Why Yahoo Couldn’t Adapt to the Smartphone Era(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why Yahoo Couldn’t Adapt to the Smartphone Era
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-yahoo-couldnt-adapt-to-the-iphone-era
62 comments
I have to agree that Yahoo trying to force everyone into a single login for every application killed opportunities to innovate. Every time I go back to Flickr it just looks so ossified that it can't move or progress at all. And that's sad because I have friends of mine on Second Life that still use Flickr (SL clients have Flickr integration for screen shots) and they're very good at playing with SL to make fantastic shots.
Ultimately, Yahoo is a company from another time that's long gone. Perhaps it's time for it to be laid to rest for all involved. Just a thought.
Ultimately, Yahoo is a company from another time that's long gone. Perhaps it's time for it to be laid to rest for all involved. Just a thought.
What social mobile apps don't require you to login? Twitter does, Facebook does, Google+ does, I can't name a single one that doesn't.
I think the point is that you should be allowed to browse without a login. Then, when you want to use any of the social features, you will be asked to create an account.
I've looked at photos on Flickr without having an account on the web, why not with a mobile app too?
I've looked at photos on Flickr without having an account on the web, why not with a mobile app too?
Exactly. Flickr and Tumblr are both primarily about the content - there's no need to force users to login before they can explore.
Also Facebook, Twitter et. al are the wrong examples to be looking at - brands already so strong people will jump through hoops to use them.
If you're Yahoo! - coming from behind - your brand and even the brands of Flickr and Tumblr aren't strong enough to to require users login before they get to try anything. In the case of Tumblr you might get the _existing_ userbase from the web to come with you but you won't succeed in growing that audience on mobile.
Examples that do use gradual engagement would be games. Clash of the Clans for example - a huge success on mobile - let's you immediately start playing without any form of identification. Many mobile games have strong social elements but they focus first on getting you engaged before requiring anything.
Also Facebook, Twitter et. al are the wrong examples to be looking at - brands already so strong people will jump through hoops to use them.
If you're Yahoo! - coming from behind - your brand and even the brands of Flickr and Tumblr aren't strong enough to to require users login before they get to try anything. In the case of Tumblr you might get the _existing_ userbase from the web to come with you but you won't succeed in growing that audience on mobile.
Examples that do use gradual engagement would be games. Clash of the Clans for example - a huge success on mobile - let's you immediately start playing without any form of identification. Many mobile games have strong social elements but they focus first on getting you engaged before requiring anything.
That's fine, but the claim that "The reason why Yahoo! has failed so far with their mobile apps is very simple - they try to force users to login" doesn't hold up when the most popular app in the world forces uses to log in.
> the claim [...] doesn't hold up when the most popular app in the world forces uses to log in.
Strongly disagree. Facebook (which I assume is what you mean by "the most popular app") was and still is _the_ social network. It's success on mobile has been driven by massive network effects. As such they can force users to jump through hoops which are in Facebook's favour because users want in so badly. That said Facebook doesn't get a free pass on device permissions, which is why they use gradual engagement in Messenger like this: http://installclub.tumblr.com/post/82319976281/double-opt-in...
But if you want to attack the leader, or simply grow your mobile user base, you don't get the same luxury or network effects Facebook has. Yahoo! doesn't have anything users want _so_ bad that they'll jump through hoops to get it.
But anyway - another a great example of an app "doing it right" is Airbnb - they let you browse properties without logging in - see http://firsttimeux.tumblr.com/post/83588089909/airbnb-ios-ap... for details - this gives people a chance to see what they're getting before going through the pain of signup. This is the model Yahoo! should follow as their apps, like Airbnb, are primarily about the content not the social element
Strongly disagree. Facebook (which I assume is what you mean by "the most popular app") was and still is _the_ social network. It's success on mobile has been driven by massive network effects. As such they can force users to jump through hoops which are in Facebook's favour because users want in so badly. That said Facebook doesn't get a free pass on device permissions, which is why they use gradual engagement in Messenger like this: http://installclub.tumblr.com/post/82319976281/double-opt-in...
But if you want to attack the leader, or simply grow your mobile user base, you don't get the same luxury or network effects Facebook has. Yahoo! doesn't have anything users want _so_ bad that they'll jump through hoops to get it.
