Facebook said today it is acquiring FriendFeed, the online content-sharing site.

It is a logical fit for the huge social networking site, which has lagged behind microblogging kingpin Twitter in the real-time news, search and status game of perception in Silicon Valley.

Mountain View, Calif.-based FriendFeed has also trailed well behind Twitter, despite its top-notch pedigree of ex-Google (GOOG) staffers, such as Paul Buchheit and Bret Taylor. The other ex-Google co-founders of FriendFeed are Jim Norris and Sanjeev Singh.

Benchmark Capital and angel investors had put about $5 million into the start-up, which had been a darling among the digerati.

Despite that, the start-up only broke one million unique visitors recently, according to several reports, while San Francisco-based Twitter was reported to have upward of 44 million in June.

But FriendFeed will surely get a turbocharge from its Facebook ownership, especially as its technology is fed to its 250 million users.

While Facebook–which is based in Palo Alto, Calif.–has added some of the same functionality that FriendFeed has innovated into its famous News Feed, it will surely get its own boost from adding FriendFeed’s dozen employees, 11 of whom are engineers.

Terms were not disclosed, but the purchase price is likely well under the $500 million Facebook offered Twitter last fall.

In fact, sources estimate to me that the price was about $50 million in cash and stock for the company, which was founded in 2007.

It is also unclear what will happen to the standalone FriendFeed service in the long run, although Taylor said in an uber-cute blog post (see below) that it would remain intact for now.

This move, although prominently unmentioned by Facebook in its full press release below, is most certainly a shot across Twitter’s bow.

Here’s the official word from Facebook, as well as that blog post by FriendFeed’s Taylor about the acquisition:

Facebook Agrees to Acquire Sharing Service FriendFeed

PALO ALTO, CALIF.–August 10, 2009–Facebook today announced that it has agreed to acquire FriendFeed, the innovative service for sharing online. As part of the agreement, all FriendFeed employees will join Facebook and FriendFeed’s four founders will hold senior roles on Facebook’s engineering and product teams.

“Facebook and FriendFeed share a common vision of giving people tools to share and connect with their friends,” said Bret Taylor, a FriendFeed co-founder and, previously, the group product manager who launched Google Maps. “We can’t wait to join the team and bring many of the innovations we’ve developed at FriendFeed to Facebook’s 250 million users around the world.”

“As we spent time with Mark and his leadership team, we were impressed by the open, creative culture they’ve built and their desire to have us contribute to it,” said Paul Buchheit, another FriendFeed co-founder. Buchheit, the Google engineer behind Gmail and the originator of Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto, added, “It was immediately obvious to us how passionate Facebook’s engineers are about creating simple, ground-breaking ways for people to share, and we are extremely excited to join such a like-minded group.”

Taylor and Buchheit founded FriendFeed along with Jim Norris and Sanjeev Singh in October 2007 after all four played key roles at Google for products like Gmail and Google Maps. At FriendFeed, they’ve brought together a world-class team of engineers and designers.

“Since I first tried FriendFeed, I’ve admired their team for creating such a simple and elegant service for people to share information,” said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO. “As this shows, our culture continues to make Facebook a place where the best engineers come to build things quickly that lots of people will use.”

FriendFeed is based in Mountain View, Calif. and has 12 employees. FriendFeed.com will continue to operate normally for the time being as the teams determine the longer term plans for the product.

Financial terms of the acquisition were not released.”

FriendFeed accepts Facebook friend request

We are happy to announce that Facebook has acquired FriendFeed. As my mom explained to me, when two companies love each other very much, they form a structured investment vehicle…

The FriendFeed team is extremely excited to become a part of the talented Facebook team. We’ve always been great admirers of Facebook, and our companies share a common vision. Now we have the opportunity to bring many of the innovations we’ve developed at FriendFeed to Facebook’s 250 million users around the world and to work alongside Facebook’s passionate engineers to create even more ways for you to easily share with your friends online.

What does this mean for my FriendFeed account?

FriendFeed.com will continue to operate normally for the time being. We’re still figuring out our longer-term plans for the product with the Facebook team. As usual, we will communicate openly about our plans as they develop–keep an eye on the FriendFeed News group for updates.

What about the FriendFeed API?

The FriendFeed API will also continue to operate normally. As above, we will let you know as we settle on our plan to more fully integrate with Facebook.

