After it announced layoffs of 520 employees and lowered its guidance to Wall Street, Zynga’s stock dropped precipitously yesterday, down 12 percent, to dip below $3 a share.

The decline put the market value of the company at just $2.34 billion, well below the once much-hyped hopes for the San Francisco-based online gaming company that has seen nothing but troubled times since its IPO. In fact, since its late 2011 public offering, Zynga shares are down close to 70 percent.

But perhaps more interesting is that, with $1.6 billion in cash and marketable securities, investors now consider the company to be worth just below $750 million.

In other words, about $350 million less than Yahoo just paid for the blogging platform Tumblr, which has substantively less revenue than Zynga.

That small valuation puts the company in an interesting position, as it seeks to move its business more quickly into the mobile space, as its Web-based business has fallen off more dramatically than expected. Simply put, mobile monetizes less robustly than Zynga’s Web offerings.

The slowness in moving its casual social games to fast-growing new devices, such as tablets and smartphones, has been at the heart of Zynga’s current troubles, forcing management to cut its staff by 18 percent in order to rationalize costs.

ZNGA data by YCharts

That has meant the slashing of its staff of more than 3,000 — which grew quickly via a series of acquisitions made in recent years — and closing offices in New York and Los Angeles to save money.

What happens next will be the subject of much speculation, given its declining worth, including whether Zynga might consider going private or if some other company might contemplate acquiring it.

Most sources close to the company think it is unlikely that its big owners, including venture firm Kleiner Perkins, will want to conduct any kind of dramatic transaction, given Zynga’s currently prone state. Said one person close to the situation, its eventual state will depend on how well the company manages to turn itself around.

Yahoo, which had dropped off the important BrandZ Top 100 list several years ago, scratched its way on again this year at No. 92.

The Silicon Valley Internet giant had last been on the key list of brands in 2009, when it had a brand value of $7.9 billion. It now has a brand value of $9.8 billion, which is still down from its $11.4 billion in 2008.

And that’s tiny in comparison to Apple, which remains No. 1 on the list with a brand value of $185.1 billion. Google ranked as No. 2 with a brand value of $113.7 billion.

Apple rival Samsung’s brand value rose by by 51 percent to $21.4 billion, clocking in to the No. 30 spot.

In tech, Amazon’s brand value was $45.7 billion, rising 34 percent to No. 14. IBM is No. 3 with a brand value of $112 billion.

And more: Microsoft (No. 7, $69.8 billion, down nine percent); Facebook (No. 31, $21.3 billion, down 36 percent); and eBay (No. 47, $17.7 billion, up 40 percent).

The eight-year-old BrandZ list, which is much watched by marketers, is commissioned by WPP and conducted by Millward Brown Optimor.

Here’s the full chart of the list and report:

Top100BrandZ2013

BrandZ Top 100 Media Deck 2013 U S

And here is a super-cool infographic too:

2013_BrandZ_Top100_Infographic

Despite largely anecdotal media speculation, it’s not clear how the acquisition of Tumblr by Yahoo for $1.1 billion will be greeted by users of the New York blogging service.

But rival blogging service WordPress’s founder Matt Mullenweg posted on his blog last night that WordPress imports from Tumblr on Sunday — after news of the deal had been broken by AllThingsD.com — had risen from a typical 400 to 600 blog posts an hour to more than 72,000.

Whoa!

That said, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Some users of Posterous fled the blogging service when Twitter bought it, and some Instagrammers huffed off when Facebook nabbed the photo-sharing site.

And, by comparison, Tumblr says it get 75 million blog posts per day — so 72,000 are just a drop in the ironic blogging ocean.

Plus, Mullenweg thinks the high price paid by the Silicon Valley Internet giant was low.

“I think we’re at the cusp of understanding the ultimate value of web publishing platforms, particularly ones that work cross-domain, and while Yahoo’s all-cash deal by some metrics, like revenue, is very generous, I think it’s a tenth of the value that will be created in these platforms over the coming years,” wrote Mullenweg.

Here’s his post:

It now looks pretty certain that Yahoo has pulled off a deal to buy Tumblr for 1.1B. The relationship between WordPress and Tumblr has always been pretty friendly: Tumblr’s own blog used to be on WP, WordPress.com supports Tumblr as a Publicize option alongside Twitter and Facebook, our Akismet team sends them daily emails of splogs on the service, and there’s healthy import and export traffic both ways. (Imports have actually spiked on the rumors even though it’s Sunday: normally we import 400-600 posts an hour from Tumblr, last hour it was over 72,000.)

News like this, whether from a friend or a competitor, is always bittersweet: I’m curious to see what the creative folks behind Tumblr do with their new resources, both personal and corporate, but I’m more interested to know what they would have done over the next 5-10 years as an independent company. I think we’re at the cusp of understanding the ultimate value of web publishing platforms, particularly ones that work cross-domain, and while Yahoo’s all-cash deal by some metrics, like revenue, is very generous, I think it’s a tenth of the value that will be created in these platforms over the coming years.

The good news is the stock is once again an attractive investment — especially after plunging from September’s $705 peak all the way down to $417. The bad news is that many of its most loyal fans might be holding it for the wrong reasons.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Like me, David Einhorn — the brainy hedge fund star who is currently engaged in a proxy battle with Apple over a corporate governance procedure, related in this case to how to deal with its $137.1 billion cash hoard — is a bit of a night owl (or, in his case, an early riser).

So, when I pinged him around midnight PT about the conference call his Greenlight Capital is having with investors later today to better explain his effort to thwart an Apple effort to make it harder to issue preferred shares that pay a dividend, he offered to chat right then about what he was up to.

Einhorn has been fighting with Apple over its plan to let shareholders vote on the issuance of preferred stock, after the longtime Apple bull got no satisfaction from lobbying its board to issue preferred shares.

He then sued the company seeking an injunction to stop or invalidate next week’s vote on the company proxy proposal related to “blank check” preferred stock.

As The Wall Street Journal noted:

Mr. Einhorn’s lawsuit, filed in the federal court in Manhattan, argues that the very formulation of Apple’s proxy statement violates Securities and Exchange Commission rules that allow shareholders to vote on “each matter” in the proposals. The suit seeks a court injunction against Apple’s proxy vote, and says he asked twice this week for the company to stop the vote or to “unbundle” the proposal at issue, but was rejected by the company.

Although the Silicon Valley tech giant said it was talking to Einhorn, Apple CEO Tim Cook also hit back at an investment conference recently, saying that Greenlight’s legal moves were a “silly sideshow” and a distraction.

That said, a judge in the case later contended that there was a “likelihood of success” in Greenlight’s case.

Thus, in a time-honored blabby hedge-fund-dude manner, Einhorn decided to make his case even more noisily about the proxy proposal, which is up for a vote at Apple’s Feb. 27 annual meeting.

“We’re going to explain ourselves better, because I think that there has been reaction where people are asking, ‘Why don’t they just raise their dividend or do a buyback?’” said Einhorn in an interview. “We think the preferred stock idea is a lot better, and once people understand it, we want people to convert from worrying that it is complicated to wondering ‘Since it makes so much sense, why doesn’t Apple do that?’”

