<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SOME of the high-tech economy is being relocated to India. However, nobody is seriously talking about relocating the entire business/VC/law/entrepreneurship infrastructure that is an inherent part of the New Economy to India. Will that happen eventually? Yeah, maybe, just like all economies must eventually run their course. But not anytime soon. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do NOT agree with your fundamental point, if that point is that the Bay Area is somehow dying or losing prominence. I agree that certain coding and functionality jobs are moving elsewhere. But they are being replaced with other jobs that are arguably just as 'New Economy' as the ones that are leaving, if not more so. For example, I would say that a person who is hired at a VC to be an associate is at least as much a part of the new economy as a computer programmer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's pretty clear where the facts lay. Sounds to me like we have some disgruntled employees. However, again, surely you are not accusing anybody of securities fraud. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I am afraid that you are the one that seemed to be unilateral in stating that Yang and Filo had done nothing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said that the company never REPORTED a loss, which inherently means that the company has never lost money as a public company. Only public companies have to report losses.</p>
<p>Now, did the company lose money in the very beginning? Of course. But that's true of all companies. Every company loses money when it starts out. The key is whether you can avoid losing money once you become a public company with public shareholders. There are PLENTY of public companies that have lost billions of dollars. GM? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Finally, we can agree on something. So you agree that the 2 Stanford founders made important contributions.</p>
<p>And Yahoo was fundamentally no different from the other dotcoms? Oh really? I believe something like 90% of all dotcoms went bankrupt. Yahoo didn't. So clearly Yahoo clearly was different than all of those dotcoms. And in particular, Yahoo is widely seen as a huge cut above most of the existing dotcoms. Let's face it, most dotcoms could only dream of getting the kind of profit and usage that Yahoo gets. So how can you say that Yahoo is fundamentally no different from all the other dotcoms? If that was true, than none of them would have gone bankrupt and all of them would be just as big and profitable as Yahoo is. The fact that those dotcoms want to be like Yahoo and not the other way around is a testament that Yahoo is in fact fundamentally different. </p>
<p>Finally, it was NOT under Semel that Yahoo developed its profitable search engine. The search engine was profitable ever since Yahoo IPO'd, and almost certainly for a few years before that. Go look back at the history, search through all articles of the Wall Street Journal or Businessweek, and you will see that Yahoo had a fantastically profitable search engine in the year 2000 - in fact, probably the most profitable single year for its search engine (as opposed to the adjunct businesses) - a full year before Yahoo hired Semel. </p>
<p>I agree that Yahoo of yesteryear and Yahoo of today are different entities. But so what? Let's give credit to the Stanford founders for creating a dotcom that survived to become a different entity. Most of the other dotcoms did not survive long enough to be able to adapt. After all, ask yourself, why did Semel join Yahoo. Why didn't Semel join Infoseek/Go.com or Pop.com (the Internet movie site supported by Steven Spielberg) or one of those other dotcoms? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When Silicon Valley CEO's push the concept of a Silicon Valley business model, I tend to think that they know what they're talking about. Furthermore, there has been a TREMENDOUS amount of press about the Silicon Valley business model. Ask yourself why is it that so many Venture Capitalists talk about the Silicon Valley lifestyle and strongly credit Stanford with being integral to that lifestyle, if it doesn't exist? Are you saying these VC's don't know what they are talking about? </p>
<p>However, nobody is saying that the Stanford 'instruction' has anything to do with it. It's far more of a cultural mindset and fit. I simply find it no coincidence that Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford, and not, say around Berkeley or Caltech, or even MIT. Why do you simply want to dismiss the idea out of hand? Why not read the links, read the books, read the interviews with Silicon VAlley VC's and entrepeneurs and then draw your own conclusion? If you conclude after all that, that it's still all bunk, then come back here and explain why it's all bunk. But doing so before you even bother to do the reading, come on man.</p>