Is AOL The Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?

VK writes "When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google" we had no idea just how direct a method he had in mind. Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google." Update: 09/23 19:20 GMT by J : As our readers pointed out, the original and Reg reprint both typoed "Yahoo" for AOL. Fixed.

Comments

That'll Never Work

[mfh]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has...

People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.

So Microsoft is going to waste billions on AOL. *tries to contain glee*

Microsoft can certainly buy that client base. They can milk it for all it's worth for maybe even ten years.

As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

And as a final note on this deal-based waterfront, FTA: AOL has been losing subscription customers rapidly, which is why it recently switched its business from purely subscription based to increasingly advertising-based.

Re:That'll Never Work

[garcia]

And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

Exactly. The rest of the computer industry needs to be less worried about why Google is buying up talent and needs to start being more concerned with how they are going to buy up their own talent and put those people to work doing something that's new and exciting.

Microsoft needs to stop playing catch up and dominate. They need to become successful innovators for the first time since the 1980s. Then they might have a chance at getting back in the game with Google.

Re:That'll Never Work

[hungrygrue]

People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.

Then it would be a marriage made in heaven. These are the same people who run Windows because they have to, and they think that it is part of their computer. In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

Sir, I have Netscape and Lotus 123 on a conference call. They said they wanted their excuse back.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Himring]

As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

I like everything you have to say except for that. To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." People are, and always will be, stupid. To quote Hitler, "It is fortunate for leadership that people are so stupid" (I think I got that right). It usually takes something really huge to make the masses understand. It has to be flagrant because, otherwise, people just don't get it and never will. Google is popular because it's useful to both the elite and the simple. I can use it as a hardcore geek and my mom can too who is the worst computer user ever born. Also, never underestimate Microsoft. I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....

Re:That'll Never Work

[lightknight]

They innovated in the form of a new business paradigm, a market where a common operating system would run on multiple vendor's hardware. While there are other OSs that were capable of such, they were the first that broke IBM's stranglehold on the PC market, and as such, provided competition among hardware vendors. Like it or not, they really brought the PC to the home user.

Apple had a chance to do the same, but they didn't want to break their hardware/software monopoly. Which isn't to say that they don't make great software and hardware combinations, but they lost a chance to be MS.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Shaper_pmp]

Nope. Actually, Compaq (IIRC) "innovated" there... by reverse-engineering IBM's BIOS and producing compatible hardware.

Microsoft didn't innovate a thing - they just happened to be a mainstream OS which wasn't owned by anyone with a vested interest in pushing their own hardware. Right position, right time. Zero innovation involved.

And even if you believe they deliberately put themselves in that position, innovating a new business model is hardly what real geeks would consider important innovation, right?

Re:That'll Never Work

[MikeFM]

It's not rocket science. Basic economics.

It depends on how they destroy competition. If they do it by making better products that everyone would rather use then great. If they do it by using their power and money to strangle the smaller companies then that is bad for customers and the economy.

It's also typically good to cooperate but it's not good to form a cartel which becomes much like a single big company. In this condition quality drops, prices climb, and it becomes difficult for new competition to form. This is essentially what the music industry has done and is why they've recently been charged with illegal price fixing.

Shareholders and CEOs with an eye on nothing but the almighty buck are idiots. Money is not the end-all of existence. Having a healthy society, healthy government, healthy economy, etc is important if they want anywhere to spend their money. Jacking these things up to make a profit is a game that can only be played so long before the system crashes.

You can't polish a turd

[Junior J. Junior III]

AOL has a huge customer base, but has been steadily eroded as telecoms roll out broadband to the sticks, and this is not really going to change. AOL has a reputation for sucking, and google has a reputation for being both smart and effective. Microsoft buying AOL just combines the strengths of two successful, or should I say "suckcessful" companies who have more or less reached their apex and do not have the same potential for rapid, sustainable growth as they did when they were rising stars in the industry. They're now bloated, hulking monstrosities desperately clinging to their marketshare and experiencing problems trying to remain relevant.