Check out the official press release for more information.

A major Yahoo investor yesterday told me that he liked what he saw so far from new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, but he still remained wary.

“I like the sizzle,” he said, referring to Bartz’s decisive take-no-prisoners style. “But I am still waiting to see if steak is there too.”

Well, Bartz handed over some tough news to chew on today, announcing Yahoo’s first-quarter earnings, which were just as weak as expected.

The company reported an eight-cent-per-share profit, down from 37 cents a year ago, a 78 percent drop.

Revenue in the quarter came in at $1.6 billion, a 13 percent decline from last year’s $1.8 billion.

And Yahoo (YHOO) also said it would cut five percent of its staff of 13,600, which means layoffs of close to 700 employees.

BoomTown liveblogged the Yahoo earnings conference call, with Bartz and outgoing CFO Blake Jorgensen.

(Bartz, well known for her ribald words and sassy phrases, lobbed several, and also tossed out a small F-bomb at the very end of the conference call, so read on to the bottom.)

2:04 p.m.: The call started off a few minutes late, but who can blame Yahoo, given the poor results? But Bartz finally came on the call with an upbeat tone.

“What an amazing and busy three months it’s been,” she said, outlining what she had learned so far on her whirlwind visits across the Yahoo empire and “deep dives” into the products and services of the troubled Internet giant.

“The most important takeaway was the importance of having a ‘Wow!’ experience,” concluded Bartz, who noted the definition of that particular enthusiasm was different, depending on who you were.

“Wow!” did not describe the earning results, to be sure.

But we pressed on.

2:08 p.m.: Bartz noted that Yahoo remained focused on investment and also renewed investment in the company.

She pointed to content, email, search and advertising as key building blocks of Yahoo and focused on three key goals:

1) Globalizing the Yahoo platform

2) Building “fantastic products” that deeply impact users

3) Investing in “industry-leading” online ad solutions

You know, getting back to basics of exactly what made Yahoo great before.

2:09 p.m.: Bartz complimented Yahoo CTO and Product head Ari Balogh, as well as other current Yahoo staff at the Silicon Valley-based company.

Then she announced that Yahoo had hired Jeff Russakow (pictured here) as its new customer advocacy head.

I am guessing he is now the key guy in charge of monitoring the “Wow!” level.

Russakow is currently VP of corporate strategy for Symantec, the online security software firm, which does not trumpet Yahoo! to me.

So, I wonder if Yahoo engineers should build a “Wow!” meter to help Jeff?

Bartz then noted that Yahoo has been and will continue to “slim down our portfolio,” while continuing in investing.

That would mean dumping the non-”Wow!”

2:11 p.m.: CFO Jorgensen hopped on, noting the “difficult economic environment.”

We noticed!

Jorgensen then proceeded to go through the unimpressive numbers for a while, in a voice that lulled me into a slight stupor. There was essentially no good news anywhere for Yahoo.

Then, he summed up and said goodbye, as he is leaving Yahoo soon and there will be a new CFO by the next quarter’s call. Jorgensen said he will be watching Yahoo “with interest.”

Blake! We hardly knew you! Call me anytime and we’ll chat and maybe have lunch (bring lots of internal memos!).

2:20 p.m.: Bartz complimented Jorgensen, although she did kind of “part ways” with him.

Then, finally, came a patented Bartzism, which is that special sassy phrase or ribald word, with her noting that users were looking for a “kick-ass” experience from Yahoo.

She obviously could not resist, which was a good instinct.

Bartz soon threw in a “freakin’” too.

Then, she non-answered anticipated questions about Yahoo’s talks with Microsoft over a search and advertising partnership by noting, “search is a very valuable asset for Yahoo.”

And that, she said, in a Forrest Gumpism, “is all we’re going to say about search today.”

Also, life is a box of chocolates.

2:25 p.m.: Bartz then discussed the economy, especially the impact on branded display advertising, which she said was not going to be killed off.

Brands were always important, she noted, and Yahoo could even help damaged brands revive themselves.

Like, um, maybe, Yahoo?

She closed the talking points part of the call on another upbeat note: “Let me say again how happy I am to be here.”

Us too, cuz Bartz is a definitely a live wire, as it later turned out.

(Bartz also announced an analysts day on Oct. 28.)

2:29 p.m.: Now began questions from said analysts (media folks are muted, of course).

