Slashdot Mirror
AOL Lays Off 450 In California
bmarklein writes "AOL has laid off 450 in California. The former Netscape campus is going from 675 employees to 300. The San Francisco office, which they obtained when they acquired Spinner (now Radio@AOL), and which housed Nullsoft after their acquisition by AOL, is being closed along with an office in San Diego. 100 employees have been offered jobs in Virginia or New York. No word on how this affects products like WinAmp. Justin, are you out there?"
Somehow even if AOL was stupid enough to lay him off, I am sure the creator and lead for WinAmp would have NO problem finding employment. In fact, I bet a certain company in Redmond, WA wouldn't have any problem in picking him up.
AOL started out in the dial up industry which from what I can tell has gone right down the shitter for them, however they still managed to merger with Time-Warner before they figured out. Now what have they got? Certainly dial up won't get them anywhere, and the broadband service they offer is just a piece of seemingly annoying proprietary software. Where can they go from here ?
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
Or, alternately, for those of us who actually RTFA, about 2% of their total workforce of 19,000.
And, to answer the other desperate "please, dear God, let me get something vaguely approaching a first post" mathematically challenged posts -- it will be 375 positions eliminated at their Mountain View Campus, and a total of 450 in California. Yep, AOL is sufficiently large/bloated to have multiple locations in CA.
So do I. I remember people talking about them being "the next Microsoft", and not in a flattering sense. I remember the incompatible tags they introduced. I remember the appalling mess of Netscape 4 and CSS.
And then there was the <blink> tag...
I can remember distinctly when I switched to IE, and at the time it was because IE was better, not because Microsoft forced me to. I can also remember switching back to Mozilla (and then Firebird), again because the browser was better.
I would argue that the glory days of Netscape stopped at Netscpe 3, took a break and restarted in the present time due to Mozilla. I'm not certain now what percentage of Mozilla developers are ex-Netscape, but I imagine it's still high enough to be called Netscape-in-another-form.
Cheers,
Ian
AOL acquired Nullsoft a long time ago. Well before their version 3 release... which coincidently is said to be their worst release ever. Hmmm. Maybe you have a point.
Oh well, it can be worse. You could get ranked and yanked, like I did. When that happens, they paper your file, rake you over the coals for a few months and fire you individually. It looks great. In my case, my supervisor made sure he nailed me on my birthday. Another great and integral part of rank and yank is bonus incentives for those not fired. The company was talking about bonuses as high as 15%, knowing they could split the salaries of the people they planned to fire. It's strange how no one but supervisors were excited about that.
Look forward to getting the usual communist propaganda from the company by mail for a while. The idiots in HR sent me a big fat glossy book, personalized with my own numbers, about what great benefits the company has for it's employees. The only thing they missed in the personalization was the fact that I was fired. How sofisticated, the company really loves me.
My company was big, but Time/Warner is much bigger. I wonder if the Netscape people are going to have it that much worse than I did. Nah, it's hard to get worse than fired, no matter how the jack-asses dress it up.
Welcome to the great suck that is the "recovery". I've been out of real work for more than a year. I'm not really happy to have lots of company.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I for one was expecting this. Considering that earlier in the year AOL Time Warner decided to change its name back to just Time Warner. It is common knowledge that they have been losing thier clients to other ISP services like MSN and Comcast. When your user base shrinks the company must as well to keep from losing to much money on having to large of a workforce for thier userbase.
-Certified TechnoWeinie
So do I. Though only as an event in history. Netscape Communicator is gone. Dead. Arising from its ashes, however, is a top class browser that leaves netscape communicator and internet explorer coughing in its dust. Let go of netscape. AOL had no problem doing so.
ibhear
Well I wouldn't be surpised if winamp was sold to microsoft and they merged it into media player, or just killed it. As for Netscape commercially it might be dead however mozilla is still going strong
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
"Anyone would wonder if Winamp and Netscape were just tools to help them get their way."
To an extent they were always bargining chips, but the real change came when the TW people found out that they got screwed in the merger and won a sucessful fight to take control of the company including the former AOL holdings. The people who are now running the AOL holdings are from outside of the software industry, with no experiance of Microsoft's tactics. They just see it as a choice between an alliance with a company that controls 90% of the desktop computers or with a varity of companies that only control 10%. From that viewpoint going with Microsoft sounds like the smart thing to do.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
that's what being anonymous on the net is all about.
IHATEAOL69 and AOLSUCKSCOCK3 could join the xmms team, and so long as they stayed that way, i don't think anyone would care, as long as the software worked.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The napkin makers got over it. So should you.
