Slashdot Mirror


Case to Step Down from AOLTW

squiggleslash writes "Reuters is reporting that Steve Case, the CEO of AOL Time Warner, is resigning, to be effective in May. He'll still be part of AOLTW but as a director responsible for joint strategy. There have been various moves afoot to oust the man who masterminded AOL's takeover of the media giant: the Time Warner part of the partnership wants control whereas Case came from the loss making super-ISP. Case quitting could be bad news for technologists given the current battles between content providers like Time Warner and the Internet and computer industries."

247 comments

  1. fp, no, no fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice troll there, http://www.arklinux.org/support.php! who would have guessed!

    1. Re:fp, no, no fp by stevejsmith · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm confused, how'd they do that?

    2. Re:fp, no, no fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, it seems to be fixed now. WTF was that?

  2. Bout damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its definitly about time that loser quite. Doesnt he have enough money yet?

    1. Re:Bout damn time by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      If there is any more loot left in the hold, then it's not time to leave the sinking yet. The best corporate raiders always take it all. Rats leave a shinking ship. Watch for a rash of resignations at AOLTW.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  3. I thought... by bahwi · · Score: 1

    they gave up on the case for AOL along time ago...

  4. Re:Dot dot dot... by utdpenguin · · Score: 0

    No wodner yuo got beat! Your submission is dated tomorrow. It hasnt even been read yet!!! :) :)

    --
    In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
  5. correction by keefeg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually Steve Case is chairman, Dick Parsons is the CEO.

  6. leaving handshake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    hope he gets a truck full of AOL cds

    1. Re:leaving handshake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing AOL, when he cancels his job, they will call him back every few weeks asking if he wants to rejoin for only $21.95/mo! (AOL does this to it's customers...)

  7. Re:Dot dot dot... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    Hehe ;)

    When I started writing the submission, the Yahoo article I linked to said "7 minutes ago" as the date.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. this mean no more cds in the mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this mean no more cds in the mail?

    1. Re:this mean no more cds in the mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not, I need some more dvd cases.

  9. Stock price by PtM2300 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps now I can regain some of the money I lost in the freaking stock of AOL!

  10. In more shocking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ted Turner announced, with the help of wrestlers Hollywood Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall, from his former wrestling organization (World Championship Wrestling), a "New World Order" (nWo) would be taking over AOL-TW, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. Turner finished his press conference by saying "You're either with us, or you're against us, and you don't want to be against us."

    1. Re:In more shocking news by WolfgangFlur · · Score: 1

      In the immortal words of Rick Flair, "Whoooooooo!!!!!!" hahahahaha

  11. CNET mentions this too. by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:CNET mentions this too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check your preferences or change your sig. I don't see any email address.

    2. Re:CNET mentions this too. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I never noticed that. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  12. CNBC's "The Big Heist" by afabbro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    CNBC ran a show last night called "The Big Heist: How AOL Took Time Warner". Good one-hour program that went over the history of the deal and personalities involved, with interviews with leading industry figures. It's their first original content production so I'm sure it'll be on again.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't understand why CNN wouldn't produce a show like that...

      Next week, "Microsoft's Monopolistic Practices" on MSNBC...

    2. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNBC.... I wonder who is an investor in them. Maybe Microsoft? I am sure they have nothing to gain by negative press.

      Just like the Washington Post who started pinging on AOL awhile back... another Microsoft partner.

      We have seen it before with Microsoft. Bad press to get rid of the competition... FUD anyone?

      Now, AOLTW isn't perfect, but they are not the evil empire. History shows that must mergers take 7 years to complete and become successful. This merger just finished its second year.

      Look at the financials of the company and see where the bulk of the money comes from... AOL. They are the only division that has cash flow of any magnitude.

    3. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by GeorgeH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tivo says it will be on tonight at 9:00 pm EST (now), tonight at midnight and then Monday the 20th at 6:00 pm EST.

      --
      Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
    4. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no conspiracy here, AOL+TW was just a stupid merger, and even AOL admits that. And CNBC is owned by NBC which is owned by GE, who is a partner with Microsoft with MSNBC. Still, no conspiracy, just common sense.

    5. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll, sir.

    6. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Sunlighter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wasn't that the name of Andy Farmer's novel in that movie Funny Farm?

      --
      Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
    7. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by endoboy · · Score: 1

      it was only a stupid merger for the shareholders of TW. For AOL, otoh, the merger was a classic--they managed to sell a pile of magic beans to TW, getting a big pile of real $$$ in exchange... Anybody care to hazard a guess as to what AOL would be worth today as a stand-alone company?

    8. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN is owned by AOLTW which made his post an attempt at humor.

    9. Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes i know that, and it would have worked cept, as I said, the show isn't on CNN.

      Thats like saying "Linux sucks, haha i bet microsoft is so sad!"

      JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE! (cept for the linux sucking part.)

  13. Re:Dot dot dot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, you are like super bitter. The other dude probably just posted it before you, so they accept his and reject yours for whatever the reason may be. I mean its not like you get money or something if your story gets accepted. I've posted maybe 6 stories ever, one was accepted, but not front page, and one was quoted on someone else's accepted story of the same thing. There must be some reason that you were rejected and not someone else. Stop acting like a 2 year old. I'm sure you have a lot better things to do with your time than whine.

  14. you invested in AOL!? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isn't that as bad as investing in M$? You are betting on the other (pathetic) team!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:you invested in AOL!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering our (your) team apprently doesn't believe in profit, or at least doesn't know how to achieve it, I think it would be pretty wise to bet on any company that doesn't claim to support OSI.

  15. AOL-TW by Synithium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AOL failed because the online advertising industry failed. After they owned this giant media company they resolved to putting even more annoying AOL commercials on TW's network and failed miserably (you can't make money off yourself). All in all I can't say I'm surprised by this move, it's long overdue.

    1. Re:AOL-TW by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I am sick of these bogus excuses. We saw the fall in advertising revenue as early as 2000. As late as 2001 internet companies were still structuring deals where the only payment was shared advertising revenue. The vendor would pay the up front development costs and large commission payments to salespeople based only on anticipated furture revenue. The client was responsible for nothing. Increasingly those payment never came. In these cases, one cannot cite advertising, but negligence.

      Blaming advertising for AOL is like blaming stock prices for Enron. The fall of Enron stock indirectly caused the bankruptcy. The actual cause was systematic malfeasance within the firm. I don't know that there was malfeasance in the AOL/TW deal, but I do know a lot of deals were made to benefit specific executives and not the companies they serve.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:AOL-TW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL is in the process of failing because:

      1. Other Dial-up internet services were half-price or free

      2. Highspeed Internet services are stealing their customers

      3. Online advertising sales have decreased due to companies finally learning that pop-up ads do not generate very much real revenue & cause more annoyance than desire to purchase their product

      4. AOL's budget and stock price were based on a high growth rate of new users signing up which wasn't sustainable (this was about 90% of their problem) Eventually, everyone that wants to be on the internet (specifically AOL) will be, and there will be near zero growth. This is what happens when markets reach maturity.

      Product/Service Growth cycle:

      Introduction
      Growth
      Maturity
      Decline

      AOL has reached maturity, and is moving into the decline phase due to a new service, highspeed internet, which will eventually replace the dial-up services. AOL has failed to offer a new highspeed service to compete at a reasonable price. Roadrunner (a time-warner company) is directly competing with AOL (a time-warner company) and will kill AOL dial-up off in most places where time-warner cable is offered.

    3. Re:AOL-TW by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      AOL Failed? When did that happen? What did I miss that bit of news on WSJ?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    4. Re:AOL-TW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If AOL is to fail, it is because their products and services are shit, and that they treat people, customers and employees alike, like shit aswell.

      AOL is, simply put, a substanceless, heaping pile of shit, that manages to stay afloat only by the ignorance and apathy of their subscribers. AOL is a hollow dot-com that started before hollow dot-comming was cool.

  16. bring back Ted Turner... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 3, Troll
    So my beloved Atlanta Braves can get some real funding again... *sigh*

    Oh, yeh, and because he might inject some business sense into that unfathomable catastrophe of a company.

    1. Re:bring back Ted Turner... by DAldredge · · Score: 2

      Sorry. Ted Turner was too busy suing people to get them off his/their land to help at AOL/TW.

      http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/3874857.htm

      He also has to come up with the 1,000,000,000 USD he promised the UN. So don't expect him to be much help...

    2. Re:bring back Ted Turner... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 2
      He also has to come up with the 1,000,000,000 USD he promised the UN.

      That's probably because Steve Case sucked him dry by destroying the market value of the stocks he held.

      Hrm... Maybe Ted should sue Steve...

      "Hi Steve, you've got jail."

    3. Re:bring back Ted Turner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's old news. Ted gave up the fight and turned over his claims to the land.

      The 1B donation is a good reason for Ted to get back control. A large portion of his wealth is in AOL/TW stock. If he can turn the company around, he makes $$$$$$.

    4. Re:bring back Ted Turner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring back BEEFALO!!!

  17. Maybe... by dethl · · Score: 1

    AOL won't suck anymore? Nah...

    --
    "Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
  18. Re:A little late in the game by small_dick · · Score: 1

    i thought bill gates did that.

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
  19. How can this be bad for computers? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Degrading privacy and lousy policy at AOL is only bad for AOL. After all when all those people start moving to local ISP's in droves it will bring their IQ's up a notch ;)

    1. Re:How can this be bad for computers? by Compuser · · Score: 2

      My guess: MSN becomes the biggest ISP. It is
      already huge and it will pick up a lot of those
      AOLers. I can see how pretty soon MS will have
      the majority of users get internet from MSN.
      MS Internet may happen pretty soon.

  20. Article in case of slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    squiggleslash writes "Reuters is reporting that Steve Case, the CEO of AOL Time Warner, is resigning, to be effective in May. He'll still be part of AOLTW but as a director responsible for joint strategy. There have been various moves afoot to oust the man who masterminded AOL's takeover of the media giant: the Time Warner part of the partnership wants control whereas Case came from the loss making super-ISP. Case quitting could be bad news for technologists given the current battles between content providers like Time Warner and the Internet and computer industries."

    Click Here! Click Here!

  21. Re:Dot dot dot... by stevejsmith · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'm sure you have a lot better things to do with your time than whine.

    You'd think that, wouldn't you?

  22. Re:A little late in the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy brought more assholes to the internet than everyone else put together.

    Including yourself my surley little friend.

  23. The Devil you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vs. the one you don't.

  24. Re:A little late in the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You say that now, but I'm willing to bet many American users of the Internet got their start using AOL. Hell, I'm sure quite a few slashdotters went that route as well (perhaps even yourself).

    Whether you want to admit it or not, AOL has helped make the Internet a mainstream thing, which in itself is a social revolution simply because of the implications. I'm sure it would have become this way eventually even without AOL, but it would have taken considerably longer and maybe not be as collossal as it is today.

    Another thing: without bringing in mainstream users to the Internet (including this group of 'assholes' you speak of), online businesses like eBay, Amazon.com, etc. would most likely not flourish because, uhm, they wouldn't have anyone to sell stuff to (or for).

  25. Re:A little late in the game by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Funny

    Steve Case is responsible for /.?

  26. I just saw an AOL commercial by long_john_stewart_mi · · Score: 5, Funny
    I just saw AOL's new marketing plan:
    AOL is easier than ever. In fact, the hardest part about learning to use AOL is telling your parents you're gay.
    --
    ...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
    1. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by Call+it+a+n1ght · · Score: 0

      Someone modded that Flamebait. Shouldn't that be Flamerbait?

    2. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by long_john_stewart_mi · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Heh... Whoops... Guess people can't take a joke. For the record, the joke wasn't intended to start a flame war, or to thrash homosexuals. I was making fun of AOL users. I thought it was AOK to mock AOL on Slashdot. Yikes.

      --
      ...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
    3. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem is with the assumption that homosexuality is inherently something worthy of mockery -- i.e., that the word "gay" is automatically an insult.

      I believe you're being honest when you say it wasn't your intent to "thrash" homosexuals, but try substituting "black" for "gay." Hopefully you can see how offensive that would be.

    4. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by long_john_stewart_mi · · Score: 0

      Point taken. I'll use better discretion when posting in the future.

      --
      ...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
    5. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, sticking your penis up some other guy's poop-chute isn't exactly something you're born with, unlike black skin. His original point was valid, flame-pies are scums of the earth and should be evicerated at all costs.