But anyway - another a great example of an app "doing it right" is Airbnb - they let you browse properties without logging in - see http://firsttimeux.tumblr.com/post/83588089909/airbnb-ios-ap... for details - this gives people a chance to see what they're getting before going through the pain of signup. This is the model Yahoo! should follow as their apps, like Airbnb, are primarily about the content not the social element
Whatsapp doesn't. I'd say this was huge at driving its adoption.
Tying the username to the phone number was brilliant, and I don't know why others hadn't succeeded before with that approach, or why don't others copy it.
It is quite annoying when you want to switch phone numbers though (not a common use case, but at least in my country if you want to switch providers you have to switch phone numbers).
It is quite annoying when you want to switch phone numbers though (not a common use case, but at least in my country if you want to switch providers you have to switch phone numbers).
What's probably slowed adoption of that approach is too much "web thinking" in the app design process and too much "But what does Google / Facebook / Twitter do?"
In fact Twitter provides SMS based signup as a free service for app developers as part of Fabric - https://get.digits.com/
In fact Twitter provides SMS based signup as a free service for app developers as part of Fabric - https://get.digits.com/
From what I recall, however Whatsapp won't let me dip my toe in the water on IOS without full access to all my Contacts. It got uninstalled pretty quick.
Yeah, an option to selectively add contacts would have been great but logically that would require an OS provided contact picker. Does either iOS or Android provide such a beast with an appropriate API? If not, you can't exactly blame Whatsapp for wanting a nice experience for users.
[deleted]
It's ironic, considering that Luke Wroblewski used to work for Yahoo! (Chief Design Architect (VP)) from 2007 to 2010.
Not a big fan of the products he's in charge of now (Blogger especially), but maybe they're pushing a redesign :)
Not a big fan of the products he's in charge of now (Blogger especially), but maybe they're pushing a redesign :)
I think the fundamental issue is culture. They were always organized like a media company, not a tech company. Marissa tried few different tricks like new logo, better UX, yahoo weather app, hired news show hosts, but none of them worked. In the end, they ran out of time proving you can't acquire your way or pivot your way to success.
Why Microsoft Couldn't Adapt Internet/Smartphone Era?
Yahoo had brilliant mobile talent 2004-2008 - smart engineering and product talent that I remember meeting and they knew what was going on. But Yahoo management from 2007-2011 was terrible - ad execs overpaid with little clue about the tech world or what was happening outside their high castle. The second problem from which Yahoo never recovered was going HTML5. FB went HTML5 and the mobile product was a disaster. But FB quickly recognised that and went native - Yahoo took too long to fix issues like that. And the article is of course spot on about Tumblr - when they needed messaging they bought a blog platform.
Could you point me to some material about the problems Yahoo and FB had with HTML5 on mobile? I'm currently in this space and would rather avoid this fate!
>its engineers were using HTML5, a programming language that ...
In context that seemed a reasonable attempt to get the point across to a lay audience.
You can't expect a mass audience to understand what a "markup" language is.
HTML + CSS is Turing complete
Magic the Gathering is Turing complete. That doesn't mean you should refer to it as a programming language.
Or pivot from exchanging Magic the Gathering Cards online into banking Bitcoins online.
Any link on how Magic the Gathering is Turing complete? The only thing I could find is how to represent a Turing machine with Magic cards.
That's not a valid game state. It's like saying chess is Touring complete when played on an infinite board.
By this argument, x84_64 assembly isn't Turing complete because it needs finite memory...
Which is technically correct, just not very useful.
Which is technically correct, just not very useful.
My Philosophy of Computer Science professor argued that you could prove anything was Turing complete, by suitably "gerrymandering the inputs" of your definition.
What that actually means, I'm not sure. I know how gerrymandered congress is, and they couldn't possibly get enough work done to be Turing complete.
What that actually means, I'm not sure. I know how gerrymandered congress is, and they couldn't possibly get enough work done to be Turing complete.
That's what I've ment, it's not 'Magic the Game' but inventing rules [1] for magic card handling that represents a Turing machine.
[1] "A Rotlung Reanimator makes a messenger token for Alex."
[1] "A Rotlung Reanimator makes a messenger token for Alex."
Sure you do not need to refer to it as a programming language. But:
1) Doing so is not technically wrong
2) For a certain (non-technical) audience, "programming language" is something that "tells the computer to do things"
So, it is both correct and a helpful description for the target audience.
Nitpicking is out of order here.
1) Doing so is not technically wrong
2) For a certain (non-technical) audience, "programming language" is something that "tells the computer to do things"
So, it is both correct and a helpful description for the target audience.
