Yelp Walks Away From Google Deal, And Half A Billion Dollars | Hacker News Reader

Yelp Walks Away From Google Deal, And Half A Billion Dollars

techcrunch.com

90 pointsvaksel55 comments

Yelp is not doing anything revolutionary. Before Yelp there was city search. Yelp came along and improved on what city search had done. Who is to say a better Yelp won't come along. I think they will regret walking away from this deal in the near future. For a very recent example look at Friendster. Although I hope I'm wrong.

Not to quibble but is what happened to Friendster really very recent? Feels like ages ago.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/10/malaysian-company-mo...

Friendster was bought this month for more money then should ever have been spent buying something nobody uses.

(Than)

Lots of people are still quite invested in Friendster. Facebook somehow used the college connection to one-up them in "cool." Then they expanded beyond college/high school.

Lesson: don't trust social networking websites.

I think you're on to something. Don't forget–Google Maps already shows local reviews and details gathered from Citysearch, Urbanspoon, Insider pages, Angie's List, etc. In large cities it seems to have a decent amount of reviews/content.

Google might already have a better yelp (or a just as good yelp).

Google is executing their business plan of trying to 100% own the web.

Recent aquisitions are positioned to own the underlying top 10 search results in every category they can get their hands on.

I'm glad that yelp, top of the list for many local searches, is holding out.

And yes, I know they've got a pile of cash and they should use it to improve margins in underlying biz, but still this just seems like a continued march to monopoly.

I very much doubt they want to own 100% of the web. Only the profitable bits that fit with their ongoing strategies. Yelp obviously ties into a lot of the good stuff they're doing, OTOH yelp is pretty unheard of outside the US afaik.

I like the quality of acquistions Google makes or tries to make. I guess their success rate is much better than others.

So the story here is ... Techcrunch published a story about an acquisition that turned out to have no basis in fact. TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip.

TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip.

TMZ isn't a good example. When it comes to breaking celebrity news, they actually exercise a great deal of journalistic integrity and restraint. They're very reliable and very well-sourced.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have supported my argument. TMZ _is_ a better source.

My comment was meant to be agnostic to the merits of your argument. While we're talking about it, though, I think that this particular situation (reporting the Google-Yelp acquisition talks) is actually a bad example as well.

TechCrunch reported that Google and Yelp were in talks for an acquisition. As far as I know, that is true and TechCrunch broke the story with original reporting.

Then TechCrunch reported that Yelp walked away and talks broke down. As far as I know, that is also true and again they broke the story with original reporting.

Remaining agnostic to your claim about TechCrunch, how does this situation support the argument that they are not reliable?

What I actually heard: TechCrunch Erlang TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang, TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang

How many other times have techcrunch reported "company x in late stages of being acquired by Google/Yahoo/Microsoft" followed by "Talks for company x being acquired break off?" I'd suggest quite a few. I realize that this can actually happen, but if it happens often enough then the story becomes non-news.

You need to understand that things change in deals. On Friday you could have reported GM was closing down Saab and it would have been accurate, but on Sunday it was GM had received more inquiries on Saab and a deal may still be made. Just because the news has changed does not mean that there was not a basis in fact for the initial story.

Where does it say that there is no basis in fact?

Are they crazy? They could have made an awful movie with that money!

That one made me laugh!

is anyone else tired of seeing all the techcrunch submissions pasted in hn?

this discussion has been had probably a year ago, but it seems like it's getting worse again.. seriously, why?

Why does it matter that it's from TC? What's important is the story. How is this the top comment? Does no one here give a shit about the actual story?

How old is Jeremy Stoppelman?

yelp may be onto something but i think they dont realize that goog can kill them by applying a "mapquest".

Sure, but it's also important to realize that Google Maps was a rare success in a string of mostly failed projects/acquisitions (Orkut, Knol, Picasa, Google Video, etc).. I'd argue that Google's biggest successes were in areas in which the previous leaders failed to innovate for years (Mapquest, Hotmail), whereas Yelp is a very active company in a constant state of improvement/innovation. If I were Yelp, I'd be more concerned about Google doing something which would cause it to lose placement in search results.