      Faggots be damned.

    6. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but at least I didn't have to tell my parents I prefer wearing long johns!

      Now that someone attempted humor, please mod this tenage babble down, it's insulting to those of us out of high school..

    7. Re:I just saw an AOL commercial by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And AOL did rat out a US Navy person as being gay a few years ago. ("Don't ask, don't tell -- but we will dig into your AOL records and find you!")

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  27. A round of applause is in order by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what, this guy brought the very Internet that we have all grown to know and love to the homes of millions of Americans.

    He's helped all of us programmers, system administrators, and consultants earn more by adding substantially to our customer base. More computer users means more of a market for computer experts like all of us.

    I only wish they would keep him around a bit longer. Sure, they waste some CDs and packaging material, but all in all they've done us a great amount of good.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:A round of applause is in order by timster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logic is flawed. You're saying:

      Millions of Americans USED AOL to connect to the Internet, therefore, these people would not have used the Internet otherwise.

      Compare:

      It's a damn good thing for the Albertson's on the corner; since I bought a lot of food from them, if they hadn't been there, I would have starved.

      Without AOL those millions would have gone somewhere else. Case doesn't deserve credit for being the lucky one.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:A round of applause is in order by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Was the Albertson's on the corner sending you a flyer for their store weekly for 3 years?

      A lot of people STILL don't know of an internet outside of AOL. The original post still rings true.

    3. Re:A round of applause is in order by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree. The whole notion that those millions of people would have been "somewhere else" is ludicrous.

      The Internet has been around a long, long time. But, it was beyond even being unfriendly to the average Joe Enduser. It was the province of physicists and such.

      AOL sucks, yes. But they had the genius to fill a niche that no one else even new existed. No -- sorry! They had the genius to create that niche.

      They made it possible for a lot of technically challenged -- and even technically timid -- people to get online. That company fueled the Internet boom.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    4. Re:A round of applause is in order by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Dear World,

      My first subscription online service was AOL and I joined on Xmas '93 and stayed with them for maybe 1.5 years before moving to a local PPP ISP for $35/month. Prior to that I was dialing into BBS's like most of us old school kids.

      If it had not been for AOL, the Internet may never have entered the mainstream quite like it has, and I'm certain that it would not be as wide spread as it is today.

      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    5. Re:A round of applause is in order by Eros · · Score: 1

      He's helped all of us programmers, system administrators, and consultants earn more by adding substantially to our customer base. More computer users means more of a market for computer experts like all of us.

      You are right, he is a saint. Hell, I bet the whole time he was thinking about how he could create more jobs and push forward the computer industry.

      Oh, wait, he probably couldn't hear himself think with the sound of his hands shoving fists full of fucking money down his pants left and right. All the while insanely cackling his head off.

      You know, everyday I hear "computer experts like all of us" thank the Lord for the blessing that is AOL. It really has made the Internet better. I remember the years shortly after AOL came onto the scene, how the Internet started to read my mind by changing each one of my searches for information into porn. And where would spamming and online-chat be without AOL.

      I know the porn industry has a lot to thank AOL for, but that is about it -- grow up.

    6. Re:A round of applause is in order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Niche" isn't the term i would use.

    7. Re:A round of applause is in order by fanatic · · Score: 2

      The Internet has been around a long, long time. But, it was beyond even being unfriendly to the average Joe Enduser. It was the province of physicists and such.

      Nonsense. A reasonable dialer/tcp stack and netscape >=3 was more than adequate - gives you email, web and usenet.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    8. Re:A round of applause is in order by coupland · · Score: 2

      Nice revisionist history, I'm amazed how few people actually remember more than 5 years into the past.

      1. AOL was not an internet company until long after the internet became a sensation. They spent a lot of time playing catch-up.
      2. Prodigy? Compuserve? GEnie? Fidonet? Thousands of amateur BBSes? Have you never heard of these? AOL was not the innovator -- they were the big fish that swallowed everything that swam into their gaping maw.
      3. The internet was not the domain of physicists because they were the only people capable of grasping the concept of text (yeah what a grand mystery; how did we ever learn it?). It's because until 1991 the NSF forbade commercial traffic on the internet backbone. Hence only the military, scientists, and educational institutions were allowed to use it.
      4. 1991 was also the year the WWW was developed, the original internet GUI, 4 years before AOL even provided any semblance of internet access.

      Not everyone slept through the internet revolution, you should do some reading... (Pssst! Al Gore didn't invent the internet! Pass it on...)

    9. Re:A round of applause is in order by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

      You know what, this guy brought the very Internet that we have all grown to know and love to the homes of millions of Americans.

      That's like saying that $5 a gallon generic Burgundy introduced the masses to the appreciation of fine wines. What it really did was funnel an enormous number of proudly technophobic newbies onto the Internet.

      You'll excuse me if I withhold my applause.

    10. Re:A round of applause is in order by blincoln · · Score: 2

      A reasonable dialer/tcp stack and netscape >=3 was more than adequate - gives you email, web and usenet.

      I believe the original poster's point was that setting up "a reasonable dialer/tcp stack" back in the day was beyond the skills of the average user.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:A round of applause is in order by blincoln · · Score: 2

      AOL was not an internet company until long after the internet became a sensation.

      AOL was certainly the first major "easy to use" ISP that I saw. I signed up for my first dial access account (on a local ISP) in 1992, and I still remember when AOL users started flooding online.

      Prodigy? Compuserve? GEnie? Fidonet? Thousands of amateur BBSes?

      None of these provided a friendly, graphical UI for internet use.

      I'm not a fan of AOL, but I can certainly see why they were able to sign so many people up. When they came online, pretty much everything else was text UI-based. AOL users had a GUI several years before I did.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:A round of applause is in order by fanatic · · Score: 2

      Not sure how far back 'back in the day' is, but I remember having pretty good luck with Trumpet tcp/dialer software in early 95 on winblows 3 or 3.1, and not too much effort either. But if you meant earlier than that, yeah, I suppose it was ugly.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    13. Re:A round of applause is in order by Ted+Bundy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have to say as an early Compuserve adopter, AOL was winning a lot of praise from friends for the easy graphical use. MSN had you open several different icons using their 1.0 "brwser".

  28. Re:A little late in the game by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny
    Reminds me of the bon mote that circulated around '94, when AOL's new gateway turned the newsgroups into "all the Biff, all the time..."

    'USENET used to be smart people in front of dumb-terminals, now it's dumb people in front of smart-terminals.'

    BIFF: " HOW DO I LOOK AT THE PICTURES ON MY HARD DRIVE?"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  29. Re:A little late in the game by tealover · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good riddence

    Let me guess. You brought all the bad spellers.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  30. Looks like... by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...AOL's $22.95 a month was too much even for him.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:Looks like... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1
      Well, maybe he can apply that $22.95/mo to buying back shares of AOL... Let's see, that's about 19 shares/year @14.50/share.

      Foo... he's got some work to do.

  31. Re:A little late in the game by CatWrangler · · Score: 2

    Remember when people thought he might be a counter balance to Bill Gates? While not a fan of his, or his crappy software, at least it was another option.

    --

    ---
    When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

  32. ... and in chat-room after chat-room by slaker · · Score: 3, Funny

    (AP) Across the nation, child molesters, kiddie-porn addicts, NAMBLA Members, Catholic Priests and other pederasts dropped their pants in a moment of tribute as Steve "The Great Enabler" Case announced his resignation from AOL Time-Warner (AOLTW) today.

    Said shavedbi_86, a dude who pretends to be a chick in various online forums, as he dropped trou in an internet cafe in downtown Bangor, Maine: "Man, [Steve Case]... damn. I dunno where else I'd be able to indulge my recurring fantasies of having a minor female cross state lines to have lesbian intercourse with me, if it weren't for AOL. Under [Steve Case's] guidance, AOL has grown from a small, regional communication system for perverts in Virginia, to an international hub for child pornography. God bless you Mr. Case!"

    Law enforcement officials were also quick to comment. "Although some are quick to judge AOL for its congregation of sexual predators, we'd like to applaud Mr. Case for the family-friendly nature of his service. I myself enjoy the occasional meeting in an AOL chat room, knowing that I can trade porno in peace and security, guarded by the AOL Terms of Service from any foul-mouthed, anti-social behavior in its chat rooms", said Mr. A------t, a justice department official, on condition of anonymity.

    Said president George Bush, upon hearing of the resignation: "Whad'ya mean it's pronounced New-CLEE-er?"

    Other famous Americans, including Bugs Bunny and Superman, also expressed regret at Mr. Case's resignation.

    Mr. Case, who now prefers to be called simply "Heather", could not be reached for comment.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  33. Re:A little late in the game by n3rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy brought more assholes to the internet than everyone else put together.

    One of the most impressive knee-jerk reactions I've seen in a while. Quite frankly you almost sound like one of them...

    First, how is it his fault? Is it Ford's fault for bringing bad drivers onto the road because of mass production of automobiles? If so wouldn't this be an effect of mass production and marketing rather than from a single man?

    Second, your view sounds rather elitest. If there hadn't been AOL the Internet would only be populated with geeks that just talk about computers and Sci-Fi.. How fun would that be and what would the results be? No chicks on web cams, no online news sites due to small demand and no online stores due to no demand. And again, no chicks with webcams.

    Perhaps you just choose the wrong word, but I generally find snobby "holier than thou" geeks to be larger assholes than the everyone else.

    Come on back down to Earth my friend.

  34. As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Under Steve Case, AOL was a company that took advantage of its customer's ignorance. Under Steve Case, pushed its customers in every way possible to get money from them.

    Someone said, "AOL was founded on the idea that users of the Internet need training wheels to get started." Using AOL says, "I don't have any friends who understand computers." As users get smarter, they realize they don't need AOL.

    Swallowing Time-Warner was a way of bailing out from a company on the way down, at the last moment possible.

    People who are motivated by nothing but money reduce the quality of our lives, and, unfortunately, we don't have sophisticated social responses against this kind of abuse.

    1. Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, and GEnie were there first. In the early 1990s, before the Internet became popular as it was today, being on to any of those four services was the geeky place to be. Eventually, the Internet got the WWW, and eventually there was enough good content on the WWW that it became a better and less expensive way of doing things. GEnie was shutdown by GE, Prodigy converted itself into just another national ISP and after some ownership changes is now going by the name "SBC Yahoo", and CompuServe sold out to AOL and now looks more like an AOL clone than its former self. AOL is a relic from a past era that somehow made it to a world where the Internet is king.

    2. Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was using AOL for too much money per month and after 1.5 years, switched to a local dial-up ISP to save money. Once the Web opened up, I became increasingly less interested in AOL's internal services and content, so I decided to had no reason to stick with it when I could get the same for less.

      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    3. Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by Jay+L · · Score: 2

      Under Steve Case, pushed its customers in every way possible to get money from them.

      Actually, that was in large part due to Bob Pittman. He was the crass commercializer - and that's what he was brought in to be. (As Jim Kimsey put it, AOL needed "adult supervision.") In the old days, at least, Steve was always all about the member experience, community, doing the Right Thing. Unfortunately, he rarely seemed to hire executives who shared that vision - Pittman, Brandt, Schuler, all had Bugs Bunny dollar signs in their eyes.

      It's sad that, just as Ted Leonsis is back on top, giving new life to the old values, Steve had to step aside. This is a big blow to AOL's chances.

    4. Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by numark · · Score: 1

      And then we had the September that never ended...sheesh...

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    5. Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. by Spoing · · Score: 2
      Under Steve Case, AOL was a company that took advantage of its customer's ignorance. Under Steve Case, pushed its customers in every way possible to get money from them.

      AOL, before it supported the Internet, used to bill some of it's customers $1-2,000 a month for accessing it's chat service. You were charged per-hour, not pre month. Most active topic: Sex. (Gee, couldn't guess that one, eh?)

      Someone said, "AOL was founded on the idea that users of the Internet need training wheels to get started." Using AOL says, "I don't have any friends who understand computers." As users get smarter, they realize they don't need AOL.

      And that someone would be wrong. AOL started out as Quantum -- a small competitor to Compuserve that had a graphical interface as opposed to Compuserve's original text-based one. Over time, they grew, found a pre-Internet nitch, fought migration to the Internet, and finally caved in and joined. That's why AOL isn't like most Internet services -- since it isn't an ISP. AOL is a propriatory service with Internet support.

