for a very long time: A sales team to match the location service up with big brands and a self-service ad platform that local businesses can plug into.”

Nonetheless, sources close to the company said Foursquare is now saying it wants more independence and more cash over stock in any deal with the social networking giant.

Dictating terms to the powerful Facebook seems unlikely to be effective. And sources familiar with Facebook’s thinking said the company simply felt it could do its own location service better, as well as federate many others in the arena.

Could that change? Sure, because when it comes to Foursquare, it seems like a wacky turn could be just around the corner!

Still, sources said that while the term sheet Foursquare has from Andreessen Horowitz is not quite done, it is nearly complete, with some remaining back and forth about the exact valuation for the social location start-up, the funding number and other small issues.

A spokeswoman for the firm declined comment.

Foursquare’s current investors–who recently gave it a bridge investment–will also participate in the new round.

Foursquare’s original $1.35 million funding was raised from Union Square Ventures and O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, as well as some well-known angel investors.

And then, after all the papers are signed, hopefully, we’ll all see what Foursquare can do with a new pile of money.

Of course, that is the greatest unknown of all.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100625/going-going-almost-gone-foursquare-poised-to-get-new-vc-funding-after-being-one-inch-from-sale-to-facebook/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20100608/apple-makes-good-on-steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/ http://allthingsd.com/20100608/apple-makes-good-on-steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/#comments Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:15:00 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=20273 Last week, Steve Jobs promised that his iPhone and iPads would be open to outside ad networks. Yesterday, Apple made good on his promise, by changing the terms of its developer agreement. But the company may not have opened the door all the way.

Backstory: Apple’s original license agreement, released in April, appeared to effectively ban third-party ad networks from selling “in-app” ads on its gadgets by crippling their ability to track user data. In the absence of any clarification from Apple (AAPL), it seemed to me (and others) that the company was set on locking up its platform from advertising competition.

But last week at the D8 conference, Jobs either changed his stance or spelled it out, depending on your perspective: Apple wasn’t interested in banning rivals to its iAd platform, he said, it just wanted to cripple third-party analytics companies like Flurry.

And yesterday, Apple changed its legal language to reflect Jobs’s words. Here’s the revised language for section 3.3.9 of Apple’s developer agreement, concerning the use of data collection:

3.3.9 You and Your Applications may not collect, use, or disclose to any third party, user or device data without prior user consent, and then only under the following conditions:

- The collection, use or disclosure is necessary in order to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application. For example, without Apple’s prior written consent, You may not use third party analytics software in Your Application to collect and send device data to a third party for aggregation, processing, or analysis.

- The collection, use or disclosure is for the purpose of serving advertising to Your Application; is provided to an independent advertising service provider whose primary business is serving mobile ads (for example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent); and the disclosure is limited to UDID, user location data, and other data specifically designated by Apple as available for advertising purposes.

If you compare and contrast to Apple’s earlier version, you’ll see the message is clear: It’s okay to collect user data to help sell ads–though you will need to get Apple’s permission to do so.

UPDATE: One important caveat here: It appears as if Apple may still be limiting its biggest potential rival–Google’s AdMob. Note the language about only allowing “independent” ad-serving companies to collect data: “For example, an advertising service provider owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple would not qualify as independent.”

Google (GOOG) certainly qualifies as a developer/distributor of mobile operating systems, right? The language also appears to disqualify potential rivals–if, for instance, Microsoft (MSFT) tried entering the mobile display market. I’ve asked Apple for comment, but I’m not expecting any.

Meantime, Apple’s language does appear to be good news for smaller competitors like Greystripe, Millenial Media and Medialets–though it may make them less attractive to potential acquirers

Here are Jobs’s own words on the topic last week at the D8 conference.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100608/apple-makes-good-on-steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100511/party-on-tim-aol-hooks-up-with-chuck-close-for-25th-anniversary/ http://allthingsd.com/20100511/party-on-tim-aol-hooks-up-with-chuck-close-for-25th-anniversary/#comments Tue, 11 May 2010 23:33:00 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=28344 What in the world is AOL CEO Tim Armstrong up to now?