Nitpicking is out of order here.
That depends, the user still has to click the mouse to make it do stuff.
It's interesting how fast the narrative shifted, about one year ago i was reading a long in depth article here on HN on how Marissa Mayer was out to transform Yahoo into a company fit for 2015 and how she was succeeding. Fast forward 1 year later and the articles are mainly about how Yahoo is failing.
What does this tell me? I don't know really, is it hard to transform a company like Yahoo? Probably. Is the media surrounding tech and startup culture way to fast to draw conclusions, for sure.
What does this tell me? I don't know really, is it hard to transform a company like Yahoo? Probably. Is the media surrounding tech and startup culture way to fast to draw conclusions, for sure.
If I remember correctly, a lot of comments on those articles were claiming that those changes wouldn't fix the sinking ship and that it seemed like they were flailing actions with no thought really put into it.
Actually you are right. I remeber this also, people seem to have catched on. Although my question is probably more aimed against the media endlessly throwing articles of this cycle out.
I don't remember too many articles saying she was succeeding. I do remember a handful that said something along the lines of "She has a really tough job ahead of her," along with "Nobody knows what Yahoo does any more," and "Even people at Yahoo don't know what Yahoo does."
I do remember articles congratulating her for ending telecommuting, but I think that was more a symptom of management failure than anything else.
I do remember articles congratulating her for ending telecommuting, but I think that was more a symptom of management failure than anything else.
Well it is 2016 now and boards get fickle.
It honestly means that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Every time somebody comes up with a "rule" or a pithy slogan, somebody else comes along and falsifies it.
It's more likely to tell you that journalism is a dead art.
I think Mayer has done a fantastic job in improving the reputation of yahoo. I still have a yahoo mail (that I give when I am affraid of spam). Since she is CEO, the experience has improved a lot. The yahoo news are not too bad, ...
Transforming reputation in good money takes a lot of time. IMHO, the investors should give trust and time to Mayer before expected results. If they fire Mayer, yahoo will be dead and they will lose everything. For me, the main handicap of yahoo is their cupid investors.
Transforming reputation in good money takes a lot of time. IMHO, the investors should give trust and time to Mayer before expected results. If they fire Mayer, yahoo will be dead and they will lose everything. For me, the main handicap of yahoo is their cupid investors.
>If they fire Mayer, yahoo will be dead and they will lose everything.
Rather the opposite. If the keep her Yahoo will be dead. While existing problems were legion when she arrived, she hasn't made much progress. Yahoo needs a CEO who is willing to lay out a vision for the brand and ruthlessly pursue it. Anything else will just prolong its slow slide beneath the waves.
Rather the opposite. If the keep her Yahoo will be dead. While existing problems were legion when she arrived, she hasn't made much progress. Yahoo needs a CEO who is willing to lay out a vision for the brand and ruthlessly pursue it. Anything else will just prolong its slow slide beneath the waves.
I wouldn't say that Yahoo's reputation has improved over the last few years... In my mind, they have gone from a completely forgotten also-ran of an earlier era of the internet, to an example of Keystone Cops-level bumbling.
I'm a paying customer of Yahoo, and I'm honestly stressing whether or not I'm going to be SOL. They've changed their store/web merchant stuff, and I don't know if they off-loaded it or not (they call it a re-brand). But I had to make a new login.
And for the love of God it's been 6 years and I still can't put a link to "Small business" on my "personal" page's sidebar. I mean, what the fuck? I have to have a personal bookmark, and now the link has changed to something I'll never remember if I'm at a computer other than this one.
Ugh. Yes, I am losing confidence.
And for the love of God it's been 6 years and I still can't put a link to "Small business" on my "personal" page's sidebar. I mean, what the fuck? I have to have a personal bookmark, and now the link has changed to something I'll never remember if I'm at a computer other than this one.
Ugh. Yes, I am losing confidence.
If they fire Mayer, Yahoo will probably be sold and they'll get something back before the value tanks.
Mayer doesn't need more time. She's a competent middle manager and an excellent researcher promoted beyond the scope of her talents, and she made the classic mistake of misunderstanding the difference between a popular platform and a range of products that users really want.
Now she's out of time and out of ideas.
Mayer doesn't need more time. She's a competent middle manager and an excellent researcher promoted beyond the scope of her talents, and she made the classic mistake of misunderstanding the difference between a popular platform and a range of products that users really want.