The first was about ad price differences, which was dull.

The second, though, touched on the Microsoft (MSFT) talks, with someone essentially asking if Bartz was smart enough about search to be able to entertain an offer.

Well, what do you think she was going to say?

That’s right: “I am well versed enough in the search business to say it is critical to Yahoo.”

Bartz also noted that she thought advertisers prefer a combined search and display experience, which felt like she was channeling Yahoo EVP Hilary Schneider.

But Bartz also managed to keep the door open, saying–and I just know she had a mischievous smile while she said this–“Relative to anything else related to Microsoft, no comment.”

She was also not gaming the economy, noting that no one knows what will happen in the future.

“A wise person stays to the sides and lets the economists figure it out,” said Bartz.

As if!

2:33 p.m.: More questions were asked about costs and layoffs (sad!) and about ad inventory.

Bartz underscored the importance of its premium ad sales staff and placement over ad networks and randomness.

“Chanel does not want to end up next to Harley-Davidson. It kind of doesn’t work,” she asserted.

Well, it works for me! I mean, black leather and more black leather–what’s not to like?

2:39 p.m.: More about globalizing the Yahoo platform, which Bartz said would take a while.

“It’s not like flipping a switch,” she said. “This is work, this is not just words.”

Bartz also talked about how non-easy the current ad management systems at Yahoo are. Several times.

2:46 p.m.: A question then came about reinvestment, which was really about selling off stuff like the Asian assets.

No answers were forthcoming, although weak product groups are getting tossed off the good ship Yahoo quite quickly under Bartz.

More questions about the economy, the ad business and another attempt to find out about the Microsoft talks.

“Search is important,” to consumers and advertisers of Yahoo, Bartz underscored again, noting she was not going to fall for a “tricky” question.

Good lord, she’s a sharpie.

3:03 p.m.: Last up is a question about the investment in the global platform and the reorganization.

And, in the end, Bartz uttered the naughty word many had expected sooner.

It came when Bartz was on a roll about how engineers have been “scattered to the winds” at Yahoo and that there have been too many product managers overseeing things and annoying those windswept engineers.

She was dead right about this nagging issue at the company, as it has slowed down innovation and rollouts of key services and products.

“Nobody’s f#*king doing anything,” Bartz stated with apparent exasperation.

She tried to take it back quickly, adding, “I knew that would slip out some time.”

But Bartz should not take it back. Never ever.

In fact, most would agree that it was well past time that such an assessment should slip out of Yahoo.

BoomTown really does hope that in some secret airport hangar right now Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang are meeting, in order to hammer out a fair search deal that will benefit them both.

I’d even insist that Yahoo’s noisiest board member, activist shareholder Carl Icahn, be there too, to make sure all sides were copacetic and there would be no last-minute switcheroos and backstabbings.

Because, long ago in galaxy far, far away, what is now going on between Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) would have seemed inane.

I am talking about this past January, of course, when the idea of the pair doing some kind of partnership together to fight off the aggressive march of Google (GOOG) would have been been easy to imagine and perhaps even to pull off by the pair of star-crossed tech companies.

Instead, they have been bickering and puffing their insufficient-to-the-task chests out at each other to little true effect. Meanwhile, back at the organic ranch, Google racks up more share of the search market by the minute and aims to do the same in mobile and video.

And while everyone is suffering in this economic meltdown, including Google, it’s clear that it’s better to be ready to rumble when it inevitably ends than it is to be still dithering over a deal that seems also inevitable but never seems to take shape.

The latest development in the story has been Microsoft’s hiring of a well-regarded former Yahoo search and online monetization star named Qi Lu. It was a great get by Microsoft, coming after another recent important hire of another Yahoo search exec, Sean Suchter.

And there are more to come, many sources tell me, as Microsoft puts the pressure on Yahoo by sucking the talent right out of the place.

Not a bad idea, especially if Microsoft is intent on spending big-time to strengthen its online bench to battle Google.

While he grabbed talent, Ballmer extended a bit of a wilted olive branch to Yahoo in an interview with The Wall Street Journal after the Lu hiring (thanks for nothing, Frank!).

