早兩天，Yahoo!的Terry Semel由CEO退下成為獨立非執董，老套一點，是符合市場預期。由舊年底Garlinghouse爆出花生醬事件，將Yahoo!的官僚病抖出來，到 雅虎中國總裁謝文上任僅41天宣佈離職，由外至內已經有人說要撤換Terry Semel，到了現在才把他撤下來，是遲了點，不過，遲到好過無到。
如思哲般的老一輩互聯網人，定必做過Yahoo!的粉絲。到後來，Google不經不覺變成了生活的一部份，才忽然發現，原來已經很久沒用Yahoo!， 見到這個集體回憶由盛至衰，總叫人感到世事的無常。想當年，30還不到的Jerry Yang，舉手投足都可以被國際傳媒講上一天，這種風頭又怎會是今天的陳士駿可比擬？自從2000年網絡大爆破，Yahoo!也失了方寸，Jerry Yang頭上光環也漸漸褪色。Google的出現，令到Yahoo!瞬間變得土頭土腦，當然，後來的歷史也說明，Yahoo!的市值只有Google的四 分之一。
官僚成習難扭乾坤
Terry Semel也就是這個時代的Yahoo!舵手，當然，股東要問責，也自然問到他的頭上。在過去兩年，Yahoo!錯得最厲害的，竟然是走回頭路去做 Media，這個定位也幾乎成為行內的笑話，大家更加自不然將所有問題歸咎於那個出身華納的Terry Semel。不過，Jerry Yang是Chief Yahoo!又兼任CEO，也不一定可以扭轉乾坤。Chief Yahoo!在過去那麼多年，都沒有真正落手落腳去操作這間本來如日中天的未來企業，在丟下戰袍多年的他，可以帶領Yahoo!的技術發展去哪裏呢？而且 有創造能力的人才可遇不可求，像Yahoo!這種官僚成習的公司，容得下天馬行空嗎？看Jerry Yang的扑架，說Yahoo!的Vision是要speed, clarity and discipline，是典型的官僚心態。對不起，Terry跟Jerry，實在沒有大分別，而且他的新拍檔Sue Decker，又是傳統管數婆；由頭到尾，換Terry Semel似找個代罪羔羊多於有心改革。
2007年6月21日刊於《蘋果日報》
尹思哲 
I read your column too fast that i have viewed “Sue Decker" as “Sucker" 😛
貓貓不是一個電腦人, 只係一般用家。
覺得 Yahoo 同 Google 分別不大,可以請教 Yahoo 同 Google的優與劣嗎？ 一直看吹棒 Yahoo 眨 Google, 但又詳盡說明, 有偏幫之感
很多年前 hotmail 亦是很強, 但現在似乎剩下 MSN 為強項, 又對?
所以其實不明為何要如此,
貓貓
看了篇文數次也看出 “一直看吹棒 Yahoo 眨 Google", 妳是如何看到此論點的? 試 “詳盡說明" 啊!
論資排輩，小弟多做十年CD-ROM也未必夠彈藥在此blog回一兩句廢話…不過說到用家端的網絡搜尋技術，實在完全不明某些所以然…
小弟想…真正會切切實實地使用網絡搜尋技術的用家(不要以為搜尋很容易用,中學教師朋友告訴我很多讀LS的學生也不不懂得如何用search的)，即使電腦技術多遜(如小弟十分多之朋友)，也會察覺Google如何比Yahoo強吧…. =.=’
外加少少拙見：
hotmail強在搶得先機…(後來越做越差…)現在剩下的hotmail十之八九只是用來MSN的…
MSN…很強嗎？…可圈可點…部份功能的確比其他IM更切合用家需要，但仍然秉承了大量MS的缺點…大食夾窒機…要不然哪來這麼多比本身程式更大更豪華的各類modifications/plug-ins/add-ons？…
「Google不經不覺變成了生活的一部份，才忽然發現，原來已經很久沒用!」
「Google的出現，令到Yahoo!瞬間變得土頭土腦」
從以上兩句, 貓貓覺得筆者因為Yahoo追不上Google, 而轉用。
但追不上甚麼呢? 冇具體說明… 只係狂插管理層…
以外人如貓貓, 好難理解, Google 好在哪? yahoo 又差在哪? 主因何在? 同管理層有何直接關係？
正如 wii 同 PS3, 人人都知誰勝誰負。 這雖與管理層有關, 但是否主因？
作為一份報紙的文章, 應要有充足、合理解釋個人意見。 並不是單單說出數個管理層的人名便可。
Lady Cat,
Quoting from the article:
「在過去兩年，Yahoo!錯得最厲害的，竟然是走回頭路去做 Media，這個定位也幾乎成為行內的笑話，大家更加自不然將所有問題歸咎於那個出身華納的Terry Semel。」
Also:
「Chief Yahoo!在過去那麼多年，都沒有真正落手落腳去操作這間本來如日中天的未來企業，在丟下戰袍多年的他，可以帶領Yahoo!的技術發展去哪裏呢？」
Of course, we can write a very long thesis on this – but this is a newspaper column.
We hope you can understand the very constraints as columnists we have.
By the way, if my recollection is correct, we have wrote a piece about the incident when Yahoo! rejected the proposal from the Google team years ago.
As a technology company, Yahoo! didn’t really have any edge except its legacy as the first mover.
Moral of the story is: the so-called first mover advantage can help you for a few years – but technology evolves so rapidly that after a few years, you are again one click away from losing customers.
Of course, such time span goes progressively shorter and shorter.
Thank you for your explanation.
At the first comment, I had told to anyone I’m a layperson. I don’t clean understand what differentiation between google and yahoo because the article didn’t prove full and clean information about the google and yahoo. Just has some short sentences about the crap management. (what did he do? It seems just a few thing.)
Probably, you had written a lot of articles about google and yahoo before but you didn’t mention that.
I’m expect your article more than the other because this article came from newspaper not the private blog. Please understand.
Anyway, I get the conclusion about google and yahoo. The problem of yahoo is weak of the business prediction.
Why did yahoo miss this point? I guess, yahoo management thought yahoo are natural monopoly. Do you agree?
Lady Cat,
Forgive me should I appear to be rude: we never intend to prove anything nor we are obliged to provide full information on everything we write in our newspaper column.
I wonder where you come up with that interesting idea that newspaper columns always have to provide every minute details of any issues.
If you are really interested about what Terry Semel did, I suggest you go to wikipedia and find out. We did not go over those one-by-one because we dare not to copy direct from public information. To us, that is irresponsible to both our readers and our company.
Everyone is free to set his own positioning – and ours are for people who care about the new economy. We also assume many of them have a basic understanding on the whereabout of the who’s who.
It is a fair deal in a free market. If one find it unreasonable to assume readers have the literacy to understand the content, there are always other columns, or even newspaper for one to choose.
Please remeber, no one forces you to pay for the newspaper. It is everyone’s own choice.
Certainly, ultimately we are accountable to those who read our columns. If one day no one bother read it, management of the newspaper will always know the best way is to end this unhappy endeavor.
As far as I understand many media, especially business and financial ones, assume their audience have basic understanding of the tools of the trade. So they do not have to explain why high P/E might imply an overvaluation or why high turnover matters etc. Otherwise, everyday we will have a Wall Street Journal of the size an encycopedia.
By the way, if you really want to know our opinion on the issue, it is:
「Terry 跟 Jerry，實在沒有大分別，而且他的新拍檔Sue Decker，又是傳統管數婆；由頭到尾，換Terry Semel似找個代罪羔羊多於有心改革。」