      I half-heartedly recommend AOL for new or computer phobic people for the simple fact that they would have probably chosen AOL anyway -- and I know that AOL has nation wide dialup support. I save my strong recommendations for things that they might actually listen to and that matter more.

      AOL is popular, they see it, and automatically suspect that if something is not advertised, it's not worth money. People hate to change, so moving from AOL is not common in my experience.

      I very much would like to see AOL support x86 Linux.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  35. Re:Dot dot dot... by zapfie · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was probably because Case is not the CEO of AOLTW, he is the Chairman of the Board.

    The CEO is Richard D. Parsons.

    --
    slashdot!=valid HTML
  36. Steve's a good man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone should get off Steve's case (no pun intended). He (with the help of many coworkers) made going online a lot easier for MILLIONS of people. When's the last time you helped MILLIONS of people? Anyway, I'm sorry to see him go. I would have loved to watch Gates and him slug it out for years to come. That would have been real entertainment.

    1. Re:Steve's a good man by enomar · · Score: 1

      I'll probably get a 0 for even asking, but why did the parent post get modded down?

      --

      :wq
    2. Re:Steve's a good man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It didn't. This isn't kuro5hin. Anonymous posts start at zero. Welcome to Slashdot.

      ~~~

    3. Re:Steve's a good man by neema · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Anonymous Coward"

      Anonymous Coward? Or should I call you MR. ANONYMOUS STEVE CASE?

  37. Screw up a merger and get rich by Teckla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The funny thing (not in a "ha ha" way) is, he architected a fantastic failure of a merger, and will walk away a bajillionaire for having screwed up.

    -Teckla

    1. Re:Screw up a merger and get rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that basically how it works? The chairman/CEO of major corporations fuck over the little guys and get a big paycheck as their company goes down in flames. We've seen it THOUSANDS of times over the last two years. Read Fuckedcompany.com for more info.

    2. Re:Screw up a merger and get rich by dcaulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, he was *AOL's* CEO. From an AOL shareholder's standpoint, the merger was a steal - literally. It's the Timewarner guys and shareholders who really got screwed.

  38. HAHAHAHAHA by WolfgangFlur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, that site looks pretty secure, huh? ;) Are they running IIS? Anyway, I guess "easy to use" and "secure" are mutually exclusive over at Ark.

  39. Another tech stock bites the dust... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anybody thought how AOL and Time Warner stocks would have performed had the two not been married? AOL would be crashing to the point of near-zero, while Time Warner would still be hanging out with Viacom, News Corp., Disney, and the other content providers who have writen off most of their .com operations long long long ago.

    The origninal Time Warner shareholders got the shaft, as they now have to absorb AOL's downfall, while the AOL shareholders got the nice liferaft ending up with shares of Time Warner instead of another useless tech stock. Time Warner's shareholders are not happy, and they want their company back now...

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Lesser of two evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AOL wasn't good per se for the diversity of the internet and technical advancements, but giving the reins of the world's largest ISP to TimeWarner, a media company that has ties to organisations such as the RIAA has to be a step backwards.

    Imagine the RIAA and TimeWarner controlling AOL (to some extent, at least), thus controlling the internet experience and online-purchasing abilities of a significant fraction of internet surfers.

    Granted 'we' dislike AOLers ... "My computer says I have mail, but the mailman hasn't come yet!" ... but when they represent a large proportion of surfers, they are the ones that large corporations will want to target, and this move seems to increase their chances of doing so.

    So, what's the solution?

    VOTE RMS for AOL/TimeWarner CEO!!!

    1. Re:Lesser of two evils by TheKey · · Score: 1

      Timer Warner may be tied to the RIAA, but they sure as hell aren't run by them. Timer Warner is a mega fucking huge company, and it seems to me that they're more likely to control the RIAA.

      --
      My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
    2. Re:Lesser of two evils by numark · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, after the merger, most groups were put under control of former AOL managers. A lot of Time editors balked at having a boss that didn't know a thing about paper media. Over the past few years, the AOL side of the deal has been the major force, and only in the last few months have we really seen Time Warner management take a step up. This was an orderly transition, really starting with Gerald Levin's resignation.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
  42. Give the guy a break by timeOday · · Score: 3, Funny

    Okay, he made a little boo-boo and his pointless merger will cost investors quite a few billion dollars. But that's hardly cause to slap him down to Joint Strategist. What does a Join Strategist make, anyways, a few dozen million dollars per year? Yeah, I know the company is losing money, but we all make mistakes and a guy has to eat and keep the bar in his Leerjet stocked.

    1. Re:Give the guy a break by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      What does a Joint Strategist make, anyways

      Strategies for producing joints? Sounds like a cushy job. Wonder if they get to do some quality assurance on the final product, if you know what I mean.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Give the guy a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not reason to slap him down? If tanking two companies at the same time while losing billions of dollars for investors isn't a reason - what is!?!

    3. Re:Give the guy a break by odin53 · · Score: 1

      Try reading the latest AOL SEC filings, or at least look up AOL's profile on yahoo finance. Case's salary in 2001 was $1 million, with no bonus. Annual report season is coming up; you can find out how much he earned last year pretty soon. I doubt it was more than $1 million. Stock option grants were fairly significant when the merger closed, but it doesn't look like he got anything since then, and frankly it wouldn't have mattered, since I think they're all underwater right now -- AOL has been tanking for a while.

      Please, just do your homework before posting. Yes, Case is a rich guy -- heading AOL for the past decade has clearly been very, very good to him -- but talking out of your ass makes you sound dumb, drowning out your very good point that the AOL-TW merger was pretty much pointless, and will (has) cost investors many billions of dollars.

    4. Re:Give the guy a break by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You might have had a point if he made under a million per year.

      We're supposed to believe these people are worth 7-figure salaries, plus huge windfalls now and then, plus golden parachutes, because they're so special that nobody else can do what they do. Personally, I don't see what makes some of them so special, and the worst that ever happens when they screw up is they go from crazy-rich to rich.

    5. Re:Give the guy a break by odin53 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying he deserved his salary; only that you shouldn't talk out of your ass. Whether he deserves his salary is an entirely different issue.

      What matters to me is if my AOL stock goes up or down; I would be up in arms if I heard that Case got a raise or was earning a ridiculous amount of money even as I watched my stock price drop. He would certainly not deserve the increase or stability in his salary. But it doesn't look like that's the case -- it was $1 million in 2001, and $1 million in 2000. Thus, I'm up in arms only about the stupidity (or ineptness of the execution) of the AOL-TW merger, which, btw, is certainly enough for me to demand that Case step down.

      Look: FUD, even when accompanied by the truth, is still FUD. I'm always against FUD, be it MSFT or Linus or anyone else.

  43. Re:A little late in the game by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

    I was inclined to think it a 50/50 split :)

  44. Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by Stoptional · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Case quitting is only **Good News**. He hobbled millions of people's development by promoting a fluffy, saccharine-coated, "HEY - you really ARE an idiot", mindless piece of trash. Sort of like what Disney did for the classics :-) Have you actually watched an AOL commercial lately?

    Steve Case did no one any favors, except maybe himself, and neither did the guy with the six-foot rat icon.

    --
    Stoptional
  45. Re:Dot dot dot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt that was the reason, as the poster that did get the article submitted also states that Case was the CEO and not the Chairman like the article says.

  46. Re:Dot dot dot... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    Yeah, but I made the same mistake as stevejsmith! Look above!

    (I'm trying to figure out how too. I actually tried fact checking the thing before posting it - the original draft had case quitting AOLTW - but somehow must've had CEO and Chairman mixed up in my brain somewhere. Oh and it's not my headline, mine was something like Case Isn't AOLTW CEO or something.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  47. Steve Case's new Job by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    In other related news

    Steve Case announced his new CEo job as CEO of Case Tractors..his first act put training wheels on all tractors..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  48. Inevitable by moankey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have been gunning for his since day one. Entertainment biz has a entirely different culture than Internet/Technology. Where at AOL he was viewed as a god, at Time Warner he was a loud mouth, blunt speaking, jerk of sorts.
    It also doesnt help that he helped reduce many Time Warner execs, pensions, and people stocks at Time Warner from something in the 50's per share to its current 14 per share. Including helping Ted Turner turn his fortune from $8 billion to $2, sure its still a crap load of money but single handedly making $6 billion disappear is no small feat.

  49. more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://wolf.cyberstreet.net/index.php?ref=327369

    insider info

  50. Re:Dot dot dot... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    Oh wait, it was:

    2003-01-12 23:59:17 Case Not AOL CEO (articles,aol) (accepted)

    So I guess I was right in the headline ;)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  51. Ted Turner and Jane Fonda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jane Found God!
    Ted found out it wasnt him!
    So they broke up!!

  52. right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your right, Steve Case was the Chairman. Although he used to be the CEO of America Online. Jerald Levin was the CEO of AOLTW awhile back through the merger, while Case took the laid back chairman role. Now all they have to do is get rid of Parsons and they will be in for some serious business. I liked Case, but I don't like Parsons. Someone from Netscape should be Chairman. That's just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:right by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Is there anyone in mangement left from Netscape? I thought all of them left a long, long time ago.

    2. Re:right by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically CNBC had a special on AOL Time Warner entitled "The Heist, How AOL Took Time Warner". Hehe. At the end of it in October 2002 they had a blurb from Steve Case saying he had no plans for stepping down. Sounds like someone finally got the board to oust him like they did to Levin. The AOL and Time Warner merger has GOT to go down in history as the worst business deal of all time. I feel bad for the Time Warner people who had their retirement in its stock only to be merged with AOL on the way into a bursting Internet stock bubble. Steve Case deserves to get a boot in the ass and AOL Time Warner should change the name back to Time Warner and stick AOL back with the other minor departments. Hell, spin it off and fold it.

  53. fuck that I invested in VA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Screw that shit, I lost $1000 in VA Linux Systems. Another problem with them is they should have remained VA Research. The name sounds better :)

  54. Steve Case Will Best Be Remembered For... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...buying Time-Warner with monopoly money.

    1. Re:Steve Case Will Best Be Remembered For... by mozumder · · Score: 1

      And he would be cool if he named his kid Justin....

  55. Re:A little late in the game by lonedfx · · Score: 1

    I don't know... personally I think that without AOL, the internet might indeed have taken some more time to mature. AOL introduced the idea in the US that there were those millions of people who would just buy anything online, and the idea was then exported to europe as part of AOL (and lookalikes) expanding there. Problem is the notion just wasn't true. This is a part (only a part of course, but a part nonetheless) of what led to the dot bomb and the current situation.

    Of course we can never know how something would have been.

    Note that I'm not saying AOL is bad necessarily, just that the good it did to the internet is sort of offset by the bad it's bring.

    lone, dfx.

  56. Re:A little late in the game by jjoyce · · Score: 5, Funny
    You say that now, but I'm willing to bet many American users of the Internet got their start using AOL.

    Me too!

  57. Are they GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're not the GPL "Free" I don't want your fucking shoes. I only wear Open Source shoes. Now where did I put my sheet of Acid?

  58. If Warner has its way by yerricde · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This will be bad for consumers. Currently, AOL has control over TW. But if the TW side grows more powerful, and Warner gains control over the Internet access of 30 Million Worldwide Members(tm), then Warner can use them as pawns in the battle for DMCA II and Bono Act II in the USA and EU legislatures.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:If Warner has its way by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1

      Time Warner always WAS more powerful than AOL. The ONLY thing AOL had going for it was an inflated stock price that showed them to be twice as big as Time Warner in "Magic Pixie Dust" stock market valuation. TW had double the revenue of AOL and a stable old media empire to keep them afloat. Steve Case knew this as well as anyone and he also knew that the bubble would eventually burst and that he would need to desperately find an old-world company to acquire to keep AOL from dying.

    2. Re:If Warner has its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see. Since the last vestige of the old AOL regime is being estinquished with Steve Case I think we can say that TW is firmly in control. Even if you go by stock value, analysts long ago said that the AOL part is worthless.

    3. Re:If Warner has its way by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      I fail to see why this is necessarily bad for consumers. Sure, faceless multinational becomes big player in "upstart" internet industry, yada yada yada, but try looking at it like this:

      One of the Big Five from the RIAA now has control over every step in production and distribution for online music.