It sounds so easy, but it has not been, with a heated debate occurring since Greenlight went after Apple, and some dubious of Einhorn. This has clearly caused a lot of confusion that he said he hopes to clear up.

For example: “I think it is peculiar that people are focused on the blank-check preferred and taking away a takeover defense, since no one is going to be taking over Apple.”

Einhorn said he bears no ill will toward Apple over the capital allocation issue, which he said was typical across the tech scene.

“Apple has collected this cash hoard due to cultural issues within the industry and also within the company, some of which are partly understandable. Tech companies have learned over time they need to have cash in case of trouble, and there is also an element of comparing balance sheets. There is always a rationalization to justify any situation,” Einhorn said. “But we do not want to convince them to undo their cultural view. We want them to unlock value for shareholders. In this case, the cash is a product of Apple’s success, but it developed from being like several others to an extraordinary level because of Apple’s extraordinary success.”

While some have painted him as an Apple attacker, Einhorn begs to differ.

“I like that what we are offering is a win-win for everyone. There has been a lot of conflict around why Apple is holding so much cash for a long, long time,” he said. “We have a solution that allows shareholders to see that value and Apple to keep that cash.”

We’ll see, when Greenlight presents its case later today, doubtless with all kinds of fancy charts and graphs and numbers that will flummox my tiny brain. Until then, here’s its official press release on the call:

GREENLIGHT CAPITAL ANNOUNCES FEBRUARY 21 CONFERENCE CALL AND WEBCAST TO DISCUSS APPLE’S CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY AND ALTERNATIVES

Urges Shareholders Vote AGAINST Apple’s Attempt To Amend Charter and Eliminate Ability To Issue Preferred Stock In Proposal 2; Apple Must Explore All Value Creation Options

NEW YORK — February 20, 2013 — Greenlight Capital, Inc. (“Greenlight”), a value oriented, research-driven investment management firm, today announced that it will host a public conference call and webcast to discuss Apple Inc.’s (NasdaqGS: AAPL) capital allocation strategy and Greenlight’s proposal to unlock significant value for all shareholders. Greenlight continues to ask shareholders to vote AGAINST Proposal 2 in Apple’s proxy, which would eliminate preferred stock from Apple’s charter and restrict the Board’s flexibility on capital allocation decisions. On the call, Greenlight will provide additional details regarding the options available to Apple, including the merits of Greenlight’s suggestion of distributing perpetual preferred stock to Apple shareholders for free.

The conference call and webcast will take place on February 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. The conference call may be accessed by dialing 1-800-901-5241 (U.S. callers) or 1-617-786-2963 (International callers) and entering the passcode 62063868#. Those who intend to participate in the call should dial in at least 20 minutes in advance. A replay of the call will be available through March 6, 2013 by dialing 1-888-286-8010 (U.S. callers) or 1-617-801-6888 (International callers) and entering the passcode 45128663#. The webcast can be accessed by visiting www.media-server.com/m/p/aj2p6kq7.

Apparently, you can get media satisfaction — as long as you are online as opposed to offline.

According to a new study by the Boston Consulting Group, consumers accrue more value from their online media usage than from their offline consumption.

The new research report — titled “Follow the Surplus: How U.S. Consumers Value Online Media” — calculated that the average U.S. online user got a “consumer surplus” of $970, compared to $900 from offline media.

BCG defines consumer surplus as “the value consumers themselves place on a media-related activity or product over and above what they pay for it.”

The report looked at seven categories — books, radio and music, U.S. newspapers and magazines, TV and movies, video games, international newspapers and magazines and user-generated content and social networks.

The largest chunk of online consumer satisfaction came from UGC and social, such as use of Facebook and Google’s YouTube, which makes sense since the actual cost is nearly zero — making any benefit essentially digital gravy.

Books were where the least consumer surplus was online. That’s not a surprise, said BCG senior partner John Rose, who coauthored the report, but it is likely to change soon with the increasing popularity and proliferation of a variety of devices.

That’s double from three years ago, with the average consumer now owning 2.9 devices, such as mobile smartphones and tablets. It will increase to 4.1 in three years, said the BCG report. Also up, of course, is the number of hours spent online, which — in turn — dramatically increases the value of online media consumption.

Advertisers still have not caught up with consumers, of course. “The value is from the consumers’ perspective and not the advertisers’ perspective yet,” said Rose, in an interview. “The business models are still not in place to support what consumers already know they want.”

Gender is not an issue, with men and women both consuming about 12 hours a week of online content. But men listen to more music, while women prefer social interaction more.

Another interesting result, read the report: “By a margin of some five to one, U.S. consumers are more excited about the Internet’s potential rewards than they are worried about the potential risks.”

In other words, they like online media, they really like it.

That’s why, said Rose, the medium and the business model will evenutally come together.

“Different people will say different things about when it will come together and not if it will come together,” said Rose. “Advertisers have always found ways to create value, even if they have not done it yet with online media.”

There are lots of other interesting findings and charts from BCG, some of which are embedded below (click to enlarge them and the whole report can be found and downloaded here).

This week in Las Vegas, the new management team running Yahoo — including CEO Marissa Mayer — is at International CES to schmooze with big advertisers and convince them that Yahoo is the place to put large chunks of their marketing budgets.

One of the longtime selling points of the company is the sheer size of its audience, especially for the key money-making parts of the site — the homepage, Yahoo Mail and search.

But private stats from comScore show that those three areas have continued their longtime decline over the last year, in some cases dropping significantly. In November and December, for example, compared to the same two months a year ago, U.S. search was down 28 percent and 24 percent respectively, while mail was down 16 percent and 12 percent.

This matters a great deal, since the troika of homepage, mail and search have been the critical driver of the Yahoo value ecosystem for advertisers.

The impact of those drops is felt all over Yahoo, whose music, movie, games and travel site have also seen massive drop-offs in traffic year over year in those same months.

Stopping the decline is critical for Yahoo, since Mayer herself has underscored the need for size in her pushing for new businesses at Yahoo that are 100 million users in size and/or have revenue prospects of at least $100 million.

While this is a lofty vision, the reality of traffic falloffs on key properties is a vexing issue, especially since they remain its main source of revenue and also an important element in launching future products Mayer is promising will turbocharge the company.

It’s not that Yahoo is not huge, especially compared to most sites on the Web.

As one of the top Internet brands, according to a recent Nielsen report, the average number of total monthly unique visitors for the longtime Silicon Valley Internet company in 2012 was 141.6 million, No. 3 behind Google and Facebook in the U.S. market. Similar rankings were reported by comScore, which placed Yahoo at the No. 2 spot after Google, with 171.4 million monthly visitors in November.

But, for many years, traffic to those important consumer destinations of Yahoo has been on a clear and unstopping decline, statistics (usually from comScore) that the company nonetheless always dutifully puts in its earnings slides — see below — for investors to get some idea of the major and vexing issues facing the company.

That was suddenly ended in the last quarter with the engagement slide removed from Yahoo’s public deck entirely. Not all companies include such stats, so when I inquired as to why the company had made the change, Yahoo PR never returned my phone call.