Said Ballmer:

We’re fully prepared to compete without any partnership with Yahoo. We don’t need to act. Would it be advantageous for both of us to make a deal? Look, the fundamental basis for doing the search deal with Yahoo has to do with critical mass in the advertising marketplace. It doesn’t have to do with technology, or any of these other things, it really is a market phenomenon. Together we would have more advertisers….which means we’d have more relevant ads on our page. We’d have higher monetization levels possible in front of us because there would be more people bidding on more key words. Most importantly, Google would have perhaps a real credible competitor sooner.”

And the hiring if Lu and Suchter would surely help in an integration, as Ballmer also said in the Journal interview.

Microsoft needs all the muscle it can get because its money-losing efforts so far have not added up to much in the way of share or innovative influence. (And no, I will not ever admit Live Search Cashback is innovative or massively effective.)

The problem is that buying talent is just a tactic–a nice bit of thuggish mugging Microsoft has long been so adept at, to be sure–as one way to force Yahoo into a deal.

But it is not a strategy and in the end, does not give Microsoft what it needs, which is a serious stake in the game. By that, I mean real share, from 20 to 30 percent.

One person close to the situation said it perfectly to me recently: “Microsoft can hire every Yahoo engineer in the place and that still wouldn’t mean it would get to the kind of market share it needs to have to truly compete.”

Ballmer, of course, is now apparently in one of his famously stubborn moods, telling many people (who have recounted his sentiments to me) that he has tried and tried again, does not know who at Yahoo has the power to get a deal done and that he will only do a deal when Yahoo comes to Microsoft ready to go.

He is right about the first two. As to the third, I am perplexed why he would wait even a second and is instead–for once in his life–acting patient. Again, it kind of makes sense tactically, I guess, to drive a better deal.

But, if it is to work well and be a long-term successful partnership, Microsoft has to give Yahoo a decent deal anyway, right?

And what happened to the Ballmer who scared me a little bit when he almost jumped out of his seat at his most recent appearance at the sixth D: All Things conference, loudly declaring that Microsoft keeps “coming and coming and COMING!!!”

Where’d that guy go?

Instead you get this waiting-to-be-asked-to-the-prom stuff from Ballmer in the Journal interview:

I think good ideas are usually better done quickly than slowly, so it would probably be better for both us, and certainly for Yahoo, if we were to do it sooner than later. But at the end of the day, that would have [to] be something Yahoo would be as interested in as I have expressed our interest.”

As for Yahoo, I am not sure what to say, except its options are running out fast.

While its efforts at innovating search are promising–Yahoo’s BOSS (Build Your Own Search Service) this week showed nice traction, with 10 million queries a day for the customized search products–it is still not enough in the face of Google’s power and Microsoft’s financial heft.

But, according to sources and also several people Yang and Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock have spoken to recently, there is still a debate among directors as to whether a search sale or partnership with Microsoft should be struck.

I think that’s why Icahn has been so mouthy of late in the press about the importance of doing a search deal. If it were all lined up and ready to go, he’d be as silent as a church mouse.

“Carl likes to agitate any way he can and now that he is a director, he has to be more careful,” said one person who knows him well. “This talking it up is his way of trying to push it through, since he still does not have board support.”

According to numerous sources, in fact, Yahoo leadership is worried about the leverage it would have in doing a deal with Microsoft, and some think a merger with AOL needs to be completed first.

Actually, if Yahoo did manage to do a search deal of almost any kind with Microsoft first, the impact would surely lift its stock–even now–and give it the valuation needed to complete the AOL deal.

That’s definitely the feeling now at AOL owner Time Warner (TWX), said many sources, which dearly would prefer that Yahoo strike a Microsoft search deal first, get its stock closer to a decent level, appoint a new Yahoo CEO and deliver a clearer idea of its path before Time Warner commits to selling its online assets to Yahoo.

“Yahoo has trouble making decisions,” said one source there, who acknowledges AOL’s own weaknesses readily. “So we’re not entirely confident in placing our fate with them.”

Indeed, clarity is always a preferred state, and many I talked to think that getting there would be easier than either Yahoo or Microsoft thinks.

“It really could be done quickly if they would only stop plotting all the chess moves and do something,” said one source. “This is not a game.”

No, it is definitely not, because a game is supposed to be fun, and watching this unfold is anything but that.

It’s not even a game, according to Ballmer in the Journal interview, at the very end.