      Why is this a good thing? Because the RIAA is so freakish about control that this is exactly what it would take for them actually offer online music at reasonable prices in a way that consumers will respond to.

      Of course, it'll start out available to AOL customers only, trying to drive up subscriptions, and hence, ad viewers, but it'll leak out to the general public soon enough. Remember when AIM was AOL specific?

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  59. Where did the $$ go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What I would like to know is how the hell AOL is losing money. I mean it what, $23-24 a month from what like 15 million subscribers? Plus ad revenue? Just WTF are they doing with all that money? I think that they must have invested at least some of it in paper shredders, but hey, what do I know. :)

    Greg

    1. Re:Where did the $$ go? by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      Printing AOL CDs maybe?

    2. Re:Where did the $$ go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL isn't losing money. Read the freaking article and you'll see that AOL is churning out over a billion a year in free cash flow to AOLTW's bottom line.

  60. Re:... and in chat-room... (WITH PIC!) by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2
    Typical AOL user pic: here. Apologies to those that if seen this pic 8,300 times (and apologies to those that are seeing this pic for the first time ;-)).

    --girls

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  61. All together now..... by rickthewizkid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...."goodbye!"

    -RickTheWizKid
    I used to use AOL... then I grew up

    1. Re:All together now..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...."goodbye!"

      -RickTheWizKid
      I used to use AOL... then I grew up

      Guess again, jackass. Looks like you've got a lot of growing up still to do.

    2. Re:All together now..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess again, jackass. Looks like you've got a lot of growing up still to do.

      Same to you, too, poopiehead!

  62. AOL Call Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AOL Call alert.

  63. Well, it started out as AOL taking over TW... by Dan93 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but things turned out just a bit differently. As a former AOL employee, I can tell you that while it started out with AOL taking over Time Warner,it's slowly started to turn around. How many former Time Warner executives now work for AOL? Quite few, yet for some reason, very, very few of the former AOL execs, now work for TW.

    1. Re:Well, it started out as AOL taking over TW... by DarthWiggle · · Score: 2

      The experience of AOL execs working at Time-Warner must be comparable to a Dollar General regional manager being appointed Director of Purchasing for Macy's. *shudder*

  64. not so fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like TW's assets are gold or something. The three media companies you listed aren't exactly booming right now, and I don't think the comparison with TW is fair either. TW was more of a cross between CHTR or ADEL and DIS with its cable assets and its ownership of the Atlanta Braves.

    Also, I really doubt that AOL would be bankrupt or even close. Their bread and butter business, selling dialup service, is and always will be profitable. They expanded into the wrong places, that's why they got slaughtered.

    1. Re:not so fast... by StillDocked · · Score: 1

      as a Time Warner employee...I would be much happier with my stock at its previous level...

    2. Re:not so fast... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      It's not like TW's assets are gold or something.

      They are damn close. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Matrix, Sopranos, Friends, West Wing, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. These are all huge properties that companies like Fox and Disney only dream of having. The problem is that AOLTW is being dragged down by the failing magazines, Music Label, and, of course, AOL.

  65. Too bad by Gumber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was never fond of AOL, but at least Steve Case wasn't "one of them" (old-media type).

  66. Sucka MC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha! Us tr0lls have 0wn3z the moderation system! That's why he's +4 Funny and you're at -1. Now bend over.

    1. Re:Sucka MC! by acceleriter · · Score: 1
      Excuthe me, I find the termth "sucka" and "bend over" homophobic and offenthive. Pleathe moderate the parent down.

      The one posting about "homophobia" got what he deserved. No sense of humor and whining about moderation in the same post. Too bad he couldn't go below -1.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    2. Re:Sucka MC! by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Heh. So far, I count 4 bitter fags that modded it "Overrated." They're gay and bitter, but don't have the nads to face the smackdown in metamod.

  67. Long Overdue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As an ex-AOL employee who lost a lot of money
    on AOL stock (my fault, I didn't sell early enough),
    I am glad to see this announcement.

    Steve, if Barry Schuler is still there, tell him to
    take a hike. His arrogance and incompetence
    played a major part in the current woes of AOL.

    1. Re:Long Overdue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Barry Shuler was removed ages ago, mostly for being out of touch with both those below him and above him in the pecking order.


      AOL stock would have plummeted in 2000 if it weren't for Steve's amazingly insiteful deal to buy a media company. I only wish it had been a valuable media company known for quality content, perhaps Discovery/TLC and not the utter shite that comprises the Time-Warner conglomerate. Only useful thing in the whole bag of crap that was TW is Newline - and that because they are allowed to operate independantly.


      Steve being gone means that the recent AOL Technology win over AOL brand and marketing is meaningless, ass now TW morons will be running the show.

      It is very sad as slowly the techies that made AOL easy to use (and AOL 5 still is, btw) will drift away and AOL will no longer be able to serve the folks who didn't make computers their life. That fertile market may slip into the hands of MicroSoft unless people make ISP customer setup a lot simpler.

      It is sad news indeed.

  68. Re:A little late in the game by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2
    A little piece of Internet history...
    From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
    Subject: AOL users threaten alt.best.of.internet
    Date: 10 Mar 1994 12:45:32 -0600
    Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
    Lines: 36
    Message-ID: <2lnpsc$rvf@Mercury.mcs.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host : mercury.mcs.com

    Readers of alt.best.of.internet have been dismayed to learn
    that America Online has (accidentally) designated a.b.o.i
    as the first stop for all AOL newbies, as they approach netnews for
    the first time...

    The way it's happened is that AOL has pre-subscribed each user
    to a dozen select netnews groups, presenting them *alphabetically*,
    with aboi at the top!

    So aboi, which has never worked very well as a best-of group, is now
    chest-deep in messages like "Does anyone know Donelle in Syracuse?"
    and "Hey, your elbow is in my eye!" (etc etc etc etc etc ;^)

    Another serious contributor to the problem may be that they're sorting
    *threads* alphabetically, too, and they apparently have quite a lengthy
    spool, so *ancient* threads, that were stupid and pointless and
    unending the first time around, are sprouting back up like medusa's
    tentacles...

    If this is the way it's gonna stay, we may as well evacuate the group,
    and turn it into an auxilliary newusers.q's, because the tide isn't
    likely to let up for months.

    If we could talk to the responsible parties over there, though, we
    could probably suggest some other helpful things-- like a pre-post
    warning:

    "Your posting to netnews may tax the attention of hundreds of thousands
    of busy people. Have you made it worth their whiles, or should you
    maybe email it as a reply, rather than posting it as a followup? [rfq]"

    jes' speckalatin'...

    jorn
    ;^/
    Ultimately USENET surived the 600,000 AOL newbies, although the spammers (many of whom also arrived in the AOL tsunami) proved successful in turning it into a wasteland. See here for more details on the ill-orchestrated collision between AOL and USENET.
  69. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ted Turner currently has a very minor role in AOLTW. He sits on the board IIRC, but he's not exactly running anything. There's been talk of him leaving completely, he's certainly not happy there.

    Time Warner is the part of AOLTW that includes Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves because they skip the commercials. Ironically, this person is head of the remains of what was Ted Turner's empire before it was swallowed up.

    Case came from a part of AOLTW that was built on providing consumers with access to a new technology, that marketed, packaged, and opened a network that could have remained a geek cul-de-sac. Steve Case's AOL innovated, it opened up ways of communicating from easily-built websites to user friendly instant messaging, and it even, despite Time Warner's influence, gave birth to what'll probably end up being the defacto standard file swapping system, Gnutella.

    It's sad to see him go. It's even sadder to know that there's a strong chance that AOLTW, rather than being the bulwark against DRM and other technological shackles through being on the "inside" and able to lead the fight to keep content open, will now, almost certainly, lead the way - through ownership of TW Cable and AOL - in rebuilding the Internet as a closed system.

    That's terrible news, and I hope it doesn't come to pass.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  70. Re:A little late in the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hm. You make a good point, but in what ways do you think it would have matured (a real question, not rhetorical)?

  71. What will be the effects of this? by sean23007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone seems to be acting as if this is important. I, however, cannot seem to fathom why it matters who is at the helm of one of the world's worst ISPs. Will AOL abandon all the crap that made them so successful? Will Time Warner renounce the RIAA and MPAA and say it's all about the consumer? Will anything really change?

    On a simpler note, maybe someone can answer this question: is this good or bad for the geek community here at Slashdot?

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    1. Re:What will be the effects of this? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      It's bad. Period.

      AOL is the largest ISP in the country. It's bigger than MSN. It has a commercial interest in the Internet having as much value as possible.

      Time Warner has a commercial interest in having its content be as controlled as possible. As long as AOL controls Time Warner, Time Warner can't completely insist on its content being secured in the most draconian ways on the Internet. It can't lobby for draconian copyright laws. It can't insist on no-record bits.

      AOL is no longer at the helm with Case having left. Time Warner is. It always was the bigger, more profitable, business, and it sees AOL as the usurper.

      AOLTW can now use its market dominance to push DRM systems on a huge proportion of computers out there. It can safely undermine efforts to keep the Internet open, and indeed can be a part of changing its nature into a much more closed system.

      That's why it's bad for tech people. And, I think, for society in general, though I'm not allowed to use words beginning with "soci" when surrounded by Slashdot pseudo-libertarians...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:What will be the effects of this? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Oh. Crap. That does sound bad. Have they announced who will succeed him?

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  72. What a bunch of Pretenious Jerks by sethadam1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who says Steve Case sucks is a goon.

    Everyone here is bitching about how much AOL sucks, and it does, but I have to admit, it got my mom, my dad, and my granparents online. They can't figure out Windows, let alone Linux, or installing software, or getting themselves on Earthlink. They don't really understand IE, the concept of a browser or email program outside of AOL, or search engines.

    Sure, you could argue that AOL handicapped them and that is WHY they don't get it, but I maintain, living hundreds of miles away, that AOL GOT them online.

    So, as much as it r^H shapes your knowledge of the internet, it still does a lot for many millions of people. All of this blossomed under Mr. Case. I have to give Steve's effort an A.

    1. Re:What a bunch of Pretenious Jerks by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      You deserve to be modded up, but don't hold your breath. You're preaching inclusiveness for non-geeks on the interent, and that doesn't go over well here. I think AOL should be despised in some ways, but not for the reasons most people think. I have no problem that they got millions of people with no clue about computing on the internet in a quick, easy, productive fashion. They deserve points for that.

      What provokes my ire is that they also helped herald the age of spam, popup ads, and rampant commercialism without ethics. Spammers are well-known to use AOL addresses...they're easy to steal. AOL pioneered the practice of constantly marketing things to you via annoying popup ads while you're working/surfing. Ever seen an AOL session? It's a constant barrage of "Try this!" and "special deal for you!" ads. And the very large market of "dumb" users attracted spammers and porn mavens, like a pack of wolves zeroing in on a herd of cattle.

      AOL served a purpose, but I won't mourn it's passing.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  73. Broadband is killing AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AOL is still a dialup company with dozens of millions of customers dialing up to it. As broadband takes over AOL becomes irrelevent. They still haven't learned to roll out broadband AOL and so people are beginning to wonder why they should bother with it. $40 for broadband and another $10-$20 for AOL?? Why?

  74. Local ISPs a dying breed around here. by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2

    There may soon be very few local independent ISPs left. They are dropping like flies around here. The giants are pushing them out of business, and even the backbone providers have suddenly, overnight, jacked up the prices of the local ISP's T1 feeds to exhorbitant prices or are refusing to renew their service contracts outright. Something fishy, other than the bad economy, is going on in ISP-land these past 8 weeks.

  75. blame does no good. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You know, I get tired of hearing people complain about AOL and blame them for problems TW is having. It looks the other way around to me. When's the last time you checked out Life, Time or any other of their publications? Right, but you are on the net every day. What would you have done with the world's largest ISP? Let it sit? Right, why go for syngerny when you can ruin things and cast blame?

    Time Warner was good for AOL like having a former ATT exec on the board of @Home was good for @Home - it resulted in total ruin. The death of AOL is NOT going to convince anyone to buy a dead tree Time magazine any more than the death of @Home has slowed the move away from long distance telephone calls. Time Warner is sitting on a lot of old models and people who invest in it deserve to be pummeled. They failed entirely to take advantage of the world's largest ISP to promote themselves and change their marketing model. There's a reason no one here ever quotes Time here, they are clueless. I hope you own lots of TW stock Mr. Cluster, you deserve it.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:blame does no good. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      You really are ignorant, aren't you. You do realize that Time Warner is way more than just magazines. At the current stock value, AOL is valued at zero. The entire value of the stock is considered Time Warner properties. You can see the list I posted above but they include the two biggest hits of last year - LotR and Harry Potter.