But it’s not hard to guess the reason for the shift — the numbers were not good and they called more attention to Yahoo’s glaring challenge, which is getting users reengaged with its products by creating what Mayer has dubbed several times “delightful” experiences.

According to numerous sources, that has also been the case within the company too, with the new regime restricting an internal transparency initiative pushed by former Chief Product Officer Blake Irving that shared product performance numbers with the top 100 leaders at Yahoo.

And while it’s an interesting strategic choice, several sources inside the company this week urged me to get ahold of increasingly worrisome numbers from comScore — available to its private clients — comparing November 2011 to November 2012 and also December 2011 to December 2012 at home and work in the U.S.

So I did, getting the same stats from numerous sources — numbers that a spokesman for comScore confirmed were correct.

And, as promised, they are worrisome indeed.

In November 2012, compared to November 2011, the monthly unique visitors to the homepage declined 17 percent to 91.8 million from 110.9 million; Yahoo Mail dropped 16 percent (from 92 million to 77.7 million); and Yahoo search dropped 28 percent (from 93.3 million to 66.9 million).

Also off significantly for all three areas, often by one-third, were a plethora of other stats: Percentage of reach, total minutes, total page views, total visits and more.

One of the only bright spots for Yahoo was the relatively small Flickr sites, which were up 37 percent — 26.7 million versus 19.4 million — in unique monthly visitors year over year. The photo-sharing site — which has been getting a much-needed refresh — was also up in all other stats.

But Flickr — which Mayer (pictured here) has laudably touted and supported after years of inexplicable neglect — is not a money-maker for Yahoo, even if its return does burnish the company’s tech and innovation cred.

In December 2011 to December 2012, the homepage was more stable, gaining four percent in monthly uniques from 109.4 million to 114.2 million, but with other key stats both rising and falling. Total visits were up 14 percent, for example, while average minutes per visit was down 13.6 percent.

But the trouble for mail or search continued, off 12 percent (89.9 million to 78.7 million) and 24 percent (88.7 million to 67.4 million) respectively in monthly uniques, with similarly major declines in all other stats.

Mail recently got a refresh too under Mayer, despite some recent security glitches, so new stats will show if that will help stem the declines. Search is another story all together, with Yahoo in what can only be described as a dysfunctional partnership with Microsoft that numerous sources tell me Mayer is seeking to end.

The homepage, too, is undergoing a redo, with a design that has a decidedly more mobile and social feel, and pushing an ethos of Yahoo becoming a hub for content discovery. It is hoped the new look will boost traffic relatively quickly from its current downward trajectory.

To be fair, there can be lots and lots of reasons for these declines, although most of Yahoo’s competitors are, at worse, seeing a flattening of growth and not outright declines.

And sometimes Internet sites complain that services like comScore undercount, although Yahoo had previously used the firm in its public documents. More to the point, as multiple sources within the company note, the stats are directionally correct in that they closely track with internal Yahoo numbers.

Which is to say, traffic is going down rather than growing. That is clearly why Mayer has loudly stressed mobile since arriving at Yahoo, an area not included in these numbers that many sources said has strong growth to about 70 million monthly unique visitors via its apps and mobile-enabled Web offerings.

But unlike the homepage, mail and search — which push and pull traffic all over Yahoo and are responsible for most of its current monetization — mobile also makes very little money now. And Yahoo — unlike Facebook, which recently did — does not break out mobile results.

So, it will be interesting to see if the company does so when it reports fourth-quarter earnings on January 28 and also if it says anything about continued traffic declines of its traditional Web business in the period and the impact on revenue.

Still, there are lots of ways to counter declining or flat revenues, even with declining traffic — via cost cuts, efficiencies, charging more and selling assets (as Yahoo did in the last quarter). And Yahoo has ably managed to keep its operating margins growing over the years, despite both the declines in traffic and moribund growth in its revenue.

But the real and only fix is the drastic fix to existing tentpoles Yahoo has and the creation or acquisition of products that excite consumers and, therefore, advertisers.

It’s not an easy thing, of course, as well-known venture capitalist Ben Horowitz recently wrote in his blog about the need to focus on products over building and improving culture — one of Mayer’s other big initiatives at Yahoo.

Wrote Horowitz in what I consider one of the clearest articulations of what it takes to win for startups, as well as big companies like Yahoo:

“The primary thing that any technology startup must do is build a product that’s at least 10 times better at doing something than the current prevailing way of doing that thing. Two or three times better will not be good enough to get people to switch to the new thing fast enough or in large enough volume to matter. The second thing that any technology startup must do is to take the market. If it’s possible to do something 10X better, it’s also possible that you won’t be the only company to figure that out. Therefore, you must take the market before somebody else does.”

If you want to take a gander, here are some more of those old Yahoo quarterly engagement slides, which were recently eliminated from its presentations:

(Note: I reached out to Yahoo’s outside PR firm — since they do respond to queries — and also some company execs to get a comment on this story, but so far there has been none.)

Today at a local mobile conference in San Francisco, Groupon CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason appeared for another onstage interview and was immediately asked about the various and sundry mishegas of late at the daily deals site.

And said, um, not much. It wasn’t exactly his fault — there is almost no plus to him saying much.

So Mason did not.

Not much about thinly sourced rumors of acquisition interest by Google.

Not much about the palpable tension and discussions between him and some board members about whether he should remain as Groupon’s top leader.

Not much about its lackluster stock, down more than 80 percent since its IPO just over a year ago.

Not much about its issues in Europe or about its growth prospects.

“What I have said about Groupon is everything I will say about it,” he said. “I am focused on looking forward.”

Bokay!

Actually, Mason, who is a very clever man, joked effectively, “Let’s not talk about mobile,” which was the actual focus of the Mobile-Loco conference he was appearing at.

Fair point, and he moved into explaining what Groupon was up to these days (more of the same, but more with the mobile).

About one-third of the Chicago-based company’s business is now done via mobile, by the way.

“Our mobile customers have been our best customers,” he noted, making the point that smartphones appeal to a more cutting edge consumer and also merchants.

“I think they are willing to use technology when the value proposition is clear to them,” Mason said about retailers, one of whom he worked at recently. “They do it because it is important to them.”

Mason also talked about local, payments and other generalities about the social daily deals business.

All of which he answered with a level of nice confidence that belies troubles that the novice CEO is trying to overcome. It’s a tough task for anyone, of course, and not one that many would be able to handle with as much equanimity as Mason does in public. So, on one level, you have to hand it to Mason for putting himself out there so much at a difficult time and chatting away.

But not about what the audience wanted to hear about. Which is to say: What’s really next?

If I had a bitcoin for every time someone asked me what a bitcoin was really worth, I have no idea how much money I’d have.

– Josh Greenman, via Twitter

According to sources close to the situation, Demand Media was deep into discussions with a private equity firm to complete a deal that would have taken the online content company private, nearing a price that was double its current value.

But Demand abandoned the effort this past week — which was born from an aggressive attempt by Boston-based Thomas H. Lee Partners to purchase the company for a price of up to $1.2 billion. That was due to a number of challenges, including complications related to its financing and the ability to retain executives in its aftermath.