Tellingly, he compared the struggle with Yahoo to an old cliché of a story about outrunning a bear (it used to be an AOL exec favorite too, so I know it well):

I don’t know if you know the old story about the two guys out in the woods who see a bear, and one guy says, boy, we’d better really run fast, or that bear is going to get us. We’ve got to run faster than the bear does. And the other guy says, no, I’ve just got to run faster than you do. In this economy, maybe that’s the right way to think about it.”

Years ago, Ballmer said almost exactly the same thing to me and others present about distant No. 3 Microsoft not necessarily having to catch No. 1 (Google) if it could chase and knock off No. 2 (Yahoo) and grab that spot instead.

Strap on your sneakers, Yahoo.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Yahoo–which has stuck to its guns by staying in the search business, even though many think it is a losing game and should be sold off to Microsoft–has lost a key engineer in that arena to, uh-oh, Microsoft.

Sean Suchter, the VP of Search Technology at Yahoo, was also deeply involved in Yahoo’s efforts to open up its search platform, initiatives the company has touted aggressively as a bright spot in its not-so-lustrous landscape.

The departure of Suchter–who came to Yahoo (YHOO) almost six years ago after it acquired Inktomi (the company that got Yahoo into the search business) in early 2003–has been in the works for a while and was not linked to this week’s announcement that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will be stepping down.

Yahoo confirmed Suchter’s departure, but Microsoft (MSFT) has not yet announced his arrival there.

[UPDATED: Microsoft has now officially announced that Suchter is coming to the company.]

But sources said it will be in late December, with Suchter will be working in search for Satya Nadella, the SVP who heads engineering for Microsoft’s search, portal and advertising platform group.

Sources at Microsoft had told me of that they were close to locking down this impressive get several weeks ago. “If we can get someone like Sean, it says a lot,” said one source.

Indeed, Suchter has been an important tech leader at Yahoo, much as Qi Lu–the well-regarded Search and Advertising Technology group EVP, who left earlier this year–was.

In his LinkedIn profile, Suchter noted about his duties at Yahoo:

“I run Yahoo’s Web search engine, with overall responsibility for its success. This includes engineering, product responsibility, operational stability, results quality, capex spending and revenue (from the paid inclusion program).”

There are big questions, now that Yang is stepping down, whether Yahoo will stay in the search business or sell it off. Yang has been a big proponent of doubling down in search, considering it integral to the entire Yahoo ecosystem.

But others make the very persuasive argument that Yahoo will be increasingly outspent by both Google (GOOG) and Microsoft, in what is turning into a very vicious and expensive arms race.

If it sold off its No. 2 search business to Microsoft–ironically, Yahoo used to deliver Microsoft’s search results–many think it could have huge costs savings and garner guaranteed revenues.

News of Suchter’s departure, including the internal Yahoo memo announcing it, appeared in Valleywag this morning, which speculated that Suchter was headed to Microsoft.

In the memo, Tuoc Luong, Yahoo’s SVP of Search, stated the very obvious about Suchter’s departure:

“Unfortunately, I have to give some bad news to you. Sean Suchter has resigned. Sean’s last day will be December 19th.

Some of you will find this news shocking given that Sean has been a Gibraltar rock at Yahoo and in particular for the Search team. I understand this.”

Interestingly, Yahoo has recently nabbed several of former Microsoft execs, including U.S. ad head Joanne Bradford and U.S. Audience SVP Jeff Dossett.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

[Photo from Flickr stream of WebProNews.]

At the SIIA Information Summit yesterday, New Yorker writer Ken Auletta, who recently did a piece on Google, noted:

We’re in an engineering culture. You couldn’t put a [Rupert] Murdoch or a [Michael] Eisner in charge of a company like that. It’s been tried. Terry Semel led Yahoo. I just spent some time with Google engineers. I couldn’t understand a thing they were saying. I don’t think [Semel] understood the engineers’ language, so he couldn’t challenge them. I suspect that’s one reason he didn’t last.”

Auletta is right, and it is an increasingly interesting issue as we move forward with the hyper-digitization of content.

While, for example, the use of online video increases exponentially, how big an audience can be created for any one property without the kind of intense programming and marketing that the entertainment industry is famous for?

On the other hand, is an increasingly massive reliance on e-metrics–the ability to minutely tell and even predict what an online audience wants by their clicking and being perfected by engineers at widget companies like Slide–the right direction?

I have no idea, but the delta is one that needs bridging.