      As for quoting Time, I have never heard of anybody qouting US News or Newsweek either. They are news magazines. They are not published daily and are not meant to be the latest and greatest. That is what CNN, MSNBC, and the newspapers are for.

  76. We need AOL. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously folks, let's not do too much AOL bashing here. AOL is one of the giants of the tech industry -- one of the few big enough to hold its own against Microsoft. That's saying a lot. Their 35 million subscriber base dwarfs MSN's.

    What would the Internet look like if those 35 million were MSN subscribers? Do you honestly expect the Internet would be nearly as open as it is today? We might have that closed-loop that Gates envisioned in the original version of The Road Ahead.

    Although I'm not an AOL subscriber myself, I for one am glad it's there, and I hope they continue to retain their sizable lead in the ISP market. We need that balance.

    And let's not forget that AOL funds the bulk of Mozilla development. I show my thankfulness for that by using the branded Netscape browser and patronizing the branded Netscape portal. You should, too.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:We need AOL. by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly expect the Internet would be nearly as open as it is today?

      Have you ever actually used AOL?

      Do you even know what open means?

      hint: open is not AOL

    2. Re:We need AOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > hint: open is not AOL

      Well, it's not MSN either. What other large ISP-like company do you think is a viable competitor to Microsoft in this market?..

    3. Re:We need AOL. by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Earthlink?

      Do you really need a nationwide ISP anyway? The Internet is distributed. I use my local phone company.

  77. Re:Wookie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not go to this site - rapid-fire opens goatse

  78. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by Xerithane · · Score: 2

    Time Warner is the part of AOLTW that includes Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves [slashdot.org] because they skip the commercials. Ironically, this person is head of the remains of what was Ted Turner's empire before it was swallowed up.

    Wrong, and FUD. Granted, Kellner isn't exactly up on the current evolving digital market but he did not say PVR owners are thiefs. He said PVRs allow Advert skipping, and people who skip adverts are thiefs. He explains this in detail saying, "The programming is ad supported, when you skip those ads you are stealing programming."

    What you (and Slashdot) are saying as a typical /. metaphor: Oil funds terrorism, so all people who own cars are terrorists.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  79. TONIGHT, 9 PM: Show about Time Warner and AOL by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    Tonight, Sunday, 9:00 PM Pacific standard time on CNBC (Dish Network and other, re-broadcast): The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner.

  80. AGAIN TONIGHT: The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative


    Tonight, Sunday, 9:00 PM Pacific standard time on CNBC (Dish Network and others, re-broadcast): The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner.

    For those for whom English is not their native language, "heist" means "theft".

  81. making nothing from something. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You say Entertainment biz has a entirely different culture than Internet/Technology.

    Yes this is true. You then blame Case for the decline of stock value and say,

    ... single handedly making $6 billion disappear is no small feat.

    This is also true though the blame might fall elswhere before it's all over. Was there some reason that Time content did not make it onto AOL's networks? Hmmmm, they had the world's biggest ISP and this is what they do with it? Good work boys! How much do you think Napster, MP3.com and Internet radio was worth combined? Kinda makes $6 billion look small, but the entertainment industry folks destroyed them too. They think they have something special that they can dribble out one dead tree copy after another and profit like the internet does not exist. It's not going to work but those responsible will retire very wealthy anyway.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:making nothing from something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is also true though the blame might fall elswhere before it's all over. Was there some reason that Time content did not make it onto AOL's networks? Hmmmm, they had the world's biggest ISP and this is what they do with it?

      Try reversing your culprits - recall that AOL bought TW, not the other way around. "They" had one of the world's larger media companies, and what did "they" do with it?..

  82. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
    You know, if you actually read my comment rather than just stopping at the link, you'll see that that's implied. The comment was that he said that "PVR owners are thieves because they skip the adverts".

    That pretty much implies that the Kellner's insult wasn't directed at PVR owners who religiously watch every advert downloaded into their puny hard drives.

    But, hey, that's ok. If you want to go for an over-the-top reaction, go right ahead. Next time though, please preceed it with "*Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzt!* WRONG!!!!" in the time honoured Usenet tradition... it's more irritating that way.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  83. Obligatory class warfare comment by release7 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Get fired, land nice cush job. Fuck the rich.

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  84. Re:... and in chat-room... (WITH PIC!) by los+furtive · · Score: 1

    Damn that's crazy! Hehe, thanks for posting, never seen that one yet.

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

  85. Not necessarily good. by Selanit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AOL has its serious downsides, I'll admit it. But they have also done some really good stuff. The prime example of this is Mozilla. Yes, the open-source web browser that is so justly celebrated on this site is backed by AOL. An awful lot of the main developers are AOL employees, and that fast connection that mozilla.org sits on is provided by AOL.

    That makes up for one heck of a lot in the way of crappy customer service, if you ask me. Mozilla is as good as it is largely because there is an actual paid development team that works on it professionally. So don't be too quick to shout "Hurrah!" if AOL melts down.

  86. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by Xerithane · · Score: 2

    You know, if you actually read my comment rather than just stopping at the link, you'll see that that's implied. The comment was that he said that "PVR owners are thieves because they skip the adverts".
    No, he never said that. Go back to the original 2400 article. Follow the link from the original /. story, back to the original 2600 story, which has the full quote.

    Again, if we're talking of "over-the-top reaction" I'm pretty sure that saying that someone says something that they did not say is much worse than someone correcting you. But that's fine, you're just a slashbot. If the company is in this month/years badlist, than anything that someone says must be taken out of context, summarized incorrectly, and show that person is an enemy of free speech and they kick small puppies. ...it's more irritating that way.
    So is saying things that aren't true. Then saying they are true.

    PVRs are bad for the industry in the current business model. Why? Because they allow people to skip advertisements. Why is this bad? Because the commercials are funded by advertisements. What is it when someone receives something without coming through with the payment of that? Thievery.

    Now, the point comes to show that if you just watch a show you didn't agree to watch the commercials, that's fine. It's a valid point. But, it is implied that you agree to watch the commercials in exchange for free programming. What he said was absolutely valid.

    Now, you were going to say something else to discredit yourself?

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  87. Dispute by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to dispute the thread about the causes for AOL's impending demise. The assumption seems to be that AOL is dying because it's users are getting more net-savy, and moving to "real" ISPs. I don't think so. AOL's doom can be explained in one word.

    Broadband.

    AOL is a dial-up beast. From beginning to end, it was designed as a one-stop-shopping place to get internet access, web surfing, email, and chat services. The user didn't have to configure much of anything. Just run the setup, and you're on. Everything in one, neat, tidy, and USEFULL package. To so many people, it WAS the internet.

    While some users wised up and moved on, most AOLers were quite happy to stay put. Then broadband came along. And those same users discoverd that for just a few dollars more than their AOL bill, they could get blazingly fast internet access. Access from a familiar and trusted source (their phone company or cable tv provider). Yes, other means of access were availabe in the dial-up sphere, but users were happy with what they had.

    Cable and Phone companies beat AOL to the broadband game, and the jig was up. Even to the AOL faithful, it was apparent that they were no longer the primary means of access to the web. And a giant mental perception in this country came crumbling down. The internet now means Charter, or Verizon, or Bellsouth, or Knology. It doesn't mean AOL in the age of broadband. The perception has now changed. That perception was AOL's most powerful marketing tool. Broadband, since it's on all the time, is pretty much as easy to use as AOL. You don't have to turn it on. Just click an icon for what you need, and bam!, you're there. It's better than the old days for most users, actually.

    Yes, those users were told they could still get AOL for an EXTRA ten bucks or so, but by then, why bother? That mental block has been destroyed. AOL is no longer synonymous with access. It was the gateway in. No longer.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  88. Cousin by craw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just one note. Ed Case (Steve's cousin) is the new Congressman from Hawaii.

  89. After he leaves AOLTW, will he start the next AOL? by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

    Dear World,

    I don't think Steve Case will be happy in this new role and bet he will move on soon. You never know what he'll do. Perhaps he wanted to take the company somewhere the rest of the senior management didn't want to go. I say that we all need to keep our eye open for the next AOL, because he probably won't be happy with anything else.

    Later,
    -Slashdot Junky

    --
    .
    Landfill Mining Co.
    Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
  90. the time warner deal by ScubaS · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I think it was an overambitious idea to acquire time warner, with the goal in mind that AOL would market TW products and services and vice versa. All I can say, is that if this was the goal, a partnership would have been a wiser choice. It would have acheived the same effect, IMO.

  91. On AOL by Sayten241 · · Score: 1

    Saying AOL is a bad ISP is like saying Windows is a bad operating system. Sure, you can't do everything you want, it's slow, and doesn't always work right. But nothing is as easy to learn on. I have a cable modem, and let me tell you, without my past experiences on AOL and Compuserve, I would know nothing about how to use the Internet. Think about how a cable modem works. You just plug it in and you're online. If you're a first time user, you have no idea what to do now that you have access to the internet. I think sometimes that as techies we forget that the vast majority of the population has no idea how to use a computer. Especially to people who grew up in the 50's 60's and 70's before there were widespread computer use, these glowing boxes can be pretty intimidating.

    1. Re:On AOL by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Funny
      Saying AOL is a bad ISP is like saying Windows is a bad operating system

      For a 1337 h^xx0r ready to pound on Windows you sure can't format an HTML message to save your life.

    2. Re:On AOL by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      That was one of the funnier things I've seen in a while....

  92. hahah by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Why did you invest in them? They never had a resonable bussness plan. Sell expensive linux servers... the whole thing was based on companies like Dell and IBM being retarded.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  93. Re:A little late in the game by isorox · · Score: 1

    I generally find snobby "holier than thou" geeks to be larger assholes than the everyone else.


    Must ... not make ... goatse ... reference.

    Too late!

  94. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    No, he never said that.
    I didn't say he did, did I.

    Jeez. If you're going to come up with some ludicrously over the top attack on someone, at least try to figure out what they said.

    Again: The comment that you took issue with was that Kellner said that PVR owners are thieves because they skip the adverts. Anyone reading that comment is NOT going to think that it means that Kellner was saying that people who use PVRs who religiously watch every advert are thieves.

    Well, not unless they're you, obviously.

    What I wrote was a simplification of what Kellner said. It's the simplification that Slashdot used, and, I admit it, I was wrong, I should have written a long and complex description of his views. But, *shrug*, I couldn't be bothered. It's hard to believe that someone would read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that Kellner believes that PVR owners who watch all the adverts are thieves. But I'm sorry about that anyway, I'll be more careful in the future.

    BTW, you forgot the "*Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt* WRONG!" comment. If you're going to use "FUD" to describe something that has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft's strategies to undermine competitors by making potential customers believe there are risks associated with purchasing those competitor's products, you could at least do me the favour of adding the usual Usenet insults to boot.

    Damned Slashbot.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  95. Please... by autopr0n · · Score: 3

    Maybe 10 years ago, but to day all AOL does is shove shitty service down people's throats who don't know any better, or don't want to lose their buddy lists and old email.

    Besides, AOL isn't even the same thing as 'the internet'. And it wasn't even connected for a long time. Even today they still use propritaty protocols crap.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  96. Re:A little late in the game by lonedfx · · Score: 1

    I don't know... just a guess... perhaps the clash between usenet and aol-type services would have been forseen and eased up a little.

    There really is no way to tell what would have happened...

    lone, dfx.

  97. huh by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    That guy has an aluminum case.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  98. no he's not by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Helping make something easy for someone for a couple then exploiting their ignorance to rape them for as much money as possible indefinitely is not nice. Doing it to millions of people may make you rich, but not nice.

    Also, autopr0n.com 'helps' thousands of people a day :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:no he's not by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      It's called capitalism, look into it.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  99. Oh please by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    AOL purchaced TW, not the other way around. AOL was in control.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  100. No by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    What is it when someone receives something without coming through with the payment of that? Thievery.

    Thievery is when someone deprives someone else of something that belongs to them.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Thievery is when someone deprives someone else of something that belongs to them.

      You are depriving them of something that belongs to them. Advertising dollars. I don't buy into the music piracy shit, but you are stealing free programming when you strip out all the adverts from every show you watch.