The move on Demand by private investors is perhaps no surprise, and is part of a wider trend related to some Internet companies whose stocks have a depressed value relative to the worth of their assets.

Among companies having been and also being evaluated by private equity firms, whose business it is to turned the undervalued into a goldmine: Yahoo and AOL.

And also Demand, which is now worth only $605 million, a market cap that is off 65 percent since it went public in February 2011. Shares now trade at $7.25 each.

That depressed share price has been due to a number of issues, most especially changes to Google’s search algorithm to improve results. Called Panda, the changes at the search giant — a critical partner of Demand’s — has cut traffic to its major content sites and also called into question its ability to monetize its scaled editorial efforts.

Such a situation is nearly irresistible to PE firms — in this case, Lee, which approached Demand.

Several sources said that the board threw out a hefty number that it assumed would shut down any interest and the pair began talking with an initial offer to take the company private at $11.28 a share.

That equals close to $1 billion for Demand, which also has more than $100 million in cash. But sources said Lee and Demand also discussed the addition of a large loan as part of the ongoing discussions, for possible acquisitions related to a content roll-up strategy it had, which would bring the total up to $1.2 billion.

One source underscored that the board of the Santa Monica, Calif., company had no interest or intention to sell the business, but that the premium was large enough that it engaged.

The deal from Lee, which also included a strategy of splitting up the content arm from Demand’s lucrative domain-registar business.

There were also large cash-out provisions for major shareholders, as well as for CEO and co-founder Richard Rosenblatt.

Thus, the two sides engaged intensely in the last several weeks in crafting an agreement, although the devil would prove to be in the details.

One big issue is that taking Demand private was still a big financial commitment for Lee — which tried to engage some of its limited partners in the transaction — as well as other investors, including Silicon Valley’s Marc Andreessen.

That proved harder than Lee thought, said sources, with some balking at the firm’s ability to make a big enough score on the possible turnaround.

“It was hoped it would be a Skype situation, but there were worries,” said one source, referring to the blockbuster sale of the Internet telephony company by private investors to Microsoft for $8.5 billion last year. That deal was widely considered a PE home run, given the excessive premium paid for it.

Demand’s challenges increasingly worried the firm as it moved forward, sources said, causing it to reevaluate its earlier bid several times.

Also a worry: Retaining major talent, including Rosenblatt and others, after they sold large chunks of their equity.

After Lee asked for more time to complete the financing, Demand ended the talks last week.

Another source, as is typical in these endings, said it was the Lee that walked away (who knows and, really, who cares — both sides were engaged seriously).

One thing was true: “Demand was definitely at the altar, but it did not get to the vows,” said one source.

Another source noted that the board also determined that Demand’s situation was improving, and that new trends are showing that the bottom might be been reached. The company reports its first-quarter earnings on May 8, which is expected to show some traction related to its many challenges.

“There is nothing Lee could do that Demand could not do for itself,” said one person. “So throwing in the towel seemed premature for now.”

Lee declined to comment, as did Demand.

In what is either the boldest gamble of its history or the most boneheaded, Yahoo has filed a massive patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook.

The attack by the Silicon Valley Internet icon against perhaps the most powerful consumer social networking site today — also based in tech’s heartland and also an important partner of Yahoo — is sure to be a controversial one, pitting Yahoo against a company that has surpassed it handily in recent years in regards to popularity among consumers.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

That includes, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

So what does Yahoo want for this alleged free ride? Triple damages and to enjoin Facebook from operating by using said patents.

The 19-page lawsuit over 10 patents — related to advertising, privacy, customization, messaging and social networking — comes as Yahoo is seeking to right itself under new CEO Scott Thompson.

Multiple sources said he is primarily driving this new aggressiveness from Yahoo.

Since Yahoo told the New York Times that it was considering such a move last week, the issue has been widely debated within the company, with many top techies there opposed to it, due to the company’s longstanding ethos of using patents for defense rather than offense.

Thus, the decision to move was closely held, sources said, with only Thompson and legal chief Michael Callahan largely working on it.

Still, patent lawsuits have become ever more prevalent among tech companies, as they seek to battle for advantage in a rapidly changing competitive landscape. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are involved in several legal actions, although they are largely related to mobile technology.

Yahoo’s lawsuit is the most prominent in the social networking arena, a sector that has seen a huge explosion of late. Its timing could not be worse for Facebook, since it is in a quiet period for its upcoming IPO, which is expected to value the company at close to $100 billion.

Yahoo has done this kind of thing before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock.

Yahoo is shaking Facebook down for much more here and with much higher stakes for both companies. If successful, Yahoo could seriously damage Facebook’s initial public offering; if not, Yahoo will cement its growing reputation as a company with nothing to lose, whose value is built not on its current business, but on non-operating assets.

More importantly, at least initially, the move did nothing to boost Yahoo’s moribund shares — the stock was down about one percent to $14.49 in after-hours trading.

More to come, but here is the entire document below. The lawsuit has been filed in San Jose, Calif., federal court.

Lastly, the official PR back-and-forth:

Said Yahoo, in its statement:

“Yahoo! has invested substantial resources in research and development through the years, which has resulted in numerous patented inventions of technology that other companies have licensed. These technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. Unfortunately, the matter with Facebook remains unresolved and we are compelled to seek redress in federal court. We are confident that we will prevail.”

Facebook, obviously, disagrees, and also threw in a jab about the lack of discussions over the issue between the pair:

“We’re disappointed that Yahoo, a longtime business partner of Facebook and a company that has substantially benefited from its association with Facebook, has decided to resort to litigation. Once again, we learned of Yahoo’s decision simultaneously with the media. We will defend ourselves vigorously against these puzzling actions.”

I’ll admit to also being puzzled about the strategery here, but I am sure there will be much more to come.

Until then, read on:

Complaint

And here is what I wrote last week on the subject:

Apparently, Yahoo’s new motto: If you can’t beat ‘em — and it can’t — sue ‘em.

That would be Yahoo — the perpetual 98-pound weakling of the Internet these days — threatening powerful Facebook, which had cleanly bested it by attracting hordes of users with a plethora of popular products and services.

Yahoo has already lost its audience to Facebook, which was most recently followed by its frittering away a commanding lead in display advertising, too.

That would also be the Yahoo whose most recent success in improving its increasingly tenuous connections with customers was, in fact, by deeply integrating Facebook’s social hooks into its Web properties.

That would be the Yahoo which has failed time and again to innovate its own offerings so drastically over the years that it has now apparently decided that its first and best strategic move under Thompson’s rule is a shakedown.

Such a cynical move on rights Yahoo has long held seems more a play for the cheap seats of Wall Street, given that the company needs to look like it is doing everything it can to turn things around right now as it faces a proxy challenge.

First, it ended difficult talks with its Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, over selling back lucrative stakes there.

Now, according to sources, Yahoo’s Thompson has actually been trying to make very nice with activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — on-the-down-low chitchats that might have played a part of this latest unusual move.

