What does that even mean?
[0] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-To-Great-Jim-Collins/dp/0712676...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions/dp/...
Some of the companies listed went from good to great to below average to completely gone.
http://freakonomics.com/2008/07/28/from-good-to-great-to-bel...
As the author points out in the above link
"The future is always hard to predict, and understanding the past is valuable; on the other hand, the implicit message of these business books is that the principles that these companies use not only have made them good in the past, but position them for continued success."
Another example that comes to mind is Ron Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson_(businessman)
He did great at Target and then at Apple but almost brought down JC Pennny
So, Jobs was an outlier. But the eulogizing is starting to get out of hand.
I can think of a few faster turnarounds: Lee Iacocca at Chrysler or Gerstner at IBM. Howard Schulz is another example of a founder returning to the company to turn it around.
Some of these have done a better job than others of lasting through the turnaround CEO (and others it's too soon to tell).
Apple didn't takeoff until the iPod was available for Windows, and then they went into the stratosphere with the iPhone.
I use Yahoo Finance frequently, and they've put some lipstick on that pig, but it essentially hasn't changed since about 2002.
If Yahoo is doing anything useful in terms of development, they're doing a lousy job showing it off.
For example, they just recently implemented the idea of an email not automatically downloading images and having a button to load them on demand. Seems odd to ignore such an important feature for so long.
She bought Tumblr.
Will she release some hardware?
Seriously though, what do Yahoo actually do? The mail has gone the way of 'compuserve' in that you don't very often get to see a yahoo address in an email these days. Search was something they just gave up on, then there portal style homepage, does anyone actually go there?
They should have stuck with search, it was something that they were reasonably good at, but, having dropped that it is now not an easy game to get back in to.
Perhaps they should just give up on being a branded entity and become a faceless holding company.
Of course this list is biased - demographics matters a lot in this case. But that's also what tends to blind tech people about Gmail - Gmail for many years was massively overrepresented in the tech world. Yahoo still tends to be in the top 3 most places, and there are plenty of countries where they place well ahead of Gmail.
The Google homepage, in contrast, is just an empty abyss they can't get anything from. Here in the States we seem to value minimalism, which might be one of the reasons people go to Google (aside from it being a great search engine).
What part of America do you live in?
This is completely wrong. Most of it is just history. Gmail doesnt value-add anything to people who are content with folders for their email. In fact the labels, conversations etc confuses them. Yahoo mail in other words has less clutter, not more. (And I'm not talking of the look of the page here, but the actual email functionality).
That being said, the factors that lead to which service a person chooses for email are probably much more complex than just this.
To start with, Yahoo has >10% of the US search market[1] – down YoY, but nothing to sneeze at. Their sites also see more unique visitors from the desktop than anybody else – >195m in December[2], and that's the sixth month is a row. There are still loads of email users; finance, sport, shopping, everything that legacy portal sites typically had.
Furthermore, Yahoo was never really a good search engine. It was basically a curated directory until it started using Google's search in 2000 or whenever. I think it used it's own crawler for a while, but it's been powered by Bing since 2010 or so.
I'm aware that I live in a bit of a tech bubble — I don't use Yahoo properties, but there are loads of people out there who use the web in a totally different way. Yahoo's got a lot of obvious issues to deal with, but they've also got lots of money and talent; I don't see any reason that they won't succeed with a bit of restructuring and some strong management.
[1] http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2014/4/comSc...
[2] http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/yahoo-tops-the-most-trafficked-w...
Wouldn't say any of us have a huge monthly spend or anything but I think Yahoo have eyeballs certainly.