      If you try to justify getting something for nothing, by subverting the required payment, than I feel bad for you and your neighbors. You obviously fail to understand communal ethics.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:No by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

      You are depriving them of something that belongs to them. Advertising dollars. I don't buy into the music piracy shit, but you are stealing free programming when you strip out all the adverts from every show you watch.

      No, your logic is flawed. The viewer who declines to view the advertising is not a thief as there is no commitment by the viewer to watch the commercial, just as there is no requirement that your read your junk mail--even though junk mail may subsidize our mail system. The advertizer isn't guaranteed by the distributor that you'll watch their ads...they cannot legitimately make such a representation. They are selling the OPPORTUNITY to present their ad to you. What you do when the ad is presented is up to you. It is a matter of personal choice. There is no obligation to watch. If you don't watch, then the opportunity for marketing goes away and the distributor has nothing of value to sell to the advertizer.

      Of course, if ads no longer have value to the advertizer then in the long run the current advertising model will become outmoded. But this will not be subversion or anything illegal or immoral...it will simply be the public exercising their right of choice. It is then up to the advertizer to figure out that his chosen marketing methodology had become ineffective and that a different technique must be employed.

    3. Re:No by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      The viewer who declines to view the advertising is not a thief as there is no commitment by the viewer to watch the commercial, just as there is no requirement that your read your junk mail--even though junk mail may subsidize our mail system

      It's an implied commitment. If you don't like commercials, fine, don't watch them. But then you are going to bitch when they cancel all the shows you like because advert dollars don't work. Or they'll make you enter in a special code that gets displayed through the adverts and you will bitch about that.

      Not thinking you are screwing over the networks by deliberately circumventing all adverts with PVRs is like trying to say smoking is healthy. You are try to excuse your own bad behavior. You will lose. Maybe it's not the old school definition of thievery, but that's the ironic thing about the "Give Me Everything I want for Free" geeks. They use new technology, and when someone says it's wrong with old words, they say, "Nope, because it's digital it can't be theft!"

      Well, you know what, words evolve too. Advert skippers are cheating the networks out of money, whether it's now or 6 months down the road. They're stealing free programming, by not following through with what was an implied contract with the networks. That's like saying, "He told me I could take his car", when he meant "You can borrow it for a day" and saying it's not theft. And yes, you are depriving them of money, so there is a tangible loss.

      I hope that they do implement a really annoying method of having to enter in a special code during the commercials in order to watch the show. Then every one of the PVR owning commercial skipping assholes will be bitching their heads off about their choices being taken away and they did it all to themselves.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:No by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

      It's an implied commitment. If you don't like commercials, fine, don't watch them. But then you are going to bitch when they cancel all the shows you like because advert dollars don't work. Or they'll make you enter in a special code that gets displayed through the adverts and you will bitch about that.

      Your logic is still flawed. There is absolutely no "implied commitment" by the viewer to watch commercials, as there is equally no "implied commitment" by the advertiser to provide you anything of value. It's a case of "take it or leave it"...on both sides of the tube. You clearly aren't a lawyer.

      But then you are going to bitch when they cancel all the shows you like because advert dollars don't work.

      I've watched MOST of the shows I've liked get cancelled prematurely *regardless of how many commercials I watched*. I can't begin to name them all...NBC's original Star Trek, NBC News Overnight, ABC's Police Squad!, Fox's Action...the list goes on and on. The cancellation of most of the shows I liked had nothing to do with skipping commercials and everything to do with the fact that THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH GULLIBLE CONSUMERS WATCHING THEM TO SATISFY THE ADVERTISER'S MARKETING OBJECTIVES. Does that mean that if I want to watch these shows I have an "implied commitment" to lobotomize myself to meet the target demographic? I think not.

      Not thinking you are screwing over the networks by deliberately circumventing all adverts with PVRs is like trying to say smoking is healthy.

      This is TRULY IRONIC. *I'm old enough to remember advertisements that said that smoking WAS healthy.* Your argument is just as perverse as those advertisements were, advertisements that marketed cigarettes to young people--advertisements that you imply we all had an obligation to watch.

      You are try to excuse your own bad behavior.

      Now you're just name calling...an ad hominem attack. This is even MORE ironic because I don't even own a PVR! Just because I've refuted the logic of your argument against those who do use PVRs you now think you have the right to recklessly accuse me of bad behavior. That's pretty weak. Believe it or not, I use my 7 year old videocassette recorder almost exclusively to view videotapes I rent; I only own one blank videotape and have only used the VCR TWICE to record a TV program. This underlines how desperate you are to make your ill-conceived point.

      You will lose.

      Yeah, right. Resistance is futile! :^)

      Maybe it's not the old school definition of thievery, but that's the ironic thing about the "Give Me Everything I want for Free" geeks.

      Don't you find it the least bit ironic that you have just admitted to changing the definition of thievery...just as the big media have attempted to do? How much more of your freedom do you wish to give away simply by allowing others to redefine your "old school" rights for you? You seem desperate to justify all this by vaguely equating it to blatant copyright infringement, a comparison that simply isn't valid.

      They use new technology, and when someone says it's wrong with old words, they say, "Nope, because it's digital it can't be theft!"

      No, what they are doing was always perfectly legal using the old technology (editing out or skipping over commercials), so doing it with newer, more efficient technology isn't any less legal, no matter how much the advertisers yammer about it. You seem to think that improvements in technology that collide with certain business perogatives ought to be illegal and that laws ought to be reinterpreted to give advertisers rights they never had to begin with. You're entitled to your personal beliefs, but regardless of how strongly you feel them they aren't equivalent to law.

    5. Re:No by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Now you're just name calling...an ad hominem attack. This is even MORE ironic because I don't even own a PVR! Just because I've refuted the logic of your argument against those who do use PVRs you now think you have the right to recklessly accuse me of bad behavior. That's pretty weak. Believe it or not, I use my 7 year old videocassette recorder almost exclusively to view videotapes I rent; I only own one blank videotape and have only used the VCR TWICE to record a TV program. This underlines how desperate you are to make your ill-conceived point.


      Sorry you misunderstood. This was a general "you" not directed at you as a person. In the sense of, "You can run around and shoot people in the game and it's fantastic" when talking to someone that doesn't own said video game.

      There is absolutely no "implied commitment" by the viewer to watch commercials, as there is equally no "implied commitment" by the advertiser to provide you anything of value. It's a case of "take it or leave it"...on both sides of the tube. You clearly aren't a lawyer.

      Everybody knows that commercials are what pay for the TV shows to be produced. There is no debate about this. By consisting skipping the commercials, you [in the everybody who does it, not you as a person] are causing financial loss to the network. No matter how you look at it, that's what happens.

      This is TRULY IRONIC. *I'm old enough to remember advertisements that said that smoking WAS healthy.* Your argument is just as perverse as those advertisements were, advertisements that marketed cigarettes to young people--advertisements that you imply we all had an obligation to watch.

      Just about the cigarettes, I'm assuming you are talking about the Camel ads that made smoking look cool. There has never been an ad that said that they improved health.

      I did not imply everybody had an obligation to watch. I said that you have an obligation to not use technology to strip out every commercial on every show you watch. This is where you seem to be confused.

      Don't you find it the least bit ironic that you have just admitted to changing the definition of thievery...just as the big media have attempted to do? How much more of your freedom do you wish to give away simply by allowing others to redefine your "old school" rights for you? You seem desperate to justify all this by vaguely equating it to blatant copyright infringement, a comparison that simply isn't valid.

      They don't take any of my rights. I don't watch TV. I decide to get riled up about music, the PVR folks are wrong. So are people who trade music without paying a dime. If people continue to do wrong, they will have their "rights" taken away. I didn't realize that people had a right to strip adverts out of a show though. I didn't admit to changing the definition, I merely commented that to the rest of the world depriving someone of something, even if it's tertiary financial damage, but taking a non-tangible digital copy of something, is theft. Sorry, but most people agree. Most people say, "Copying mp3s over the internet without buying the CD is theft." Definitions are what the masses say they are, not what you think to satisfy your agenda or your opinions on what is and is not ethical.

      No, what they are doing was always perfectly legal using the old technology (editing out or skipping over commercials), so doing it with newer, more efficient technology isn't any less legal, no matter how much the advertisers yammer about it. You seem to think that improvements in technology that collide with certain business perogatives ought to be illegal and that laws ought to be reinterpreted to give advertisers rights they never had to begin with. You're entitled to your personal beliefs, but regardless of how strongly you feel them they aren't equivalent to law.

      It's not a question of editing it out. Previously you did it by hand, or with rough time estimates. Now it is automated and ensures you never have to see a commercial as long as you have your PVR on. That is wrong. No matter how you try to justify it, it's wrong.

      Beliefs create laws, in case you missed that. As I said before, soon you will have to enter a special code in, or pay per show, and everyone will complain because they were too fucking stupid to just get up and take a piss instead of cutting out all the commercials.

      It's legal now, but soon it probably won't be. At least not civilly. Wait for agreements before you watch a show, or at the bottom of every show.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    6. Re:No by divide+overflow · · Score: 2

      Sorry you misunderstood. This was a general "you" not directed at you as a person. In the sense of, "You can run around and shoot people in the game and it's fantastic" when talking to someone that doesn't own said video game.

      Thanks for the clarification.

      Everybody knows that commercials are what pay for the TV shows to be produced. There is no debate about this. By consisting skipping the commercials, you [in the everybody who does it, not you as a person] are causing financial loss to the network. No matter how you look at it, that's what happens.

      Fine, that is consumers doing what consumers do...making choices. Again, the point was there is no implied commitment by the consumer. I believe you've said elsewhere that you've studied economics so I don't mean to patronize you by telling you this. Yes, if people choose not to do what the advertisers want them to do then there will be consequences. It's always that way. But that is by choice, not by commitment. Commitment implies duty; that's a fundimental principle of law. But is no duty to watch commercials, just as there is no duty to provide free entertainment.

      Just about the cigarettes, I'm assuming you are talking about the Camel ads that made smoking look cool. There has never been an ad that said that they improved health.

      Never? I think not. See this link for a TV ad from Phillip Morris that that made just that claim. You'll also see an ad where Flintstones cartoon characters were used to sell the butts. And how about that young, terrific looking Ronald Reagan selling Chesterfields? Ah, those were the good old days....

      I did not imply everybody had an obligation to watch. I said that you have an obligation to not use technology to strip out every commercial on every show you watch. This is where you seem to be confused.

      I'm not confused when I point out that, if you don't have an obligation to watch, then you don't have ANY obligation to watch, regardless of how you choose to avoid watching...by going to the bathroom, taking a nap, having your wife or child mute the volume, or employing a servant to do the same. Is your argument some crypto-elitist rant against cheap and popular ways *of doing things that huge numbers of people do, manually, all the time*? You seem to be hung up on the methods rather than the core principles. And you seem married to the idea that people are obligated to stick with the status quo, entrenched interests, and old methodologies. Well, they aren't. And that's a *good thing*. If they were we wouldn't have any new technology. Don't you believe in the marketplace? If commercials go away how do you know something better won't take their place? HBO charges money and does fine without commercials...and they seem to be going strong. The Market has spoken, end of story. Like you have spoken when you say you don't watch TV. Again, *no obligation*. That little box seems to have crossed a personal boundary for you. Well, some people like change and embrace it, others dislike change and fight it. But like it or not, change comes.

      They don't take any of my rights. I don't watch TV.

      Just because you don't choose to exercise your rights doesn't mean they aren't being taken away from you...it just means that you won't miss them. Big difference. You might not care, but others certainly do. People ought to be less cavalier about giving up their rights...it can be a real bitch to get them back. We've really become too complacent about protecting our rights...regardless of whether we give them up to government or business or whatnot.

      I decide to get riled up about music, the PVR folks are wrong.

      You are entitled to your feelings and beliefs. God bless America.

      So are people who trade music without paying a dime.

      This isn't germane...you may share similar feelings on both matters, but they aren't the same issue. Your PVR concerns seem to revolve around a personal sense of obligation to support a pre-existing marketing model, while the pirating of copyrighted music is a clear violation of the law. There is a big difference. Using a PVR to skip commercials isn't illegal...the uses you object to are protected as "fair use" by federal law going back over two decades.