At least Kodak had a good excuse. The once iconic camera company had recently been trying to take advantage of its trove of patents as a way to stave off declaring bankruptcy.

That didn’t work for Kodak, and it will also not work for Yahoo, whose only real option is to try to innovate its way out of the mess it has landed itself in.

You know, with good ideas.

Instead, the company’s leadership has opted for a road that could rain down trouble and paint Yahoo as a company bereft of talent to win any other way.

And while a range of intellectual property lawsuits have broken out all over the digital sector, involving Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others, such a strategy for Yahoo could be dangerous if it fails in its legal effort to take advantage of its 1,000-plus patents, including those related to search and advertising.

Others — including such tech luminaries as LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, who co-owns the seminal Six Degrees patent for constructing a networking database and system — hold a number of critical social networking patents, too, so who knows where this thing will go.

Nonetheless, Yahoo has decided to emulate those companies with one of the few valuable assets it might have, waging its little war, right as Facebook is in the midst of its initial public offering period.

Yahoo has done this before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock (which it then, of course, sold too soon).

That certainly could happen here, with Yahoo managing to grab a chunk of Facebook’s pre-IPO stock.
That would mean that Yahoo’s most valuable asset would be those shares, as well as its stake in Asian companies it bought a while back for a bargain and now makes up a bulk of the company’s valuation.

As to Yahoo’s core business — investors consider it almost entirely worthless.

And let’s not forget: Facebook could also sue right back, which it very well might do. Or, perhaps, cut off agreeable ties that have aided Yahoo in recent years.

In other words, in poking Facebook, Yahoo might now learn what it is really like to be de-friended.

Last night, Yahoo’s board gathered for a pre-meeting dinner, a precursor to a day-long meeting today to weigh several bids from private equity firms to buy part of the Silicon Valley Internet giant, including Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

Among the thorniest of issues will be the low price that the firms want to pay for a 19.9 percent stake in the company. Silver Lake has offered $16.50 and TPG a dollar more.

In the past year, Yahoo share prices have seen a low of $11.09 and a high of almost $19. It closed yesterday at $15.70 — a price that is mostly due to sale rumors — making the offers not much of a gain on current market valuation.

The transaction type being contemplated is called a PIPE — or a Private Investment in Public Equity — with the investment below 20 percent, which allows Yahoo to avoid a shareholder vote on the issue.

While the Yahoo board had hoped for bids above $20, they are not expected to be forthcoming, considering the weakness in its business over recent years and the difficulty of returning it to health and growth.

Results in its upcoming quarter, for example, are expected to be weak again, with trouble in its advertising business, largely due to uncertainty around the business.

The low price, along with the attempt to bypass shareholder approval, is sure to infuriate Yahoo’s major investors, given they have watched the value of their stakes wilt over the years under current board management.

In the last five years, due to continually muddled leadership and the missing of key Internet trends, Yahoo shares have dropped 44 percent in value, which compares with huge gains from companies like Amazon and others.

Major Yahoo stakeholders are already irked by the PIPE idea itself, which could transfer power to private equity firms at preferential terms.

Another possible bone of contention will be the preservation of at least some parts of Yahoo’s current board.

Under a plan by Silver Lake, for example, it would get three board seats, as well as another one for a CEO of its choosing. Another seat will go to Yahoo co-founder and current board member Jerry Yang. There will be six independent board members, but it is not clear if they would be new or include some current directors.

One of the Silver Lake choices would be well-known Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen, who is now a powerful VC. The appeal of Andreessen is important to some major shareholders who have turned sour on Yang.

Who will be CEO of the rejiggered entity will also be discussed at the meeting. Sources said Silver Lake and TPG have definite candidates in mind and Yahoo has also been conducting an official search.

In other words, there’s a lot on the plate of Yahoo’s board today, which also needs to revisit continued proposals from its Asian partners — China’s Alibaba Group and SoftBank of Japan — to sell back its stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan in various tax-free schemes.

Sources said Yahoo — which has thus far rejected such efforts — might now consider selling a part of their shares back, up to half. This would allow the company to give a cash dividend to its disgruntled shareholders.

If thwarted, as has been previously reported ad nauseum, Alibaba and SoftBank are considering their own bid with the help of other U.S. private equity firms, such as Blackstone.

Other PE firms — especially ones who have not signed Yahoo’s non-disclosure agreement related to any deal — are also hanging under the hoop, so to speak, to see what happens. At least one firm hopes the Yahoo board will reject the low-priced partial bids, leaving the court wide open again.

“It’s still anyone’s game,” said one possible bidder.

Except for Yahoo’s put-upon employees and shareholders, this is anything but fun. More on that soon.

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.

Yahoo — which has been trying to right itself after a series of missteps and an ever-weakening business — took another direct hit yesterday, as it got dinged in a high-profile annual survey of the Top 100 global brands.

According to Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands 2011,” Yahoo dropped 11 percent in brand value — calculated as $4.4 billion — in the year in which it fell from No. 66 to No. 76.

Way to go, Yahoo marketing! I think that pricey “It’s You” advertising campaign might not have worked.

Meanwhile, Apple broke into the Top 10 list for the first time, vaulting from No. 17 to No. 8, rising 58 percent in brand value to $33.5 billion.

Other tech companies did pretty well in the Interbrand poll — which is the gold standard of the state of brand health with consumers — especially compared to Yahoo (whose brand value high was in 2007 and which is now back at 2001 levels).

For example: IBM kept its No. 2 spot, with brand value rising eight percent; Microsoft fell three percent, but maintained its No. 3 place; Google stayed at No. 4, up 27 percent; and Amazon rose 32 percent and reached No. 26 from No. 36.

Even troubled companies prevailed over Yahoo’s twin declines: Hewlett-Packard held on to its No. 10 slot, with brand value up six percent; Research In Motion dropped only five percent and two slots, from No. 54 to No. 56; and Nokia fell from No. 8 to No. 14 and saw its brand value decline 15 percent.

Most interesting, perhaps, about the 12-year-old survey: Six of the Top 10 brands are tech companies.

What a difference a day makes.

In the 24 hours since Hewlett-Packard announced it was cutting production of its high-profile webOS mobile devices and might spin off its huge consumer PC business, stock of the tech giant has plummeted 20 percent.

HP shares are down $5.91 right now, at $23.60, one of the worst dives in its long history.

The reason? Wall Street is confused at what HP management and its board are up to.

So is everyone else, so get in line!

In any case, the one-fifth drop in value might be due to the length of time HP said it would take to execute its dramatically announced new plans. That is likely to keep the stock depressed, as investors are still uncertain what it all means.

One thing was clear: HP’s financial prospects are certainly dicey. Even as the Palo Alto, Calif., company announced its major strategic shift, it reported disastrous third-quarter earnings, included lowering its full-year forecast once again.

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?

Here’s the formal language: “The Company recorded a $275 million pre-tax charge for the impairment of goodwill related to the Digital Media Group and an organizational restructuring at MySpace.”

Translation: Firing people en masse, as we did at Myspace last quarter, is expensive. Also, we’re writing down a lot of the social networking company’s remaining value.