The problem with your analogy is that the napkin makers still get paid. McDonald's pays napkin makers so that a McDonald's customers can have free napkins. And more likely then compared to textiles and gasoline, napkins are probably made in America, which puts money back into Americans pockets.
The main issue with more and more industries going overseas for workers is that less money is being given to the American public, yet people are still in the constant-consuming mindset. And they are going into debt over it, so that they can have that nice car and the big projection TV and the cell phone. Just like all the commercials tell them they deserve.
Although the tech industry has really brought this upon themselves during the boom. I recently read an article (saw the link on Fark, too lazy to look it up) about a guy who started a consultant company. While looking for workers he decided to try something novel (to him and most tech workers it seems, but not to someone like me who's lived this). He decided to offer positions for the same wages that Indian programmers are offered: $45,000 a year. Being a Canadian who hasn't bothered with looking for work in the US, I was personally shocked by this. If the only reason US tech workers aren't finding jobs is because no one is willing to offer a good wage (not extraordinary, buy-me-a-Lexus-and-an-SUV kind of wages, but good enough to live modestly), then I feel no pity for companies at all. The guy who offered those wages was flooded with resumes. People are obviously willing to work, despite not having the huge paychecks. But they have to be given the chance. Companies have to realise the value of hiring locally at fair wages.
Now as for textiles...everyone but the main "Promotional" companies (i.e. Nike, etc) is getting screwed on that deal. People really should be upset over that entire industry...
Oh grow up. You're putting words into my mouth that are utterly without basis from what I posted. I think any job loss is bad news, and 450 is really distressing. I've been in situations where I've put my shirt on the line for a company I believed in and, in some cases, just wriggled through, and, in other cases, paid the price with my job. And, hey, guess what? In one of those cases I was the sole programmer at a company that ended up struggling and decided to cut me loose first.
If you read my direct quotation of the 2% figure as being somehow trivializing, then you're deliberately trying to spin it. 2% of a company's workforce is, to me, fairly substantial. Getting rid of innovative people such as the undisputedly talented programmers under discussion here is a very real and serious action.
Looking at your other post on this topic, it looks like you've got a chip on your shoulder, but it's certainly justifiable. Unlike you, I'm not going to wish you ill or gloat, because I've been there and know how much it sucks, and it's just not worth it to spread the bitterness. I really do hope you find a job soon.
but the real change came when the TW people found out that they got screwed in the merger
Why is it that every time someone uses a phrase similar to this one, they get modded up insightful? I am voiding my mod points right now to respond to this uninsightful BS.
TW was not a clear 'victim' in the merger... So the stock fell... Is that AOL's fault? Everyone's stock has fallen since the late 90s. If you think that the entertainment industry wasn't hit, take a look at the following graphs:
Disney
Viacom
So, just because the stock tumbles, it is AOL's fault? It looks to me that TW stock probably would have fallen just as well... Has anyone ever thought for just a second that maybe AOL was the victim? I mean, didn't TW accept the terms of the merger because they were in debt up to their neck? In fact IIUC, a great deal of AOLTW's current debt is left over from TW pre-merger. So the bubble burst before AOL could pay it down for them, does that make TW a victim (or a bunch of whiners)?
I have a vested interest in TW, but I don't think AOL bashing does any good. It also seems like this is just another case of people letting the press think for them, and not doing any research on their own.
One note I will make though, is that the AOL management was inexperienced compared to the TW management, and the company is in good hands now with the previous TW management in charge (Dick Parsons, et al.). But that doesn't mean it was a fight to push AOL mgmt out because AOL screwed TW, I think that the board just saw the value of TW mgmt experience and moved them up the ladder.
That's global capitalism for you. National or ethnic loyalties disapear in the interests of infinite growth. A stagnant business in a capitalist economy is a dead one; even if it is pulling in huge profits- if it isn't growing it's dead. Like a shark, which moves just to stay alive. More and more businesses will be pulling more and more off-shore stunts- after all, when they have a market saturated you have to find new profits, new growth somewhere.
Global capitalism and corporate wellfare are a very bad combo for everyone else but the stockholders.
There has got to be a better way.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
It wasn't just AOL's stock price that screwed TW, though. There were allegations of shaky accounting in both real dollars from advertising revenue and in customer accounting. These things were not apparent at the time of purchase.
It's more a case of corporate culture clash than anything else. TW had no clue what they were getting into, and neither did AOL, I suspect. I tend to think of it more as an experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong than anything else.
I have no vested interest in either one, except making sure that I never use an AOL disk again nor allow any of my friends to do so.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
damn few real assets behind them ?????