      I didn't realize that people had a right to strip adverts out of a show though. I didn't admit to changing the definition, I merely commented that to the rest of the world depriving someone of something, even if it's tertiary financial damage, but taking a non-tangible digital copy of something, is theft.

      Yes, you have rights you didn't realize. You have the right to "time shift" TV programs on VCRs (or PVRs) to view later (Supreme Court, 1984) *even though the industry fought it*. You have the right to make copies *for your personal use*. In fact, a 1992 law allows you to make limited digital copies of music...believe it or not every time you buy a blank tape or blank audio CD *you are paying music royalties; they included in the price of blank tape or disc. Did you know that?

      Most people say, "Copying mp3s over the internet without buying the CD is theft." Definitions are what the masses say they are, not what you think to satisfy your agenda or your opinions on what is and is not ethical.

      You just won't drop your use of this legally inapplicable argument. Let me make it painfully clear: Skipping over ads isn't giving away someone else's intellectual property. Skipping over something you recorded for your own personal use is not copyright infringement. IT IS NOT THEFT. Period. End of discussion. I know you may feel this isn't right, you may feel powerfully that it SHOULD be theft, but that doesn't make it so.

      Beliefs create laws, in case you missed that.

      No, I didn't miss that either. But beliefs aren't laws until they're codified. Laws help resolve conflicting beliefs.

      As I said before, soon you will have to enter a special code in, or pay per show, and everyone will complain because they were too fucking stupid to just get up and take a piss instead of cutting out all the commercials.

      Well, presumably *you* won't complain because you don't watch anyway. Most people didn't complain...they "spoke with their feet" and took their business elsewhere, first to cable, then to satellite. Some of the most highly acclaimed programming now comes from premium channels like HBO and Cinemax. Broadcast television has been lame for a very long time, well before Newton Minnow called it "a vast wasteland" in 1961.

      It's legal now, but soon it probably won't be. At least not civilly. Wait for agreements before you watch a show, or at the bottom of every show.

      Man, I thought you'd NEVER concede this simple point...yes, it IS legal now. And let me say, unequivocally, that I understand your legitimate concerns. Your feelings on the matter are completely reasonable. You feel people are taking advantage of freely given entertainment without paying anything, even their eyeballs, in return. Perhaps you feel this is selfish and shortsighted. If so you're probably right. But being selfish and shortsighted isn't illegal, per se, although we frequently wish it were. When we feel strongly enough about it sometimes we pass a law. If you are so inclined you can send a message to Senators Hollings, Hatch, and Biden...I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

  101. Ever hear of BBSes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's where the real geeks were. They didn't need some giant companies to set up huge services. They dialed into each other's computers, and set up their own services, including a worldwide email network (Fidonet). BBSes died in part because SysOps and users were early internet adopters. As soon as dial-up internet access became common/cheap, they had it, and many were hooked. And, most didn't go through AOL or another service like that to get there.

  102. Re:A little late in the game by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    If there hadn't been AOL the Internet would only be populated with geeks that just talk about computers and Sci-Fi.

    how's that for a knee-jerk reaction.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  103. Poetic justice by mtec · · Score: 2

    The bubble popped
    now Steve is chopped

    Without a doubt,
    Time's run out

    For all he built,
    a crazy quilt

    that got too big,
    became a pig

    now Case is gone,
    (I think I'll yawn)

    *sorry*
    *hey! I've got spell checking in Safari in the comment box!! Woo hoo!*

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  104. pension plan? by morganjharvey · · Score: 1

    I heard that he still gets to sit on the board...
    But he only gets to sit for 1000 hours, and he has to use them within the first month...
    sorry... couldn't resist...

  105. Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! by Xerithane · · Score: 2

    I didn't say he did, did I.
    Uhm, you did say that he said that.

    Jeez. If you're going to come up with some ludicrously over the top attack on someone, at least try to figure out what they said.

    You attempted to label Kellner as an anti-freedom enemy-of-slashdot because he said that if you deliberately skip all adverts than you are a thief, and you turned it around and said, and I quote verbatim: ...Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves

    So, exactly which part of this am I not understanding that you said? The part where you lie about him, or the part where you say you never said it?

    If you're going to use "FUD" to describe something that has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft's strategies to undermine competitors by making potential customers believe there are risks associated with purchasing those competitor's products, you could at least do me the favour of adding the usual Usenet insults to boot.

    Sorry, but lying about something falls under that category. You are trying to undermine him by spreading things that aren't true. So... again, what am I doing here that is wrong?

    Damned Slashbot.
    Yes, I'm the Slashbot because I'm defending the CEO of TW. Sure... I didn't actually think you would discredit yourselv further, thanks.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  106. Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll put up this huge billboard right next to your house. It will contain an advertisement to something you have no need for. The billboard will be so big, you can't miss it. Everytime you don't look at it, you MUST pay me $50, otherwise you are stealing.

    This is what you are saying. I think it is wrong.

  107. Different story in the UK by Doctor_Wibble · · Score: 1


    The pricing structure is somewhat different in the UK - the cost of an AOL broadband account is not much more than many of the 'regular' broadband ISPs over here (average difference around GBP +3.00, depending who you compare against).
    Would be somewhat ironic if the success of America On Line broadband was in the *UK*...

    (refs - adslguide.org.uk, aol.co.uk)

    And yes you *do* have to sign up from one of their CDs first.

    1. Re:Different story in the UK by DrXym · · Score: 2

      And that extra money would mostly go towards content side work that AOL do. I don't particularly like the AOL client software, but the content is excellent and extremely simple to navigate. I wouldn't be tempted to use it for shopping, but it must rank as the most simple convenient site if you want to grab a recipe, learn how to fix a crack in wall plaster, read film news or something of that nature.

  108. I laughed and laughed. by Grincho · · Score: 1

    I just had to let you know, Mr. Wiggle, that I enjoyed several dozen seconds of laughter thanks to your unusual combination of the words "unfathomable" and "catastrophe". Or maybe it's just real late at night....

  109. "once-in-a-lifetime bubble that came to an end." by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting


    The show on CNBC, "The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner" was excellent. Best quote: "AOL was a beneficiary of a once-in-a-lifetime bubble that soon came to an end".

    I was surprised at how many top executives were interviewed for the show. Sumner Redstone of Viacom and Michael Eisner of Disney are just two.

    The show came to no conclusions, however.

    What could have stopped Time Warner from making such a self-destructive merger? Ethics. If the TW executives cared about people and what AOL was doing to its customers, if they had cared about other people and not just money, they would have been protected from making the mistake.

  110. Steve Case? Was that you? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2


    Can you believe it??? Someone moderated my post above as a "Troll", when it is a simple, on-topic fact.

    Steve Case? Was that you?

  111. AOL Chronology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monday January 13, 1:50 am ET

    NEW YORK, Jan 13 (Reuters) -- AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Chairman Steve Case said on Sunday he would step down.
    Following is a chronology of key events in America Online and
    AOL Time Warner's history.
    1985 - Steve Case and Jim Kimsey starts Quantum Computer
    Services, a company that evolved into America Online.
    1992 - Case takes over as chairman and immediately raised $66
    million through an initial public offering.
    1993- America Online for Windows was released, bringing
    America Online's service to over 300,000 subscribers.
    1994- America Online's influence reached 1 million customers,
    getting AOL ready to become the premier provider of online
    services.
    1998- America Online buys CompuServe from H&R Block for $1.2
    billion and also buys ICQ Internet chat technology for $287
    million.
    1999- America Online buys Netscape Communications Corp. for
    $10 billion. At the time, it is one of the most popular Web
    browsers, but it is ultimately overtaken by Microsoft
    Explorer.
    Jan. 10, 2000 - America Online announces plans to buy Time
    Warner Inc. for $180 billion, promising to, in Steve Case's
    words, "fundamentally change the way people get information,
    communicate with others, buy products and are entertained."
    Steve Case, chairman and CEO of America Online, will be
    chairman of the combined company, which will be dubbed AOL Time
    Warner Inc. Gerald Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner will
    be CEO of the new company.
    June 23, 2000 - Shareholders approve America Online's
    acquisition of Time Warner.
    Dec. 14, 2000 - America Online gets clearance from the Federal
    Trade Commission to buy Time Warner Inc., with several
    conditions including open access of its cable lines to rival
    Internet service providers and assurances that the combined
    company will not discriminate against other companies'
    entertainment.
    Jan. 12, 2001 - The day after the Federal Communications
    Commission approves the deal, America Online closes its
    acquisition of Time Warner. It is a year and a day since the
    deal was announced.
    Jan. 31, 2001 - AOL Time Warner posts a $1.1 billion loss for
    its first quarter as a combined company, largely as the result
    of charges stemming from the deal. The company brags that its
    assets will help the company weather any potential weakness in
    the advertising market.
    March 6, 2001 - The company combines its Turner properties,
    like CNN, TBS and TNT, with the WB broadcast network, under the
    control of Jamie Kellner. The move alienates Ted Turner, the
    company's largest individual shareholder.
    May 22, 2001 - America Online raises the monthly price of its
    Internet service by $1.95 to $23.90, but maintains it would
    have been able to reach its financial targets without the price
    increase.
    June 20, 2001 - CEO Levin says advertising revenues have
    stopped falling, bucking an industry trend that is affecting
    most of the company's rivals. Again, he maintains the company
    is on track to meet its financial targets.
    July 25, 2001 - The company buys IPC, Britain's largest
    consumer magazine publisher for $1.6 billion.
    Sept. 24, 2001 - Nearly two weeks after attacks on New York
    and Washington, AOL Time Warner warns it will fall short of its
    2001 financial targets.
    Nov. 1, 2001 - AOL Time Warner CFO Mike Kelly is removed and
    named to the post of Chief Operating Officer of the America
    Online unit. He is replaced by Wayne Pace, the CFO of Turner
    Broadcasting.
    Nov. 28, 2001 - Ted Turner tells attendees at a cable
    conference that giving veto power to CEO Levin was the "biggest
    mistake he ever made." "I never thought I'd get prematurely
    retired," he said, speaking of his reduced role at the company.
    He renews his contract with the company in late December.
    Dec. 5, 2001 - Gerald Levin announces he will step down as CEO
    of AOL Time Warner and will be replaced by Dick Parsons, the
    company's co-chief operating officer.
    Jan. 7, 2002 - AOL Time Warner buys Bertelsmann's remaining
    stake in AOL Europe for $6.75 billion, fulfilling a contractual
    obligation when the original deal was made in March 2000 at the
    top of the Internet boom. New CEO Parsons acknowledges that the
    company is not counting on an economic recovery or a rebound in
    the advertising market.
    March 25, 2002 - The company said it will take a $54 billion
    charge, reflecting the decline in value of its assets since the
    acquisition
    April 9, 2002 - Barry Schuler, head of the America Online
    Internet unit, is reassigned to the Home Networking Solutions
    and Digital Home Services division. His duties are assumed by
    Chief Operating Officer Bob Pittman.
    Late April 2002 - Some investors call for a spin-off of
    America Online unit amid continued concerns about weak online
    advertising, slow subscriber growth and inability to move
    subscribers to a high-speed service.
    May 17, 2002 - Shareholders vent their anger at executives at
    the company's annual meeting. Case acknowledges: "The AOL
    business and our vision of a combined company got off track."
    July 18, 2002 - COO Bob Pittman, who personified the brash
    Internet business he helped to build, resigns, raising the
    possibility that a recovery at the unit will take longer than
    expected. Don Logan, the head of Time Inc., is named chairman
    of the media and communications group, with responsibilities
    for the America Online unit. Jeff Bewkes, head of HBO, is named
    chairman of the entertainment and networks group.
    July 24, 2002 - AOL Time Warner discloses that the U.S.
    Securities & Exchange Commission is investigating accounting
    practices at America Online. Less than a week later, the
    Justice Department starts its investigation of the unit.
    Aug. 6, 2002 - Former USA Networks executive Jon Miller is
    picked to head America Online division. He says he believes
    revenues at the unit can grow without a recovery in the ad
    market.
    Aug. 14, 2002 - The company said it may have overstated
    revenue at its America Online unit and begins an internal
    review of the unit's accounting.
    Aug. 21, 2002 - The company announces plans to dissolve its
    Time Warner Entertainment partnership with AT&T Corp. in a $9
    billion deal. The deal gives AOL Time Warner full control over
    HBO, Warner Brothers and Time Warner Cable. It also announced
    plans to hold an initial public offering for its cable systems,
    which is expected in the second quarter of 2003.
    Sept. 9, 2002 - The company warns its America Online unit will
    fall short of its financial targets for 2002, citing the
    advertising slump.
    Sept. 17, 2002 - Two days before a board meeting, Ted Turner
    and other investors call for the resignation of Steve Case,
    saying the combination of America Online and Time Warner failed
    to live up to its promise. Following the board meeting, the
    company issues a statement that Case will remain chairman.
    Oct. 1, 2002 - Case tells an investor conference that he
    intends to take a more active role the company's operations.
    Oct. 23, 2002 - The company announces it will restate two
    years of results, resulting in the reduction of $190 million in
    revenue as a result of accounting issues at the America Online
    unit.
    Dec. 3, 2002 - The company warns that advertising sales at the
    America Online unit will fall as much as 50 percent in 2003 and
    said it does not expect a turnaround at the unit until 2004.
    Jan. 12, 2003 - Chairman Steve Case announces he will resign,
    saying speculation about his future with the company has become
    a distraction.