Now she's out of time and out of ideas.
Another view is that Yahoo! began facing stiff competition from a few of the greatest minds in the world before she was brought on and playing catchup is nearly impossible unless missteps are made by those in the market lead.
It's possible that the situation at Yahoo has been too tough to remedy for years and no matter how competent she was she couldn't turn it around.
It's possible that the situation at Yahoo has been too tough to remedy for years and no matter how competent she was she couldn't turn it around.
"If they fire Mayer, yahoo will be dead"
I assure you grandma trying to look at pix of her grandkids on flickr could not possibly care less about the hiring and firing of the parent companies CEO. On the other hand nothing excites CNBC-watching investors than hiring and firing CEOs.
A long term guaranteed tank to oblivion is to amuse the investors without providing any value to back it up. They tried that, it hasn't worked. Time to switch and try to generate long term value by focusing on the users instead of the CNBC viewers. Its their only long term hope. Any other strategy is just trying to extract the most cash on the way down. Which may be their only possible choice if they have no way to generate long term value.
Something HN stereotypically has little experience with is mega-corporations. A UX designer's bosses bosses bosses bosses (repeat many times) bosses boss has no impact on their job performance. At a high level they have no control over low level operations in practice. If at low level yahoo is improving thats nice but has nothing to do with the CEO. At the high level they can buy, sell, start, shut down divisions or major projects.
I assure you grandma trying to look at pix of her grandkids on flickr could not possibly care less about the hiring and firing of the parent companies CEO. On the other hand nothing excites CNBC-watching investors than hiring and firing CEOs.
A long term guaranteed tank to oblivion is to amuse the investors without providing any value to back it up. They tried that, it hasn't worked. Time to switch and try to generate long term value by focusing on the users instead of the CNBC viewers. Its their only long term hope. Any other strategy is just trying to extract the most cash on the way down. Which may be their only possible choice if they have no way to generate long term value.
Something HN stereotypically has little experience with is mega-corporations. A UX designer's bosses bosses bosses bosses (repeat many times) bosses boss has no impact on their job performance. At a high level they have no control over low level operations in practice. If at low level yahoo is improving thats nice but has nothing to do with the CEO. At the high level they can buy, sell, start, shut down divisions or major projects.
The problem with Yahoo in my opinion is that is the tail being wagged by the dog (baba), and that Marissa Mayer's hobby is to set cash on fire. Once BABA is separated, and Mayer is 'remixed, a creative CEO may very well be able to turn it around.In my opinion the business is ripe to follow a Berkshire model of using cash flow from the dying business (search engine) to buy a few free cash generating, growing businesses.
The Berkshire model works because investors admire Buffett and are willing to pay to benefit from his judgment. Why should shareholders want to let Yahoo invest their money, instead of giving it back so they can do so themselves? Does Yahoo have a track record of M&A success beyond Alibaba?
Exactly. Plus buffett came with a hugely successful track record from his partnership days and bought Berkshire outright. What the hell has anyone on Yahoo's current board or Marissa done in terms of earning a return on capital?
In my opinion, they need to focus. Cut a bunch of stuff, find a niche they can dominate, and rebuild. Either be a bad-ass server platform, amazing social app, or perhaps apply themselves towards a select group of people (aging seniors or something)-- whatever they think they can do-- but focus. It will be painful. But it's their best path forward I think.
Makes sense, but the problem is, those niches described are filled by entrenched competitors, or don't really justify the market cap. I feel the best for the company is juicing rev, earnings, and FCF, and they can't do that by trying to get a foothold in saturated markets as the cost is too huge or ramp up time too long.
I am also not proposing they take a VC approach like they have where they pay huge multiples hoping to somehow have the success at selecting winners like yc. I am proposing they buy companies that are generating growing free cash flow at sub 25x levels.
I am also not proposing they take a VC approach like they have where they pay huge multiples hoping to somehow have the success at selecting winners like yc. I am proposing they buy companies that are generating growing free cash flow at sub 25x levels.
My niches were not meant to be a knowledgeable insight, just examples. And you have a good point about buying cash-generating companies (companies that are winning the niche battles). But they really need to focus- and only buy companies that are in that focus. If they are a media company then they are competing with Condé Nast, Youtube, and bloggers everywhere. But if they are, for example, an educational media company, then the scope is clearer and they can muster some leverage.
I really want to know why Yahoo did not turn Flickr into the premier website for social media pictures? I think that will tell the whole Yahoo / Smartphone Era story.
