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

Let's try again.

[suso]

I think you could have made this article cheesier by saying:

"Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

Re:Let's try again.

[networkBoy]

"Is assimilating AOL the quantum link to 'p3ning' Google?"

Actually, no.

While I have not read any major news on this I think this may be M$ killing AOL (by accident).
My wife still wants her AOL e-mail address. Why? I have no clue. What I do know is that for the past three days the web authentecation server has been down, thus preventing a user from checking their spam without using the AOL application. When I finally got tired of being blamed for her inability to get her spam I called the AOL HellDesk. The person on the other end admitted that they have some critical server issues (when I poked for a better answer than "use the AOL app"). I made the comment that based on M$ 20% share of AOL I predict that 20% of their servers are down. (apperantly it is most of their internet gateway), this was confirmed by the tech.

So my take:
M$ buys controlling interest in AOL, shoves W2003 server etc. down their throat, doesn't do a proper impact study and blindly forges ahead. Result? nothing. Why? cause the AOL users don't know any better. Ultimately they'll work it out and such, but in the meantime their incompetance is shining through.

-nB

Re:Let's try again.

[ultranova]

"Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

No, he should had said "Is AOL the missing link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?". That way, it bear a vague link to evolution, which would cue some besserwisser into making some crack at creationism in some way that would show his own complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular, and acting as the opening salvo in an atheism-theism war on Slashdot, raising message numbers to thousands and giving the new Slashcode a real stress test.

Unfortunately, the editor missed this perfect opportunity, so now we'll have to wait until some troll gets creative - a rare occasion nowadays. Trolls aren't what they used to be :(.

Re:Let's try again.

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Brilliant! But I bet most Slashdotters don't realize that Quantum Link was the precursor to AOL as we know it today..

Re:Let's try again.

[The Lynxpro]

More like "Is AOL the key to Google killing Microsoft?"

Microsoft could not buy AOL without parting with AIM due to antitrust considerations. There's already the public record about Microsoft considering AIM a monopoly back before the AOL Time Warner merger and that would be thrown back in their face. Furthermore, if AOL Music's *partnership* with the iTunes Music Store was cancelled following a Microsoft acquisition, Steve Jobs would bring up the issue to the Feds.

Google could use AOL to chip away at Microsoft bit-by-bit. Just imagine them bundling OpenOffice with all AOL discs and having the AOL multitude use it instead of Microsoft Word. Google would also have the stomach to switch the default AOL browser from IE to FireFox, which would also hurt Microsoft.

Google could choose to continue development on WinAmp or directly open source it. Microsoft would kill it completely.

Google could leverage AOL to promote its Wifi plans. Unlimited access to wifi if you are a paying AOL member.

And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

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

[ChrisF79]

I really have to disagree with you. You're looking at what Google is now and what AOL is now. I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be. That having been said, I think it would take a lot of time to completely change the image of an existing company, but it has been done in the past and could be done again. FYI, Black and Decker did this with their DeWalt brand. Construction guys wouldn't use Black and Decker products at all because they had this cheesy "at home" use to them and it was purely an image thing. So Black and Decker spun off the DeWalt brand and gave it more of a jobsite feel. Next thing you know, construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them, even though they were Black and Decker products with a new name and painted yellow. Admittedly, every case is different, but Microsoft could surely change the image of AOL with the right marketing and new approaches to AOL's business.

Re:That'll Never Work

[rben]

While I don't particularly fear for Google, we should all be concerned about the fact that Microsoft, which has twice been convicted of anti-competitive practices, and barely flinched at it's 'punishment', is now gleefully declaring that it's going to destroy another competitor.

This latest goal of Balmer's shows that the company still isn't interested in competing through innovation, as they keep claiming, but through destroying any company that gets in their way.

Somehow, this smells like monopolistic behavior to me, though somehow, I doubt we'll see our government do anything about it.

Re:That'll Never Work

[SparafucileMan]

In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

Hahaha how true how true.

Microsoft is going to slowly but surely eat away at Google. Expect GOOG to fall to ~200 in next few months. $300 is a little high for a company that DOESN'T PAY DIVIDENDS and instead of giving financials tells reports about their chef. Google is great, but it is still a bubble.

Re:That'll Never Work

[FatRatBastard]

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...

Mindshare doesn't pay the bills, cold, hard cash does. MS is going after AOL's business (either through purchasing all or part of it, or giving them a sweet deal for switching their search engine to MS) mainly because it'll hurt Google's bottom line. I've seen numbers that indicate that 10% of Google's revenue comes from AOL. While losing it won't be fatal, it will hurt like hell.

I had mentioned this in a previous MS/Google thread. A lot of the posturing by both companies has more to do with "How do I disrupt my competitor's cashflow" than "how do I make more business for myself."

Re:That'll Never Work

[slimak]

Having used both B&D and DeWalt tools I can say that the difference is more than just the casing and color - DeWalt tools are built MUCH better than the cheaper B&D couterpart. If you're a only using the tools a few hours a year its not a big deal, all day long its a huge difference. The main reason Black and Decker tools are not used by professionals is because in the long run, its less expensive to have a quality tool that lasts and performs well.