    1. Re:AOL Chronology by MonTemplar · · Score: 2

      For more information on the history of AOL, might I suggest picking up a copy of 'aol.com' by Kara Swisher (Crown Pub. Co., 1999, ISBN 0812931912)? As well as the story of AOL, it delved into the lives of Steve Case, Jim Kimsey and the other key players. It doesn't cover the period leading up to the merger with Time-Warner, and as far as I know there isn't a book out yet that covers that part of the story.

      --
      -MT.
  112. AOL and the Internet Boom by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    I have to agree. The whole notion that those millions of people would have been "somewhere else" is ludicrous.

    The Internet has been around a long, long time. But, it was beyond even being unfriendly to the average Joe Enduser. It was the province of physicists and such.


    The Internet did exist for some time without general public knowledge. Getting access was not easy. And knowing how to make use of said access would be beyond most of today's general users. But there was a major change to that interface; the graphical browser. Mosaic which, in turn, spawned Netscape came on the scene. It made the World Wide Web click-easy. And it coupled in a few other useful protocols. Using the "Internet" now only required the ability to type in an address and click.

    Meanwhile, the proprietary on-line services were doing their thing. AOL had long been on the scene, born from an on line gaming service for (among others) Commodore64 platforms. AOL's biggest concern at the time was the apparent launch of the Microsoft Network. MSN would compete directly with AOL... and had the advantage of putting an icon on 90% of the desktops out there (or at least, once Windows 95 shipped). Thus began the war between AOL and Microsoft.

    Whispers about this "Internet" thing picked up. Microsoft acknowledged them - but considered it a niche technology (though didn't completely ignore it). AOL included less-than-well-defined access to Internet services as a kind of portal service. AOL users began showing up in Usenet discussions, in some cases becoming overnight annoyances with "me too" posts and threats to turn other users in to AOL's moderators (despite the fact that neither the forums nore the other users in question had anything to do with AOL).

    The Internet gained more and more buzz and soon threatened to overcome the very space that proprietary online services now held. AOL pushed the Internet as a major selling point. It was now their business. Meanwhile, MSN reinvented itself. It wasn't just another AOL. It was an ISP. The Internet became Microsoft's business too.

    Would millions of people have gone "somewhere else" without AOL? No. They would have gone to their local ISP. They were going to the Internet with or without AOL. AOL was simply wise enough to become part of this change rather than be swept away by it.

    Did AOL make it possible for non-techies to access the Internet? Sure. But then, the technology was going that way already. Mosiac. Netscape. And then finally Microsoft with not only IE, but with integrated dial-up networking capability (previously only available through third party apps).

    AOL did not create a niche market. They survived a slow but inevitable change. A major shift in technology. A shift that became an incremental landslide. An event that could have made them a footnote in history (much as it did other long-standing industry icons such as Compuserve).

    Sure - AOL did their best to be user friendly (although just how much impact they had there is up to debate). They marketed. And they pushed in to new markets (though I do know some areas where local ISPs were available before AOL POPs). One could make a case that AOL's relationship with the Internet has been largely symbiotic.

    But AOL did not create the Internet boom. They survived it.
    1. Re:AOL and the Internet Boom by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the internet boom, but I would go as far as to say that AOL hampered the dot-com boom with their junky internal browser and for a while there the inability to use another one. And if my mom's PC is any indicator, you still can't even use another ISP while AOL is installed.

  113. Let me get this straight. by Ohmsee · · Score: 1

    He's resigning his position as chairman due to the amount of flack he's been receiving from share-holders in relation to the steady fall of AOLTW stock since the merger. Apparently he thinks that with his resignation, the share-holders that are blaming him personally will just drop their case. I fail to see the logic in this as they are most likely going to continue to dislike the fact that they are steadily losing money.
    When I last had a chat with good old Steve Case, it was as one of his employees, back in 1997. I didn't like him as a person then, and his moral and ethical business practices simply aren't something that I agree with. I certainly wouldn't be happy with him if I still had stock in AOL.

    --
    /(bb|[^b]{2})/
  114. +38 Insightful by mccalli · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember, he was *AOL's* CEO. From an AOL shareholder's standpoint, the merger was a steal - literally. It's the Timewarner guys and shareholders who really got screwed.

    Ah, one of a handful of sensible comments so far. Yes, this is the point - whilst the rest of telecoms and the .com bubble imploded with nothing, Case made sure his shareholders actually had something with value left at the end of it.

    There was a time when some net company (I forget - Amazon?) was approaching the market cap. of General Motors and had surpassed that of Boeing. That's ludicrous. Even if those companies shut up shop tomorrow there'd still be a mountain of tangible assets to fall back on. I remember the office I was in at the time saying that if the market was behaving that stupidly, then this net company take advantage and immediately buy something with tangible assets to cement its position.

    And then Case did it. He actually stopped just talking about media convergence and actually did something about it. He went with a media firm which, had things panned out as everyone expected then, would have given him the convergence and content control he needed. He also bought a argefirm with a genuine, non-bubble based market cap. thus backing up AOL's share price with a healthy dose of reality.

    I usually stay out of discussions like this because it's a sad day when geeks care more about the market than they do technology. However, I did feel that about 90% of the posters in this topic were missing the point completely.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:+38 Insightful by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to point out that AOL actualy has paid subscribers also. Not just .bubble fluff. Not to say that it wasn't extremely overvalued, but they did have something.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  115. No you're not by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Wether or not someone skips commercials has no effect on the money that was paid for the commercial.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No you're not by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Wether or not someone skips commercials has no effect on the money that was paid for the commercial.

      Wow... ok, lets break it down like this. PVRs are becoming very widespread. The more people that buy them, the more people that will skip adverts. Eventually, the price for television adverts will drop and your favorite shows will go away. I suppose it would be an implied contractual breach. Maybe they just need to put a little warning before the show saying, "By watching this show you agree to not circumvent the commercials"

      I don't really care, I don't watch TV. But the way I see it, everybody who does skip the commercials using PVRs are in fact depriving the networks of something that they are supposed to get, the users attention.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  116. Well put, DesScorp by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    AOL's simple to use software certainly put a lot of people on the internet. But, then, you didn't have to be a bright spark to use CompuServe 3.x on any Windows platform, before DUN made it trivial.

    The main problem with AOL is that they try to commercially rape every customer, and the customer is typically naive enough not to really. Sure, many may not care that their on-line behaviour is tracked for marketing, that pop-up ads aren't unavoidable, but that's not the point.

    My (admittedly more pompous) other complain with AOL is that they are helping the train the new users that the Internet is purely a platform for sales and commercial entertainment, and these people may not notice or care if/when walled gardens become the norm with new-user ISPs.

  117. huh... by Rhinobird · · Score: 2

    I thought his name Steve, not Bill...*cough*

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  118. Can you say... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

    The September that never ended...?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  119. Stock prices: by Ohmsee · · Score: 1

    In light of his decision:

    Shares of AOL Time Warner (AOL: Research, Estimates), the parent of CNN/Money, rose 4 percent in European trading Monday.

    --
    /(bb|[^b]{2})/
  120. WTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...twice!

  121. Where do I sign up? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
    If there hadn't been AOL the Internet would only be populated with geeks that just talk about computers and Sci-Fi..

    Sounds pretty good to me! This wouldn't be one of those alternate universes like where Spock didn't have a beard, would it?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  122. Market Cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a time when some net company (I forget - Amazon?) was approaching the market cap. of General Motors and had surpassed that of Boeing. That's ludicrous.

    Cisco actually surpassed GM in market cap at one point.

    You're right. That WAS ludicrous. The day that happened was the day to get out of the market.

  123. Will Microsoft buy AOL? by MarkWatson · · Score: 2
    This is an awful thought: The Time Warner stockholders might want to get some of their money back and sell the 30 million AOL subscribers to MSN.

    I hope it does not happen! (I am thinking of Lessig's book Future of Ideas an I am hoping that the Internet stays a standards based open space (or commons) for innovation.)

    -Mark Watson

  124. That's really too bad by brsmith4 · · Score: 2

    I was hoping he would sink with his ship.

  125. It really does not matter by jj_johny · · Score: 1
    As a former AOL employee, I can say that Steve Case had no idea how to get the whole to add up to more than the sum of the parts.

    Time Warner was a company that did not have any real connection between the different operating entities. The different operations were in completely different industries with little ability to tie them together. So there was a telecom company, a movie company, a TV studio, a TV network, a cable company, a cable content company, a magazine company....

    And then Steve Case came along and talked Gerry Levin into a merger. Any dope who could do a simple stock valuation knew that AOL was about growth and that its stock price was going to go into the shitter once growth leveled off. And anyone who looked at the numbers on subscriber growth could see that it was going to slow down in 2002 or 2003.

    So Time Warner a company that never was much more than a bunch of companies who all had "a Time Warner" company on their masthead. Gerry Levin could not bring them closer together and he looked at Steve Case as the guy who was going to bring it all together. Too bad that Steve's team that he put together were such idoits and ran their mouths rather than listening. And the Time Warner execs just sat back and waited out them until they had enough dirt. Then they went after each one and got them fired (although it always says they went off to do other things).

    So this whole thing is about corporate governance, office politics and hubris.

  126. Steve Case died for your sins by alumshubby · · Score: 2

    I've been sneered at right here at /. for having an AOL addy, but it's been a great service. It came in handy back around version 3.0 on a Mac LC III, but like lots of people, I've moved on since then.

    Steve Case had a great idea which has been overtaken by technological and economic events -- the rise of broadband, as one poster put it, and the Darwinian forces of corpocracy. Now he's essentially being forced to sit on his hands instead of continuing to work at his dream of fostering online community. I suspect TW never really understood Case's vision; they just thought they knew a good cash cow when they saw one.

    I wish AOL could get back out from under TW and go on its merry way (and quit mailing out those damned CDs), but they just had to go dancing with the devil, I guess. Sorry 'bout that, Steve.

    --
    "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
  127. The AOL software is extremely invasive. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2


    I should have said,

    "The foundation of AOL is the idea that users of the Internet need training wheels to get started."

    The AOL software is extremely invasive. It provides multiple kinds of connections to AOL.

  128. Re:A little late in the game by FurryFeet · · Score: 2

    Actually, unless I'm mistaken, that was B1FF... ;)

    (Bill McNeil's voics)

    Aaahhh.... good times.

    (/Bill McNeil's voice)

  129. aol gave me the net by deft · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    my first website was a horrible thing i made on AOLpress some 12 years ago.

    it was the place I got my first email address, and learned about chat rooms, browsers, and what the net was.

    AOLpress has been replaced by dreamweaver, and i now design some fortune 500 websites, am a SEO professional, and the web has given me a very easy life doing smart work that I enjoy.

    Im not entirely sure I'd be doing what I'm doing, making good money at it, and enjoying my life they way I am if that 'easy to use' window had not been opened for me years ago to spark my interest.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  130. What could be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone wants to complain about AOL and how they bought and destroyed Time Warner. But just think about what could have been/could be if TW actually leveraged AOL and really put some of it's content (e.g. - music, magazines, shows, movies) on AOL. The real problem is the TW is run like a bunch of individual companies and they don't want to share their content to anybody. This company has the power to completely change the way we get our music, read magazines and watch TV but each company is looking out for itself and not thinking about what could be and the riches and growth that would follow. One can only dream...