A “Project on Creativity With American Artist Chuck Close,” according to a party invite for the iconic online service’s 25th anniversary that the company just sent out, which you can see below.

I have calls in to the chiseled-cheekbone exec find out what that means.

But extra points for putting AOL and creativity in the same sentence without even a trace of irony!

Indeed, after getting busy hiring the best management team in online history to run the digital equivalent–compared with Internet giants like Google and even Yahoo (YHOO)–of a lemonade stand, it’s nice to know that Armstrong is still thinking big.

And BoomTown loves a big thinker! In fact, that’s why we’ve invited the former Google (GOOG) advertising exec to the eighth D: All Things Digital conference, taking place in just a few weeks near Los Angeles.

We’ll be inquiring about how AOL (AOL) is doing at 25 years old, how Armstrong’s going to lift it back to innovative relevance and get is ad revenue back, its nascent content effort, how it feels to go from a Goliath to a David, and much more.

Until then, check out Tim’s party (click on it to make it larger):

And here is an interview I did with Armstrong right before AOL spun off as an independent public company last year:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100511/party-on-tim-aol-hooks-up-with-chuck-close-for-25th-anniversary/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100421/exclusive-rhapsody-selects-former-myspace-product-exec-as-independent-board-member-for-spin-off/ http://allthingsd.com/20100421/exclusive-rhapsody-selects-former-myspace-product-exec-as-independent-board-member-for-spin-off/#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:34 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=27367 Tom Andrus, former MySpace product head, has been selected to be the single independent board member of the newly independent Rhapsody digital music service.

Andrus (pictured here) joins a pair of directors from each of Rhapsody’s large shareholders: Bob Kimball and Mike Lunsford from RealNetworks (RNWK) and Wade Davis and Van Toffler from Viacom (VIA).

Andrus–who mostly worked at MySpace under the tenure of co-founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe and President and co-founder Tom Anderson–left the troubled social networking site last year.

He had been doing some consulting for Rhapsody and had considered working there too. After deciding against it, since he lives in the Los Angeles area, he said he was asked to join the board.

“I liked what I saw,” said Andrus in an interview with BoomTown. “Rhapsody is really ready to blossom and poised for some real growth.”

The Seattle-based Rhapsody spun off from RealNetworks earlier this month and has plunged into efforts to expand its offerings and become profitable.

These include a price cut for its subscription to $9.99 from $15 and aggressive mobile efforts, such as a Wi-Fi app for Google (GOOG) Android smartphones.

RealNetworks owned 51 percent of the Rhapsody, and Viacom’s MTV Networks the remainder. Restructuring gave both companies a 47.5 percent share. The rest is
allocated to the employee pool and outside investors, including Universal Music Group.

Jon Irwin is president.

For a new company, Rhapsody is one of the oldest in the music space, founded in 2001 by Listen.com.

Listen.com was bought by RealNetworks in 2003, and Rhapsody became its flagship brand as a music service offering.

But Rhapsody quickly lost ground to savvier competitors like Apple (AAPL) and its innovative iTunes service.

Rhapsody, along with Best Buy’s (BBY) Napster, has sold music via monthly subscription, as opposed to Apple’s (AAPL) a la carte download offering.

But Rhapsody has not been able to gain much traction, despite years of effort.

RealNetworks and Viacom’s MTV created a joint venture in 2007 to try to goose it, which did not work either, before the recent formation of the privately held independent company.

Currently, hotter services, such as Spotify, are getting more attention, but Andrus said Rhapsody can compete.