I’ve asked News Corp. (which also owns this Web site) for more clarity on the charge: How much of it stems from layoffs? How much of it comes from a writedown on Myspace’s value? And were any other assets involved? At this point the company’s Digital Media Group is pretty much just Myspace, but it does have other stuff there, most notably its IGN site.

It’s worth noting that during today’s unveiling of the Daily, the company’s iPad newspaper, CEO Rupert Murdoch said that the company had already written down the first $30 million it had invested in the project. So it’s entirely possible that that figure is part of the $275 million.

More if I get it. And I”ll be back at 4:30 pm ET to cover News Corp.’s earnings call live.

UPDATE: For the record, News Corp.’s $275 million charge on its digital operations, announced today, breaks down this way: $107 million of that is for restructuring, and the remaining $168 million is a writedown, presumably focused on Myspace.

And for those who care–costs for the Daily are being assigned to News Corp.’s publishing group: $7 million of the $30 million it has spent so far were assigned to this quarter.

And lots of investors don’t care. I’d heard Demand’s public offering, led by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was oversubscribed, and yesterday the company confirmed it: Demand said it had increased the size and price of the deal, selling 8.9 million shares at $17, instead of its initial plan to sell 7.5 million at $14 to $16.

That gives Richard Rosenblatt’s company a value, for the moment, of just under $1.5 billion–about the same as the New York Times.

Now everyone else gets to vote, when the shares list today, trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the DMD ticker.

It will be tempting to overestimate the meaning of the stock’s first-day movement (or in subsequent days, for that matter), so I’ll try hard not to. But we can at least agree that this the first big-name Web company to go public in a very, very long time.

So even if Demand’s business didn’t have anything to do with the media business, it would get plenty of scrutiny.

And, of course, Demand is in the media business, using a model that terrifies lots of people in the media business. It produces lots and lots of Google-ready content at very low prices, with the help of computer taskmasters and an army of freelancers.

Lucky for me! None of them write news stories about media companies going public. So I’ll make the most of the opportunity and check back in later today.

And with 9.2 million Google shares, it’s not like he needs the money, though his stake has suffered a significant decline in value since the company’s executive office shake-up. Prior to the announcement, Google shares were trading at around $641, making Schmidt’s stake worth about $5.9 billion. Today, they’re hovering around $608, making that stake worth $5.6 billion–down $300 million on news he’s stepping down as CEO. That’s a nasty little drop any way you look at it, though I’m sure the obscene size of the remaining sum makes it a bit easier to stomach. Perhaps the residuals from that new Eric Schmidt talk show reportedly in the offing will make up for it….

PREVIOUSLY:

• Talking Schmidt: Google’s CEO in His Own Words
• A Big Quarter From Google, and Shake-Up at the Top–Larry Page to Become CEO

Should Stephen Elop, Nokia’s new CEO, continue executing the strategy established by his ousted predecessor, strengthening it by improving execution and operating costs? Or should he map out an entirely new strategy, perhaps one based on a third-party operating system. Canaccord Genuity analyst T. Michael Walkley favors the latter, suggesting Nokia make the jump to Android or Windows Phone 7. And interestingly, he feels WP7 is the better option of the two.

Why?

Well, for one thing, Elop is a Microsoft veteran. He seems to have left the company on good terms and presumably still has close ties to it. For another, Microsoft and Nokia are a better cultural fit than Google and Nokia. And finally, the two companies need each other to succeed in the mobile market long term.

“We believe Microsoft needs more support from a leading device OEM to compete with Android longer term and Nokia likely needs to adopt a new high-end smartphone strategy to stem smartphone share losses,” Walkley says. “Further, Microsoft could create a differentiated tablet strategy with stronger enterprise support and Nokia could clearly benefit with a tablet and smartphone combined strategy that is offered by competitors….We believe the combination of Microsoft’s marketing muscle and software expertise with WP7 and Nokia’s global brand, distribution and scale advantages could drive solid sales of WP7-based devices worldwide. Additionally, it would provide Nokia a much-needed re-entry into the North American market, where its market share has stagnated at low-single-digit levels for multiple years.”

In other words, a Nokia-Microsoft alliance could bolster the WP7 ecosystem to the point where WP7 becomes a third dominant mobile OS alongside Android and iOS.

That would suit Microsoft–which has been struggling with mobile for years–just fine. But what about Nokia, which still makes quite a bit of money selling feature phones in the BRIC countries?

He’ll talk to Kara Swisher about the company’s efforts to sell advertising on the service, and if we’re lucky, he’ll give us a glimpse of his improv comedy roots, too. Don’t be shy, Dick!

Dick starts off by insulting Kara’s vest. “Matador casual,” he calls it. Good one! Kara responds by asking him why he’s hanging out at CES.

The same reason everyone else is, Dick says: To talk to industry people. For example, he’d like to get device makers to preload some features like “Fast Follow.”

Kara wants to know if Dick would like a “Twitter button” installed on phones. No, says Dick. But he’d like Twitter to work the same way on different platforms.

So how do you make that happen?

Dick: We’re assigning a product team to make sure that this happens.

Kara: And you’re talking to TV people, too? What’s that about?

Dick: Yep. Because mainstream TV viewing, more and more, they have a device in their hand when they’re watching TV. Like on “Glee.” The characters tweet while the show is on. [This baffles Kara.] When “Glee” starts, tweets per second for “Glee” shoot up, and stay up 100 times that level until the show ends, and then they drop.

That has interesting implications. Like, it takes the DVR out of the mix, because you have to watch in real time to make it worthwhile.

But we don’t know if all of this means Twitter while you watch TV, or Twitter actually on your TV screen.

Kara: Is it important for you to be on the screen?

Dick: We’re already on the screen. But we don’t know if that will be the mainstream experience.

Kara: We had Steve Levitan from “Modern Family” talking about how the Web doesn’t help him, but that he and his team like Twitter.

Dick: Sure! “I was having a conversation with Conan O’Brien, as one does” and he was talking about the importance of Twitter to him, and how the 140 character limit is the right length for a joke. It’s definitely the case that network TV people like Twitter, because it gives them feedback, like they’re in the theater, watching how the shows play out.

Kara: Keep talking about celebrities! I love celebrities.

Dick: Sure! The folks that we’ve hired to work with talent and agencies, etc., we think of those people has high-value publishers. They have a huge following. A lot of people are on Twitter just to hear what those folks have to say.

The interesting thing about the top 200 to 300 tweeters–a lot of them are musicians, actors, etc. LeBron James, etc. I think Lady Gaga is number one. But! They’re not all celebrities. There’s CNN Breaking News. And the New York Times. And other brands like Gary Vaynerchuk, who aren’t really that known outside that world.

And Twitter is disaggregating some of those businesses. Like a third of all the players in the NFL playoffs are using Twitter actively. And many players have more followers than their teams. [Here Dick explains football to Kara.] That’s fascinating.

Kara: Let’s go back to phones. Whats the most important device? Tablet? PC? Phone?

Dick: Mobile is a more and more and more common use of Twitter–40 percent of all tweets created on mobile devices. That might seem low, but it was 25 percent a year ago. 50 percent of active users are also active on mobile.