If this is google's biggest threat, they have little to fear.

Huh?

[MrP-(at work)]

Huh? I suppose i could read the article but i'm just going to comment on the actual slashdot description..

What does MS buying part of AOL have to do with Google having advertising pages on Yahoo?

Is that like how like the AOL/TimeWarner merge caused my grilled cheese to burn?

p.s. slashdot with css is freaky, but i like it!

"Killing"

[Red Flayer]

"Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?"

"Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."

Re:Predatory. Microsoft must be split.

[fireboy1919]

And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google

You misspelled "go bankrupt within a month of it not being the default homepage."

Headline is backwards, anyway

[smose]

Perhaps it should read: Is AOL the Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Microsoft?

Parent is on the right track: Google has forward momentum, a positive Karma of the internet. Google does what you want it to do (find stuff) and stays out of the way. That's a big plus when you just want to get things done. Outside of search, Google seems to be one place where fresh ideas originate in rapid succession, even if a lot of those ideas never materialize. These new ideas, good or bad, still don't get in the way of their core product, which is still fast and stays out of the way.

Microsoft is in the opposite situtation. They've stalled and in many ways, are slipping backwards. They are widely seen as the behemoth, to the point that you don't have to even read the latest security warning to know that it's from another "Buffer Overflow" problem. Office hasn't done anything inventive in years, except for Clippy. Business users (the ones who actually pay for it) are getting the idea that new versions of Office don't do anything new but do screw up the UI enough that it's not worth the trouble to upgrade. These paying users are steadfastly not paying anymore by sticking with the 2k generation of products. New sales of MS Windows and Office are driven mostly by new computer sales, but some businesses are just moving the software and licenses over from retired systems.

XBox has done well, but it has a different appeal and is becoming its own division, anyway.

AOL is another old behemoth, and if AOL and Microsoft want to hold on for dear life together, so be it. It won't help either one.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[tbannist]

Microsoft wants to kill google for a number of reasions:

1. Google is getting more positive attention than Microsoft
2. Google is a poster-child for the successful deployment of Linux
3. Google doesn't buy (many) Microsoft Products
4. Microsoft can't buy Google
5. Microsoft fears anything that has to do with computers that they can't buy
6. Smart people who rather work for Google than Microsoft

In a nutshell...

[Hosiah]

This is like if Target wanted to "kill" Saks Fifth Avenue. So they buy Kmart.

Still playing catch up

[thebdj]

Seriously, Microsoft is primarily concerned with Google because I think deep down they fear that Google will decide to hop into their much more lucrative fields (i.e. Operating Systems and Office Suites). Microsoft is fighting a losing battle online. They got a late jump on the internet. Everything they have tried online, from webmail, to messenging to internet service started too late and could not compete with AOL (as much as I hate saying that) and now losing to broadband.

Look at sights used for web searches and of the major ones, MSN has to be one of the least used. I am sure some people do not mind the clunky and overloaded website design, but most people I know prefer the cleaner google, or heck even Yahoo is typically cleaner in appearance then MSN.

MSN Messenger is quite seriously a joke. Here is a service that few people really use. AOL IM stills has the majority share here as well since they were one of the original IM services. They also bought up another "original", ICQ. Yahoo, I believe is probably 2nd in the IM race and has a strong support base from its e-mail service and people who use Yahoo as a primary search tool.

I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series. Quite simply these bring in more money, and there is no real foreseeable end to the need for Operating Systems and Office suites. But in typical fashion, they will try to buy their way into a market and be the anti-thesis to innovators.

Better hurry

[geoff lane]

'cus the way google is going, buying up dark fibre and installing wifi access, it's pretty obvious that they want to provide services direct to users and bypass the ISPs entirely.

MS may end up buying AOL just at the time when it becomes irrelevant.