This article details some of the issues we encountered with Yahoo. http://gizmodo.com/5910223/how-yahoo-killed-flickr-and-lost-...
I would add though, that Flickr Mobile (which I worked on a little) was considered one of the best mobile websites ever made. However, because a certain executive had managed to get control of all of Yahoo's mobile experiences, we weren't allowed to innovate with mobile too much.
When a native Flickr app was finally released, I was no longer at Flickr. But I heard that it had been developed by a different team at Yahoo, and was a complete surprise to Flickr upon launch. The new app hit the "random" API so hard for their login screen, to the Flickr staff, it looked like a DDOS.
But I think we all missed on the opportunity mobile offered because we were trying to shrink Flickr into a mobile site. Flickr was designed for serendipity and rich experiences. If you were a creative person, looking to participate in a planetary social-cultural conversation, it was incredible.
Meanwhile, Facebook made photos into an accessory for the average person's social life. For creative people and dabblers, Instagram offered the best mobile experience; it worked with the constraints of the platform and even turned those into features.
Something of this dichotomy is still playing out with Twitter and Facebook taking opposite poles. Although it looks like Twitter has finally given up and decided that it's a Kardashian photo delivery system or something.
I would add though, that Flickr Mobile (which I worked on a little) was considered one of the best mobile websites ever made. However, because a certain executive had managed to get control of all of Yahoo's mobile experiences, we weren't allowed to innovate with mobile too much.
When a native Flickr app was finally released, I was no longer at Flickr. But I heard that it had been developed by a different team at Yahoo, and was a complete surprise to Flickr upon launch. The new app hit the "random" API so hard for their login screen, to the Flickr staff, it looked like a DDOS.
But I think we all missed on the opportunity mobile offered because we were trying to shrink Flickr into a mobile site. Flickr was designed for serendipity and rich experiences. If you were a creative person, looking to participate in a planetary social-cultural conversation, it was incredible.
Meanwhile, Facebook made photos into an accessory for the average person's social life. For creative people and dabblers, Instagram offered the best mobile experience; it worked with the constraints of the platform and even turned those into features.
Something of this dichotomy is still playing out with Twitter and Facebook taking opposite poles. Although it looks like Twitter has finally given up and decided that it's a Kardashian photo delivery system or something.
I think that pretty much sums up why Yahoo went to hell and cannot adapt. My sympathies on having to deal with that. I wonder how many business have gone under because of need to "scale and act professionally"?
"was considered one of the best mobile websites ever made"
According to whom? The experience, like the app, was simply awful.
None of the Web calls were bandwidth conscious nor polite to browsing in general.
The experience sucks hard to this day. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
According to whom? The experience, like the app, was simply awful.
None of the Web calls were bandwidth conscious nor polite to browsing in general.
The experience sucks hard to this day. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Yeah, seems obvious, especially since they had published data about how the iPhone was the most-used camera on the site years ago (e.g. http://www.pcworld.com/article/230864/iPhone_4_is_Tops_with_...).
You could ask Stewart Butterfield what opportunities Yahoo missed!
the article proves the author has zero knowledge and is just dozing on the subject when it doesn't contest that yahoo having no mobile effort was not bad product managers/execs decision, but instead goes on agreeing with the point-haired boss idea that it lacked mobile engineers. as of some engineers were born to work exclusively on mobile.
what a load of bs.
what a load of bs.
Luke Wroblewski nailed this long ago - "Mobile Signup Forms must Die" http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1678 - it's not rocket science but if you allow your old school web thinking to define your app UX, you will fail. If you have any clue about mobile audiences you use gradual engagement to allow them to get on board incrementally.
The average mobile user probably has about 30 seconds to give you until the next push notification from WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter or whatever distracts them and their gone. If you waste that time on forcing them through a signup process, don't expect to see uptake.
And failing by login isn't a new thing for Yahoo! For many happy Flickr users (myself included) they killed it for us by forcing Yahoo login onto the site. From http://gizmodo.com/5910223/how-yahoo-killed-flickr-and-lost-...
> Yahoo's RegID solution turned out to be a nightmare for the existing community. You could no longer use your existing Flickr login to get to your photos, you had to use a Yahoo one. If you did not already have a Yahoo account, you had to create one. And you did not even log in on Flickr's home page, upon arriving, you were immediately kicked over to a Yahoo login screen.
...but that's another story. I'm still bitter