But Twitter ought to work platform to platform. We want to be agnostic.

Kara: What about what’s coming out from Palm? Working with them?

Dick: Not yet.

Kara: What about games? Talking to those guys?

Dick: Yep. Like with Microsoft on their Xbox, you can see integrating tweets into people who have discussions on Xbox.

Dick: You lost interest in the answer to your question. [True!]

Kara: You’re so annoying.

[Some laughter. Not a lot, though!]

Dick: Anyway, the important thing for us is consistency across device to device to device.

Kara: Speaking of working consistently, how’s that going for Twitter?

Dick: Right. So, we raised a bunch of money. We’re hiring “tons of engineers and operations engineers” in the last year. We hired 100 people in Q4, out of about 350 total. And we’re working very hard on erasing our “technical debt.”

Kara: “That’s a great word for fuck-ups”

Dick: Anyway, we’ve got a guy assigned to this pretty much exclusively. And there used to be a tolerance for this, and now there isn’t. If someone fires a pistol next to your ear every hour, after a while you stop flinching when you hear it. It’s crucial that we do this, both for our users and our engineers, who shouldn’t have to get up at 3 am all the time.

Kara: Time for a vision question, which stumps Yahoo. What is Twitter? What is your vision?

Dick: “We want to instantly connect people everywhere to what’s most important to them.”

See, that’s a good statement. We’re not just a social network that’s connecting people. It’s connecting for a purpose.

So some people meet girlfriends on Twitter. And other people get tickets to shows they like on Twitter. Etc.

And you don’t have to tweet to get a lot of value out of it.

Kara: What’s the percentage of people who just read Twitter, and don’t tweet themselves?

Dick: Rising. And we have to make that easier to do. “We’re going to spend a lot of time making that consumption experience much better.”

Kara: What’s your business plan?

Dick: To continue to raise money!

[hohoho]

Dick: I’m going to steal Jeff Weiner’s line. We’re a technology company that’s in the media business. Our business model is an advertising model [cough, cough, that's familiar! You're welcome!] So we’re selling ads, and we’re letting people promote their accounts, etc. And we really don’t have to do anything else. Our engagement rates on these ads are ridiculously high. When we saw our stats this last spring when we launched, the numbers were so big we thought we were measuring it incorrectly.

Kara: Is that a big enough business to be a standalone company and/or IPO?

Dick: It’s enough to be a standalone company.

Kara: Sell or IPO?

Dick: We want to be a standalone company. It’s my sincere hope. We’ve accomplished 1 percent of what we want to do.

Kara: You like to sell companies, though.

Dick. Yes, I had two companies that I sold. But that doesn’t mean we’ll sell this one. I’ve had two kids too. But I shouldn’t get a reputation for having kids.

Kara: What’s up with people buying and selling secondary shares of Twitter. It’s an issue for Facebook. What about you?

Dick: We keep an eye on it, and talk to employees about it. But I just think that there are other people that are focusing on it and paying attention, and I’ll let them talk about it. But I just don’t think about that stuff on a day-to-day basis.

Questions and Answers

Q: [sorry missed it].

But answer seems to be about whether Twitter is a platform company or not. Dick quotes Ev Williams by saying they’re not a platform company–they’ve had an API. They want people to be able build off Twitter and build into Twitter. Which requires a more robust API.

Kara has more questions. How do you look at yourself as a leader?

Dick: As a very bald leader.

Kara: But you’re very different than Evan.

Dick: Right. Two components. Three founders at company: Ev, Jack, Biz. They all come at it from a different angle. Jack thinks about simplicity and elegance and the mobile experience. Ev thinks about the user. Biz is “the protector of the brand and the guardian of the culture.”

Kara: He’e the guy who goes on Colbert.

Dick: And he’s great at it. Anyway, those guys are great. My focus is on operational greatness. I try to emulate operators like Ben Horowitz (Opsware) and Susan Wojcicki (Google).

Q: What’s up with that internal page rank for each user? asks Ben Parr from Mashable.

Dick: Your’re not exactly right. We play around with stuff like that. But there’s nothing robust that we would think of productizing anytime soon, and we don’t use it for things like resonance, which we use in ads.

Q: [Sorry, couldnt quite understand.]

Dick is talking about WikiLeaks in general, says there was something specific about WikiLeaks today that he can’t talk about. In general, he hates government mandates to keep things quiet. And he hates that a woman in China was punished for retweeting something. He reiterates Twitter’s desire to connect people with useful information. “We’re going to lash out at things that prevent us from doing that, as aggressively as we can.” The proof is that we’re banned in China. “We’re not going to sacrifice what we’re trying to do to, you know, get into this country over here.”

Q: How will you work with brands in the future, vs. advertising?

Dick: Our promoted suite of stuff doesn’t simply let advertisers use a giant bullhorn. This stuff has to be organic. “It almost is like a quality-assurance program.”

[Some context for what Dick wouldn't talk about: Feds Subpoena Twitter Seeking Information on Ex-WikiLeaks Volunteer].

Dick is now talking about Twitter and international growth and language. Twitter is growing fast in the U.K. but not in Germany. Why is that? Because German has really, really long words. “There’s a bunch of stuff we want to do, and have to do” just to make things usable in those languages.

Last question, from Kara: What’s the most interesting thing you’ve seen at CES?

Dick won’t give a one-word answer. CES is a “quantum conference.” Some years are transformational, some are incremental. “This seems like it was an incremental year.”

And we’re done! Thanks all for your patience. We’ll have video up over the next few days, which should help fill in the gaps left by my lousy note-taking.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110107/live-twitter-ceo-dick-costolo-at-dces/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20110107/want-enterprise-growth-hp-think-services/ http://allthingsd.com/20110107/want-enterprise-growth-hp-think-services/#comments Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:46:46 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://newenterprise.allthingsd.com/?p=1497
Morgan Stanley analyst Kathryn Huberty published an interesting report about the potential for growth in Hewlett-Packard’s Enterprise business today, and how the company’s priorities may shift under new CEO Léo Apotheker. She makes a few provocative observations.

First is that HP’s Enterprise segment is by itself potentially worth more than the entire company’s current market value–which is slightly south of $99 billion as I write.

Second, she sees the potential for HP’s enterprise operation to add $16 billion in incremental revenue over the next few years.

Third, Huberty sees sales of HP PCs and servers to businesses as about as good as they’re going to get. She puts it a little more diplomatically than that, saying “exposure to server and PC sales opportunities is at or near optimal levels in most accounts.”

But it’s her next point that gets my attention. Huberty says that the combined revenue opportunity for HP in storage, networking, services and software amounts to triple that in servers and PCs. She further estimates that the average corporate customer spends about $160 million on IT hardware, software and services. Of that, HP captures about 12.5 percent, but stands a good chance of boosting that to as much as 25 percent, which would put it on par with IT services giant IBM.