“The company has been through the storm and is ready to win,” he said.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100421/exclusive-rhapsody-selects-former-myspace-product-exec-as-independent-board-member-for-spin-off/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100419/boomtown-reimagines-hamlet-soliloquy-for-foursquare-founder-crowley-as-yahoo-deal-stays-alive/ http://allthingsd.com/20100419/boomtown-reimagines-hamlet-soliloquy-for-foursquare-founder-crowley-as-yahoo-deal-stays-alive/#comments Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:49:22 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=27068

Much to the chagrin of valuation-hyping Silicon Valley VCs, Yahoo is still in the running to acquire Foursquare, the hot social geolocation start-up, much longer than expected.

Foursquare’s board met last week about the possible acquisition deal. But, so far, it’s turned it down flat.

Nonetheless, (YHOO) is still interested, sources said.

Yahoo declined to comment, and I have an email into Foursquare, which has yet to respond.

But sources close to the situation said that Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley is holding his cards very close to the vest about whether Foursquare will reconsider the offer–which could reportedly go up to $125 million to $150 million in cash–from the Internet giant.

Crowley’s alternatives are two powerful venture firms–Andreessen Horowitz and Khosla Ventures–which had put lucrative funding deals on the table, trying to entice Foursquare to remain independent and turbocharge its fast-growing status-update service.

Other big firms have dropped out of the race, although sources said more are now sniffing around, including free-spending Russian moneybags, Digital Sky Technologies. It has already sunk copious funds into social networking giant Facebook, game powerhouse Zynga and, today, social buying site Groupon.

The VC selling point is freedom, the ability to sell for more later and perhaps a more modest payout for talent, including Crowley, by buying some of their common shares. Their valuation is hovering around $80 million.

Crowley (pictured here) controls a large chunk of the shares of the start-up and has so far turned down the $100 million offer from Yahoo, despite the fact that Foursquare is still small (about one million users) and unprofitable.

But it has grown dramatically and raised $1.35 million last August, valuing it at $6 million. Funds came from O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures and Union Square Ventures, as well as a spate of well-known angel investors.

Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz hopes to best all VC offers after having recently made some significant noise about starting to engage in aggressive M&A to attract talent and inject innovation into the company.

She has mentioned mobile start-ups specifically, and Foursquare is indeed among the hottest in the space, offering its growing base of users an ability to “check in” from a variety of places.

But the location-based services arena is heating up, with multiple competitors to Foursquare, such as Gowalla, as well as recent efforts by Facebook and Twitter to enter the space in a big way.

In fact, Wednesday at its F8 developers event, some expect Facebook to talk about its own version of Foursquare.

Still, Crowley may welcome the challenge after selling a similar location service called Dodgeball to Google (GOOG) in 2005 and ending up with very little. He left the search giant on bad terms two years later, and Dodgeball was closed down by Google in early 2009.

At the time, Crowley called the experience of being at a large company “incredibly frustrating.”

Which is why it will be interesting to see the choice he makes in what one person close to the situation called: “A very deft Hamlet act.”

Until he does, this is a perfect time for my Foursquare version of the indecisive Prince of Denmark’s most famous soliloquy–with apologies to Shakespeare–redone for a New York-based hipster Web 2.0 dude:

Dennis Crowley Does Hamlet:

To sell, or not to sell, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Facebook,
Or to take arms against a sea of Twitters,
And by opposing end them? To die, sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we become Digg with
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That over-hotness is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be avoid’d. To die, to become Friendster;
To sleep, perchance to be crammed down:
Ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what hotter start-ups may come,
When we have shuffled off this overhyped coil,
Must give us pause to check in constantly:
there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long it takes for funding;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of bloggers,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despis’d love by Andreessen and Yu,
the law’s delay,
The stalker ways of those scary Russian investors,
and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy lowball offers,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin of no profits?
Who would these fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a Yahoo life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d acquisition, from whose bourn
No Flickr returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to VCs that we know naught of?
Thus overvaluation does make greedy piggies of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of Pets.com;
And Web 1.0 enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And as was predicted by Economics 101.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100419/boomtown-reimagines-hamlet-soliloquy-for-foursquare-founder-crowley-as-yahoo-deal-stays-alive/feed/ 1