<p>
[QUOTE]
Well, I don't know that your statement is entirely meaningful. The truth is, most of today's jobs of ANY kind will eventually either go overseas or (even more likely) disappear entirely.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>The previous poster had said that the Bay Area was the site of the "New Economy". I replied that even as he typed these words, it was being relocated to India. </p>
<p>And for someone that stated there were "new jobs" being created here in the Valley, you certainly seem to be agreeing with my fundamental point. </p>
<p>As for the founders being billionaires.....maybe. It's hard to discredit those sites, but it's also hard for me to discredit what I've heard from actual employees of the company. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Nobody is saying that Semel hasn't done anything.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, you implied this in stating that the company's market cap is no larger now than when Semel joined Yahoo!</p>
<p>You were pretty unilaterally in favor of Yang and Filo being the two hotshots that got everything sky-high, while Semel was the bureacrat who simply kept the company at its present level.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In contrast, at least the team of Filo, Yang, and Semel (and yes, they are a team) built a company that has never reported a loss.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>To your credit, probably the first completely ridiculous thing you've said in this thread. (I've probably had a couple myself)</p>
<p>Filo, Yang, and Semel were NEVER a team. Once Semel took charge, Filo and Yang were effectively out of the company's top executives. </p>
<p>As for reporting a loss, Yahoo! was definitely losing money prior to the start of their search engine. </p>
<p>Then, for a while, the search engine was the only profitable component of the site. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
But you are missing the point that there had to be a company for Semel to take over. Keep in mind that plenty of dotcoms did absolutely nothing and completely flamed out. Why didn't Semel go to one of those dotcoms and not Yahoo? It's because even when Yahoo was falling, Yahoo was still one of the top dotcoms around.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>What's your point? Yahoo was a large dotcom, but was fundamentally no different than any other one. </p>
<p>It was under Semel that it developed its vastly profitable search engine, bought Abu Dhabi, and became the highest trafficked website in the world by far. </p>
<p>Of course the Stanford founders did a lot. But Yahoo! today and Yahoo! when they left its main exec offices are two completely different entities.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Come on, man, did you bother to read any of the links I posted? Heck, you can find your own, and you will see that there was clearly a period when Stanford was instrumental in the development of Silicon Valley as we know it. Fred Terman in particular was highly influential in the creation of the Silicon Valley business model. To dismiss that would be an insult to him and his memory.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Silicon Valley business model?? What the hell? I spit out the Gatorade I was drinking when I read that. That's ridiculous statement #2. If you know the business model here, and what professor in his ivory tower successfully implemented it across the globe, you're obviously more enlightened than virtually all the CEOs here.</p>
<p>Overall though, there have certainly been Stanford grad students/ undergrads that have done a lot of important things in industry. The same could be said of any school with a good math/science/technical department. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the instruction at Stanford itself had nothing to do with it. It had to do with a small percentage of its students that had the necessary intellect, work ethic, and ingenuity to make it all possible.</p>