Yelp also seem to have some slightly questionable business practices. Google could win just by not being quite so evil as yelp.

Yelp is, from my observations, anything but active. They haven't innovated in terms of UI or features in probably two years. Even geographies have been slow to develop - UK took a long time to appear.

In fact, they're oddly static - the number of reviewed restaurants and stores has increased quite slowly for most cities, they haven't done a good job pushing into smaller markets.

Admittedly this is my anecdotal observation but i've been following yelp pretty closely since they launched and honestly up until the Google acquisition attempt, i was wondering if they were short on cash because they seem to spend so little energy on product/design/site and there seemed to be a bit of desperation in the whole 'yelpscam.com' accusations, which appear to be legitimate.

What about the IPhone virtual reality app? I've found that very useful and quite innovative.

that was me. thanks :)

Never know how this will play out. Would they Become another Google (who refused yahoo's offer and became better for it) Or Friendster (refusing googles offer but lost out to Myspace & facebook) . Only time will tell.

And I Do not understand this views of "Getting aquired is bad" for start up. I think it is up to the founders to decide what is good/bad for them.

If they have funding (presumably they do) then it isn't that simple for the founders I think.

Good for them! Getting acquired is not victory for a startup, building a sustainable business for the long term is.

I think, what a victory for a startup is really depends on what it's founders' think.. for some it may be acquisition

How long would it take for yelp to make half a bn in revenue. idk sounds like a pretty generous offer to me.

Why is it when Google enters the picture into anything many geeks turn into tinfoil hat homeless people?

"The googles! It's coming for your body!"

While I agree with the other comments, I'm going to call this a dick move of the week. I understand that google wasn't buying yelp just for the sake of owning yelp, but Jesus Christ, yelp is a terrible terrible website for reviews of anything(I can only vouch for the NYC yelp). It's a pretty widely regarded fact here that yelp reviews do not count for shit, thus making the website a joke. They should have taken the money and ran.

Edit: If you don't agree, feel free to browse the reviews of NYC restaurants for some great advice by hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed culinary experts and trendy hipsters who's idea of a good bar is one with big game hunter in the back and a 95% mustache rate.

What would you recommend in NYC instead of Yelp?

nymag.com is pretty good.

Seconded. NY Mag is far more in the know, and current.

Call me carazzzy, but word of mouth??

Word of mouth really only works if you live there, not so much if you're just passing through. And the time you really need a site like yelp is for all those times you're just passing through place and want to know who will do you a good pizza.

OK, I guess I misunderstood the use case. Seems like a niche to me.

That's my use case for yelp like sites anyway. When I'm at home I go out for dinner on avg. once or twice a week or so and go to a new restaurant probably less than 1 time in 10, so my need for restaurant reviews is quite low. I also have plenty of other local sources for good reviews when I need them

When I'm traveling I eat out basically every night and visit a new restaurant pretty close 100% of the time. On the whole I have much greater need for a site with reviews of restaurants in not my home town than in my home town, and that hardly seems niche to me.

Then try TimeOut?

I second nymag. Also, while not a replacement for yelp, Per Se, keeping up with ny.eater.com will ensure you know of all the interesting/amazing places to eat/go out.

Did you really have to be that angry and extremist in your comment? Seriously, that was painful to read.

I've used Yelp in NYC countless times. It's not that bad; you just have to filter through the reviews. It's like any social site.

Sounds way too meta to me. You have to review the reviews to actually find a useful review? If the site is being abused and the reviews need to be filtered than it's effective usefulness goes way down.

Fair enough, you're right. I was just blown away that yelp would pass up half a billion dollars.

You're thinking like a movie critic more than a business owner. The quality of the reviews counts for squat if the cash flows are positive. In the end, Google thinks it's a financially sound acquisition aligned with the company's vision. That is what matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com