Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Looking to Sell Slate Magazine
SeaDour writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies over a potential sale of MSN's online magazine Slate. This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."
Sigs cause cancer.
...err .... Microsoft does take Monopoly money, right?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I read Slate when it's linked from /.
;(
That's about it thought
Vanamar
Life is a harsh mistress, Fate an insatiable lover, Death an old friend.
This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer.
I don't think the above is part of the reasons for such sales, as stated on the article, the sales allows MS to "create a partnership with another media company, which could potentially help increase advertising revenue on the MSN site."
One step backward, two steps forward.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
Brilliant!
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Right. Because any two things that follow in chronological order are neccessarily related. Just this morning, lightning struck down the street and, a few minutes later, my bank called about a bounced check.
Damn Lightning. It always causes problems.
Isn't that where Fred Flintstone got his news?
--
Power to the Peaceful
Who wouldn't?
Ermm, anyone with a brain?
If an employee misbehaves to that extent, sack 'em for gross misconduct. Selling a company is difficult and expensive to do (have a look at what investment banks charge to "advise" you). You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you sold a company to get rid of one (probably quite junior) employee.
Hmm... Let's see - I own an online magazine. Presumably I (the comapny) actually get to have a say in what gets published or not, and who gets hired or not.
Now - someone wants to publish an article recommending a competitive product - do I:
1) Stop them from publishing the article (I can do that - remember)
2) Let them publish the article so as to maintain a fair balance in the press
So let's say I select option two - am I then going to 'vinidictively' sell them off (so that they can continue doing the same thing for a different employer)?
That does not make sense.
If I wanted to be vindictive - I would keep the magazine, stop them from publishing the article, and fire the guy who wrote it. If - however - I wanted to make a profit I would publish the article (and similar ones) so as to grow respect in my reader base - and sell it off once it had a big enough base to be profitable.
Face it guys - buisness is about making money - not being vindictive (though those two do tend to overlap at times)
I don't think that Microsoft would _sell the magazine_ because of a critical article. If they really cared, I'm sure they would have censored the article before it was published (went live?). M$ is evil and vindictive, but I'm not sure that they really care if people use IE or not, as long as they aren't using Linux, *BSD etc.
"...recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."
Yeah, because they dumpbed MSNBC a long time ago for writing less than flattering articles about their products and sdervices. What's that? You mean Microsoft is still in partnership with NBC? One more Slashdot conspiracy exposed.
- Microsoft pays $35billion or so to shareholders in a one-time dividend.
- Microsoft unloads Slate
- Microsoft increases future dividends.
- ???
- Profit! (sorry, always wanted to do that.
This doesn't mean that MS is annoyed with Slate, it means they are changing their business strategy. I would hazard to guess that Microsoft has decided that, rather than becoming an evil empire that owns a small country and runs its own Media etc., they will go back to being just a software company.I would look for them to off-load other products not related to their core competencies in the near future, and I expect they will divest themselves from many of the sidelines they've gotten into. The question in my mind is: what happens to MSN as a whole? Is Microsoft giving up on being a content company altogether? What about their promised search engine? The Xbox?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
"This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer"
I don't think the fact Slate trashed IE has anything to do with the sale.
In fact, the article says Slate would still be accessible from the MSN Website, even though they would no longer hold any "property" ties with Microsoft. And what would that accomplish? Slate would be even more content-free than it already is, as it wouldn't depend on Microsoft at all, but it would still have the popularity / visibilty it enjoys being right there, in the MSN Website.
I mean, if Microsoft wanted to silence their editors, they would do anything but loose their power over the magazine. Instead, they are giving them a free ticked to say whatever they want, still enjoying the visibility they have.
I don't know why Microsoft chose to sell the magazine, but it can't be because of their trashing IE.
Just my 2c
What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?
It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.
It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.
Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies
I think the submitter means "Microsoft is in discussions with THE five or six media companies" (thanks Michael Powel for allowing this, by the way. Shame on you...)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
" If my employees were bashing my products publicly, I think I'd dump them too. Who wouldn't?"
Your products, or your employees?
MS is not unloading on Slate. They just trying to get into a partnership with another company to make more money.
Now if they had gone down the road of web-based applications then maybe this would have been a different story - but right now IE is a suitable sacrificial lamb that will boost Slate's reputation just before a potential sale/partnership.
In fact, Slate appears to be part of trend at MS, what with blogs and all, to promote the idea that MS goes in for a little self-criticism... wonder why?
Maybe MS feels that self-attack is the best form of defence against their only true threat - worldwide Governments - and appearing to be self-governing is a common method used by large industries to avoid government-regulation.