You consider millions, I repeat, MILLIONS of customers damn few real assets?
Everyone forgets that this is real revenue... AOL has more paying customers than any other ISP on the planet. Last time I checked in the U.S. AOL was kicking the crap out of everyone (broadband providers included). There will be a continuing migration to broadband, but this will take a while. People like to keep their email address, and the mass exodus to broadband is only happening at about a 5% subscriber loss per year. By my math, that means AOL will still have customers for over twenty years. That gives them some time to find a new niche, or a slow death. Neither one has them dying overnight.
None of that affects the key part of my statement that the turn around in how AOL viewed Microsoft came After TW people stagged their revolt and took over management of the AOL holdings.
This isn't necessarily true. I work here at AOL and I remember when we started using the Gecko engine in another re-branded version of the AOL client (CompuServe). I was disappointed that we stuck with IE in the AOL client. However, it was asked in an All-Hands why we were suddenly happy with Microsoft. The answer was never clear, but I do remember that this decision came shortly after M$ settled with AOL over an old Netscape lawsuit to the tune of 750 million dollars. Up to that point, I think Netscape and Mozilla were just bargaining chips and backup plans. The TW big-wigs don't run the day-to-day decisions on implementation of technology. In fact they really don't care how we do what we do, just that we get it done. Before the lawsuit was settled, M$ was a foe, afterwards, we wanted to be friends again, which makes sense. The AOL mgmt was smart enough to figure it out on their own.
Unfortunately, AOL has gone down the pan and perhaps this distinction now works against them. Perhaps management doesn't feel the same guilt from slashing jobs when they're not technically AOL jobs.
For example, what do you do if you're using a proprietary, obsolete, closed source, single platform browser made by your main competitor but your Netscape division has developed an open source, standards compliant browser, capable of embedding in any app on any platform? Answer - sack all the Netscape developers of course! Why? Who knows, but I bet it boiled down to "not invented here" syndrome - IE is comfortable straitjacket, which Gecko is some scary 'open source' thing. AOL has become institutionalized.
I bet some management / marketing idiots fretted over the minor flux of replacing IE with the slightly scary Gecko and scuppered it. Apparantly AOL thinks letting your main competitor control your content delivery mechanism is good business, not sheer stupidity.
Nullsoft is another example of AOL stupidity. What do you do when you own one of the most popular media players on the market? Why, licence all your streaming content and players from Real of course! And for good measure, sign deals with Apple to sell your own music from their store when you've had the chance to sell direct using WinAmp via its minibrowser for three years.
In summary, there are some very dim bulbs in AOL.
"From that viewpoint going with Microsoft sounds like the smart thing to do. "
An alliance with Microsoft always looks good on paper. It's probably pretty good financially too until the day MS stabs you in the back and takes off with you technology or customers.
War is necrophilia.
Are you just spouting this stuff off? I mean, some of it makes sense, and I acknowledge it when it does, but *so* much of it doesn't.
;).
A Subscriber list can't compare as an asset to TW's Copyrights to Time Magizine, to Warener studios, to Turner Broadcasting.
With the exception of Warner Bros. Studios, these companies are based on subscriber base. How can you sell ad space without a large subscriber base? The millions of people AOL reaches through it's service, and the billions it reaches through it's properties (AIM, etc.). Goes further than the subscriber base of Time. The content of these channels is not so valuable, if no one is buying the magazines or watching CNN, which seems to be the case lately at no fault of AOL...
You are assuming that the present decline in AOL subscribers will stay at a static 5%. It won't it will increase as low cost dial ups eat at the subscriber list from below, and the cost of Broad Band access falls and eats at the subscriber list from above.
You didn't hear about AOL undercutting these guys did you? AOL will be able to throw their marketing power at their own low-cost ISP, and stem the exodus before it gets out of control. United Online has a small customer base, only a fraction of the total dialup market, broadband is a much formidable foe, especially with SBC/Yahoo! offering broadband at a rate only a few dollars more than standard AOL. But, even if the customer dropoff doesn't stay static, do you really think that everyone will dump AOL all at once? Show me an example of this happening to any subscription based service. AOL has time to find a way to compete with Broadband. If they don't, they will die, there is no doubt about that. What I am saying is that there is time for them to find this competitive product. It ain't over till the fat lady sings
The doctoring of the books you talk about was only a small percentage of the customer base. We called those accounts 'bicyclers.' We eliminated the bicyclers in '02. And, it didn't affected the books so drastically as you seem to think.