Doing it would require a significant shift in how HP does business, she says. “We believe HP will need to evolve its enterprise selling strategy from hardware-led to more services-led. This requires a meaningful cultural shift that could take several years, and likely face several road bumps.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110107/want-enterprise-growth-hp-think-services/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/ http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/#comments Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:31:00 +0000 Ethan Smith and Geoffrey A. Fowler http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=34098 On the day Apple Inc. rolled out the Beatles’ catalog on its iTunes Store, Amazon.com Inc. fired back with a digital exclusive of its own: The latest album from rap-rocker Kid Rock–whose music still isn’t available on iTunes–for just $3.99.

Such steep discounts are a cornerstone of Amazon’s strategy to gain traction in a market in which iTunes remains the dominant player. At the same time, a debate has arisen among music labels about whether such discounts risk undermining the value of their products.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101217/amazon-cant-dent-itunes/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101209/help-wanted-twitter-seeks-product-direction/ http://allthingsd.com/20101209/help-wanted-twitter-seeks-product-direction/#comments Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:33:05 +0000 Liz Gannes http://networkeffect.allthingsd.com/?p=1041 At a conference in Paris yesterday, Twitter VP of Product Jason Goldman announced that he is stepping down from his role at the end of the year. Twitter said it is now “looking for someone to lead product management” to replace him.

Goldman offered the news in a conversation at LeWeb, saying he’d maintain an advisory role, that he’s not leaving to start something new, that he’s not going to Facebook or Google and that he just needs “a bit of a break.”

Twitter has no lack of product leaders, including co-founder and former CEO Evan Williams, who recently relinquished the top job to make room for former COO Dick Costolo. Goldman had been a close friend of Williams, having first joined him as business manager of blogging software maker Pyra Labs, before it was bought by Google in 2003. Goldman has led product at Twitter since 2007.

Following Goldman’s departure announcement, a company spokeswoman said that Williams “is going to continue in his co-founder role and help with product vision.” She said that it was not yet clear whether the new head of product management would be an internal or external hire.

But, no surprise, sources familiar with the situation said Williams will likely assume the top product role, as it’s the best-fitting landing place for him at the company. The Twitter service was originally created in 2006 by company co-founder and Chairman Jack Dorsey and others when Williams was CEO of a previous start-up called Odeo. Dorsey left his operating role at Twitter in 2008 when Williams replaced him as CEO.

As the company verges on raising funding that would value the company at $3.5 to $4 billion, the departure of Goldman seems to underscore an issue that has plagued Twitter for a long time: Product development.

Aside from its well-documented reliability problems, new products and major upgrades at Twitter are few and far between.

While it is clear the people who founded and now lead Twitter have been passionate and visionary about personal expression and information-sharing in its simplest form, many techies say they are given pause by Twitter’s deficit of innovation since its first and most powerful iteration.

They assert that Twitter’s product launches to date–retweets, lists, some apps and its #newtwitter Web interface–are minor complements to the simple messaging system. In a tech culture that values shiny new toys, multiple people have said to me that Twitter is the least innovative of any other Internet contemporary.

For example, Twitter still doesn’t offer image hosting or its own link shortener, and still has yet to fully incorporate the search service Summize, which it bought in 2008. Perhaps that’s out of concern for displacing and angering its developer corps of companies, like Bit.ly, but since 25 percent of Tweets contain links, it seems obvious that Twitter should help its users shorten them to help fit into its 140-character limit.

The company tried to set a firm road map last April at Chirp, its first developer conference (pictured at left, the dudes of Twitter held a jokey Q&A session at Chirp).

But since then, eagerly awaited products like “Annotations” (a way to add more information to Tweets) have been delayed as the company concentrated on dealing with World Cup traffic and the release of its new Web site. Twitter is hiring as fast as it can, with its ballooning employee count, now at 325, relatively small for a product now used by eight percent of American online adults.

Still, many laud the sleek new Twitter Web site–for which Goldman, Williams and product manager Kevin Cheng led development. It was rolled out to admirable acclaim and user satisfaction.

But Twitter has only a few weeks to shuffle things around before it launches into the new year with no formal leader of its product team.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101209/help-wanted-twitter-seeks-product-direction/feed/ 5 http://allthingsd.com/20101119/tumblr-falls-into-a-really-big-pile-of-money/ http://allthingsd.com/20101119/tumblr-falls-into-a-really-big-pile-of-money/#comments Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:39:40 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=26101 Tumblr, the super-hot blogging service, has finished up a very, very big funding round that’s going to put the company’s value well above $100 million.

Fortune.com’s Dan Primack reports that Sequoia is leading a round that will add “between $25 million and $30 million” in funding at a valuation “in the ballpark of $135 million.”

Someone familiar with the transaction tells me that Primack’s numbers are “not a bad guess.” And it’s possible the numbers will end up somewhere higher than his report. Another source tells me that the round will end up bringing in between $20 million and $30 million, at a pre-money valuation of $120 million. That would put Tumblr’s value at $140 million or more.

In any case, it’s a lot of money. And as wise Om Malik says, “Investors are never the story.” (Except when they are. And what’s really relevant here is that at these prices, the list of potential Tumblr acquirers gets much smaller: Google, sure. Facebook, perhaps. Yahoo, theoretically, etc.)

The real story for Tumblr remains the one we’ve asked every other time the company has raised money ($4.5 million in 2008; $5 million earlier this year): How’s it going to make money? Founder David Karp has offered several different ideas in the past, but as far as I can tell, none of them have really taken off (the fact that big publishers like Newsweek now maintain Tumblr sites, which are free to set up, does not constitute a business).

Best I can tell, the real appeal for Tumblr is its go-go growth, and the fact that it’s doing it on a very light footprint. But don’t take my word for it: Ask Spark Capital’s Bijan Sabet and Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, who have been the primary investors in the company to date and who both wrote glowingly about the company in recent days.

Presumably, the company’s pitch to investors went something like this: “Look at our hockey stick! Hockey sticks like this only come around a few times a lifetime–perhaps you’ve heard of Twitter?” That is: Buy now, and we’ll figure out money later.

And it looks like it worked.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101119/tumblr-falls-into-a-really-big-pile-of-money/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20101117/ballmer-says-microsoft-breakup-not-in-cards/ http://allthingsd.com/20101117/ballmer-says-microsoft-breakup-not-in-cards/#comments Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:00:36 +0000 Jeanette Borzo http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=32680 Microsoft Corp. weathered government pressure a decade ago to break up its business. Now the software giant faces similar questions from a new quarter: its stockholders.

At the company’s annual shareholder meeting Tuesday, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and Chairman Bill Gates sought to calm investors, some of whom asked if the maker of Windows operating systems and Xbox game consoles would be more valuable as individual companies.

“Is it time to consider breaking this company up?” one investor, grousing over Microsoft’s share price, asked Mr. Ballmer.
Mr. Ballmer, who has run Microsoft for the past 10 years, dismissed the idea, saying it would reduce Microsoft’s value by making it more difficult for the company to compete.

“I obviously don’t think it is time” for a break up, Mr. Ballmer responded, noting that many of Microsoft’s products, including Windows and the Office suite, are sold to consumers and corporations alike.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101117/ballmer-says-microsoft-breakup-not-in-cards/feed/ 0