Not that I'm suggesting that MS is really trying to be so underhand - but I guess they can't help but appear to be so.
Now, if we can just get the folks in the Office division to start recommending other operating systems over Windows, we could finally get that part of the business sold/spun off to a separate company... just like the judge wanted.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Microsoft has too many products, I don't think Microsoft cares about the article so much. If all articles recommend MS products only, it just blow away their readers.
Its been well known that Slate was an experiment for MS, just like Sidewalk etc a few years back. I'm not surprised they are looking to sell it. I'm surprise they waited this long.
refuse to do business with the government any longer because homeland security and cert dissed their browser? One would HOPE SO, I mean, MS has some pride and ethics, correct?
am i alone in not even knowing microsoft even HAD a magazine?
www.gaian-mind.org - eco-punk/crust coop and collective | www.anarchistfederation.org - so cal anarchist federation
What if being vindictive makes you more money than being respected? Slate recommending a competing product could cost more money in losing their web monopoly than it means in higher subscription rates in Slate. I could see Microsoft saying, "Yeah, it might be true, but find a different way to increase readership or find another job." That's what I would say, anyway.
Under the current ownership, Microsoft still has some control over Slates content; for instance, in the mentioned Firefox article the author states: "You've probably been told to dump Internet Explorer for a Mozilla browser before, by the same propeller-head geek who wants you to delete Windows from your hard drive and install Linux." This almost derogatory comment undermines the assertion of IEs quality by focusing on the idea that switching from Windows to Linux is a bad move. Under new leadership the author may have been more straightforward and written Youve probably heard of the benefits of open source software before, but now they are becoming even more practical. To make a long story short, this isnt about Slates content.
-Lanimilbus
If MS wanted to punish Slate's editors for allowing an article recommending Firefox over IE, someone would be fired, or more likely would resign for 'personal reasons' a few weeks later. Selling a division is a business issue, not a content issue. It's not even necessarily a punishment: Newell Rubbermaid just sold off a bunch of divisions that didn't turn clear profits, which put those companies into better positions to succeed because they didn't have to pay the parent company's tithe any longer (the division for which my brother works was bought by private investors who want to expand it). More likely, Ballmer has decided that MS needs to get out of the content game, at which they've never done very well.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Even in the age of Fox there are still some concepts of journalistic independence and ethics in existance. Slate is not in the business of publishing MS press releases, it's a news and commentary magazine and would lose a lot of credibility (and writers) if it was thought to be nothing but a company shill. I, not a big fan of MS, have read slate regularly since it started partially due to the corporation's hands-off policy toward the editorial content. If I thought that MS was suppressing non-flattering content, I'd have a hard time taking it seriously.
and security through obscurity is so much better?
More /. silliness. Slate has for years snarked about some of Microsoft's products. If The Company was that thin-skinned they would have brought the hammer down a long time ago.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Microsoft used to own Expedia and Terraserver as well. Expedia is no logner owned by Microsoft and neither is Terraserver. Terraserver was initally started to promote a new version of Terraserver. Microsfto probably did not sell this when planned because there was noone who would buy it. Now they have a buyer. Microsoft is slowly but surely getting out of the content business only to keep some of the units that are doing well like MSNBC(which they only own part of).
Gorkman
Maybe it happened the other way around:
Slate hears rumblings that Microsoft is looking to dump it. The editors say, "Well if we're on the chopping block anyway..."
When I read that commentary, I thought of five words that I learned in a logic course in college, anyone care to guess what they are?
Correlation DOES NOT Equal Causation.
Or, if you need it expressed programmatically:
Correlation != Causation
(You also learn this in Statistics classes)
I don't know why this post got modded as a troll. Connecting unrelated ideas is a Michael Moore specialty. For example, talking about Afghan oil pipeline negotiations and then showing a picture of Bush bombing Afghanistan. If you don't think about it, it makes sense, just like it initially seems shady that Microsoft is selling Slate two weeks after Slate wrote an article praising Firefox. But then you give it a bit more thought, and realize that the Afghan pipeline negotiations happened under Clinton, not Bush, and that no pipeline has been built since the Taliban were overthrown, or you realize that if Microsoft wanted to prevent positive articles about Slate it would maintain its control over Slate, not sell it.
But to realize that, you need to been thinking critically. For Slashdot readers and for viewers of Michael Moore's movies, that critical eye is not always open. Because it's easy and more comfortable to simply agree with something that validates your existing notions (Microsoft bad, Bush bad).
So, no, Stevyn is not trolling, and yes, this is like Michael Moore.
Sun's Java Desktop System shows promise
"If you're in the market for a change, or you want to see what all this fuss over Linux is all about, Lindows 4.0 is definitely worth a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised."