My point is that AOL has quite a bit of time before they close all the doors. And, my other point was that they didn't 'screw' TW in the merger, and if you still think they did, you have to admit, that it wasn't intentional.
You've touched on a big beef of mine. Bay area housing at $250-$400/SF and up is not substantially different than Roanoke, Virginia housing at $100/SF, except you get more land under the building.
I bought 8 acres of hillside with a view that even God would be envious of for about 50k. Sure, it's ten miles outside of Blackburg (Virginia Tech), but that's not too far to drive. I even have DSL and CableTV (though I get my video via DirecTV).
I started a company that relies on the building industry, so I have to be somewhat close to civilization, and I'll be generating real income in under a year...starting from scratch.
Why is it that high tech firms believe that they must locate in big, expensive cities? How many of your programmers have to make face-to-face visits with clients on a weekly basis? You could just as easily move to Newport, Pembroke, or Pearisburg, VA and set up shop for nickles on the dollar. Would people have to relocate? Probably. Can you live on $45k? Comfortably. And you'll know your neighbors, and everybody will wave to you when they see you. Go to www.gilescounty.org, call up Chris McKlarney and he'll set you up. He's got space for new businesses that's just now coming online.
Me? I rent space in an historic building downtown for under $5/SF. 768kADSL to my business runs $44/mo. Electricity is $0.05/kWh. VaTech is right down the road - good for interns and p/t workers, plus the research library and all the attractions of a big state campus.
Locating a non-geographically sensitive business in a big city is about as smart as equiping an accounting firm with Aeron chairs, solid mahogony furniture, G5s with 23" 16:9 LCDs, and a couple of DS3s. Sure it looks nice, but it's ego-fluff that will likely kill the business financially before it ever has a chance.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
inefficient == less than full capacity. Central planning wastes resources that people would otherwise exploit as they pleased. The net result is a lower standard of living and under-employment. It's generally for the benefit of those in power under both systems too.
Music is a good example of market consolidation resemeling a socialist state. The FCC decides who can broadcast and collects lots of money. The big music companies decide who they will promote and collect lots of money. People who could promote alternate acts are locked out and musicians end up doing anything else for a living because music does not pay, even for best selling artists. So the whole structure of restrictions is really supporting the FCC and RIAA. It can be argued that musicians would be better off, ie employed, in a system that was free.
Don't worry, I was fired.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's also the iPod, the mac, and the PS2. And the TV, and the games for #2 and #3, and the music CDs, and the 2x a week you drop $60 on dinner for you and your SO, and insurance for your car/apt/health/life/cat, and TAXES.
It's not just the car, although that's a good percentage of it. It's the American lifestyle. It's a trap. Don't fall for it. If you work for a living, you become a slave. Not to the company you work for, you become a slave to your paycheck. It's tempting to spend your paycheck on all these little niceties, but if you spend that paycheck tomorrow, you'll be spending your paycheck for the rest of your life. If you do, then that's fine, but recognize that some people make ends meet with far less money. It's a lifestyle thing though. If you're stuck in it, and you're not happy, then change.
If you want to spend less money, itemize everything you pay money for in a month, and realize that you could ELIMINATE 95% of it if you absolutely had to. People do. Not that you should, but you could. And if you did, even for a couple of months, you'd probably realize that it's not too bad, and that if you're going to spend your life working, you'd better have something more to show for it than enough money for an iPod and to pay the bills. Because if that's all you have, then WTF are you doing it all for?
I suspect it's because you don't know another way. It's the American lifestyle. It's a trap.
There are other ways.
.
And as for the subway system, there are plenty of cities in America that are perfectly accessible by bicycle and bus (you can put your bike on the bus, you know). Or if you live too far from work, buy a scooter, pay $20/year for liability insurance, and enjoy the 60MPG you get. Parking's easy too.
Synergy is your friend
Healtheon is gone.
Turned into WebMD
SGI is dying.
Microsoft bought much of their relevant IP so they could ship the XBox, royalty-free. Nintendo, NVidia and ATI got their Engineers. Tera got Cray.
We need much longer holding periods for insiders
Clark is famous for, among other things, writing some of the most favorable deals with VCs ever. He keeps a large share of the company and holds it for a long time. This reduces marke liquidity and makes it more difficult for outsiders to participate in his companies. If anything, Clark's problem was holding his shares for too long, creating fragile, monolithic companies.
Presently, the economy is recovering from the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals. It is difficult to turn a good idea into $$$ when there is little consensus as to how the new accounting rules should be interpreted to successfully create new wealth.
Until then, expect to see some growth in international companies listing ADS/ADR on US exchanges. It will be a few more years before we see rapid American tech growth.