Open-source software a big tech player
Experts warn of Microsoft 'monoculture'
Open your eyes, eh?
See also the link in the other reply to this comment for a nice example.
I'm still not sure why MS bought Slate in the first place. "e-mags" are notoriously hard to generate profit from and MS did nothing to do help out in that department. As MS stops pretending its a rapid growth company it will have to tighten budgetary belt. That means stuff like Slate are first on the chopping block.
Although it was amusing how the timing worked having Slate give props to Firefox has nothing to do with MS selling Slate. Its purely a business move.
You obviously haven't been on Slashdot long enough to know that you're only supposed to read the comments about the article on Slate, linked from /.
Sun endorsement, not. The author calls Sun's straight forward description bragging, "With that type of bragging I couldn?t resist." Says, "the SuSE installation process is nearly perfect," as if you have to install on a computer bought at Walmart and as if Windoze installs are "perfect". Then this slam, "The laptop installation was another story. It seems the version of SuSE that was used is old ? and getting older all the time. ... Nothing worked. " And, of course, the best is yet to come, " The next versions of JDS could be extremely interesting." That's hardly a ringing endorsement. If the author had written as candidly about an XP install, he'd have been fired.
Lindows endorsement, no, more FUD. I don't even want to read an article that's titled "Getting Better". It goes on to complain about "room for improvement", that it was slow, blah blah blah. The author goes on to complain that it can't do VPN and a host of other things that's just plain bullshit as free software's networking capability blows Windoze away. This article rings more like another ringing endorsement of Winblows to me. Of course, the right distro to try Linux with is a live CD such as Knoppix or Mepis. Both of them are available as free downloads and neither touch your computer till you tell them too. To recommend Linsows over such things is incompetence or malice.
The "Open Source" on the server article is SCO style FUD at it's finest, "The communal aspects of open source can lead to thorny legal questions, particularly when a company claims its proprietary code has seeped into a project. Because developers typically don't offer warranties, end users could be held liable for infringements." Blah, blah, clueless bullshit that at no point recommends free software over M$ cruft, especially on the desktop.
Your final article, about how "biodiversity analogy has it's limits", is a defense of M$'s pathetic security record. It attempts to blame all the problems M$ is having on it's popularity instead of on poor design. While you might consider this to be unflattering to M$ because it admits to problems, it's highly deferential in the way it explains and denigrates the extent of those problems. An honest reporter would note that the same kinds of exploits have been happening across all versions of M$ since people were silly enough to connect that junk to the internet.
The titles of those articles are provocative, but the contents are M$ party line, FUD and nonsense. The truth of the matter is that free software installs easier, runs better, is easier to use and costs less than M$ crap. MSNBC is oblivious to these facts or you can't find the articles. Try again please.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Simple. One leads the corporate line through the stern chock, ensuring that it is well protected by chafing gear, and makes it fast to the stern deck padeye of the towing corporation. (That padeye rests on heavy foundations which are worked down among the assets of the corporation).
Needless to say, a pelican hook must be placed between the padeye and the corporate line, and an executive of the towing corporation must stand watch with a mallet, prepared to strike loose the pelican hook if the towed corporation gets out of hand.
Afterwards, if the corporate line is of wire rope, it should be overhauled and slushed down with grease.
God,
Fahrenheit 9/11 has made an estimated $116,880,000 as of July 25. Other than that minor correction, the point you made is excellent. Disney gave away the profit on the distribution of a movie that has made more than $100 million gross.
Case in point: the current lead piece, "Lay Off the Bush Girls." It's a rundown of the resumes of the wastrel First Kids that concludes they're finally due some good press because being high-profile fuck-ups inevitably causes a surplus of bad press. You plow through it feeling that author Michael Crowley would really be much happier going harumph about the capital gains tax; like much of Slate's cultural material, it's indistinguishable from the political stuff. The piece is awkward, overlong, pedantic, and frankly a let-down after reading the teaser on the index page ("They drink. They party with P. Diddy"), which seemed to promise more than a dullish reminder of kids-will-be-kids. The most interesting thing about it is a self-admiring correction appended afterward: "The article originally claimed that both girls were wearing Calvin Klein gowns." Now, that's fact-checking.
There's nothing wrong with Slate if all you want from journalism is to be poured a nice big steaming mug of complacency. (Complacency never hurt business at Microsoft.) But there's the New York Times and a zillion other places for that. Slate could vanish tomorrow, and consensus thought would be just as loudly trumpeted by all the other pet publications of billionaires. I'd rather read Harper's Magazine, The Baffler, The Utne Reader, and Counterpunch, publications and sites that proceed from the idea that journalism is an act of independence.