Re:That'll Never Work

[jav1231]

So what exactly are they gaining?
Ballmer: "MWAHHAHAHA! We'll buy AOL and make them all use Windows and IE!"
Sidekick: "Uh, Sir? They already use Windows and IE. AOL refused to port AOL to Linux and abandoned their own browser and signed agreements with us to use IE!"
Ballmer: "Oh."
Sidekick: (under his breath) "Ass..."

Re:That'll Never Work

[schon]

Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.

Why not?

What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible <BASE HREF="search.msn.com"> into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

Re:That'll Never Work

[DigitumDei]

Despite the availability of other OS's and browsers to run Google searches with, this is a battle of percentages (that and Linux people seem to click on ads less than windows people). If MS can get enough of the stupid (AOL) market, then advertising on their ad network may look more enticing than advertising on Googles ad network. If that happens Google may suddenly find themselves struggling for cash, and no matter how "good" they are, they still have to pay bills.

I don't think this is likely, and MS is probably just going to have to learn to live with the fact that Google is succeeding. However, you can't just rule MS out. They have proven time and time again that they know how to do the brute force method in wearing their opponents down.

Re:That'll Never Work

[drsquare]

I'm sorry to break the 'feelgood' circle-jerk, but this 'mindshare' only exists on Slashdot. Come into the real world, and most people just use Google because it's force of habit. Like typing in 'slashdot.org' in the browser first thing in the morning even though you know there's going to be nothing of interest, it's just routine.

It is VERY easy to take a search-engine's market share, it's a simple as typing a different address in the browser or changing the homepage. It's nowhere near as entrenched as an operating system, and MS still buried OS/2. Imagine what they can do to a company which could disappear entirely with a click of a mouse. I'm afraid constant fellating from Slashdot won't keep a company successful.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market

No they don't, they just need a higher market share and more effective advertising. Once they get a high enough percentage of the market, all they need to do is bring in an advertising system that's more favourable to the advertisers, and they'll 'fucking kill' Google as all the advertisers jump ship. Remember that Google's entire business model relies on advertising, the search engine is just a way to show adverts.

Once Google's profits go down, the stock bubble bursts, and the rest of us who actually LEARNT from the dot-com era can stand back, put on the sunglasses, and watch as they crash and burn in a giant $80 billion inferno.

Re:That'll Never Work

[MightyMartian]

OK, I give up. Refresh my memory. *What* did Microsoft innovate in the 1980's?

Abusive market practices.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Delphiki]

So, what's wrong with trying to destroy another company? Isn't that the whole point of competition? To drive your opponent out of business so that you can make more money? Slashdotters like to complain when markets aren't competitive because firms are too cooperative like the music industry, and slashdotters like to complain when the competition isn't friendly enough for you.

Honestly, who cares if Ballmer said he wanted to destroy Google? If I were a shareholder I wouldn't want him to be CEO if he weren't at least thinking it.

Re:That'll Never Work

[ajs318]

eBay probably will destroy Skype.

Some people are spunking their pants over the idea that one day, there will be advertisements in telephone calls. Your conversation will be interrupted; each party will hear a targeted advertisement, and be unable to hear anything the other party is saying. After the advertisement is finished, the conversation can be resumed. If you hang up mid-advert, then you will have to listen to another advertisement all the way through before you get another chance to dial.

That's the reason why eBay bought Skype, but it might not actually destroy Skype -- Skype might not even last long enough to die that way.

Skype is using a closed, proprietary protocol and thus incompatible with industry standards such as Asterisk. And incompatible protocols simply don't work in telephony. I expect to be able to talk to people, and send and receive SMS messages, independent of what make of phone they are using, or to which telephone company's network it is connected. Hell, they could be using an old-fashioned tethered-to-the-wall phone with brass bells and a rotary dial for all I care. All I need to know is their number, and it's the business of the telcos to make it all work. But that model breaks down when the phone companies won't co-operate, and both un-co-operative parties suffer. If you couldn't call an NTL landline from an Orange mobile, nobody would want to go with NTL or Orange even if they did not have friends on the other network at the time, because you never know who you are going to want to call up.

And of course most people don't want to tie their phone to their computer ..... geeks might, but they aren't most people. I think the Skype bubble will burst pretty quickly. I can see a "broadband telephone" with a built in ADSL router {probably next-gen wireless}, which will just plug into a broadband-equipped phone line, pick up some configuration data from the net, and do auto-routing using POTS or VoIP as appropriate. The user experience is the same {pick up receiver, hear dial tone, punch in number, far end rings, far end answers, talk, hang up receiver} whichever system is being used ..... and most people aren't going to care what the little "network" and "padlock" icons in the display will mean, except that they're saving them money somehow and keeping things secure somehow respectively.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them

I worked construction jobs from 1995 to 2000 and the three most popular brands were Makita, Makita, and Makita. Black and Decker, disguised or not, was never seen. Not everybody who wears a hard hat is stupid, some of us are merely slow-witted engineers. Which "Seven Steps of Highly Effective Managers" did you get this story from?

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

[Khyber]

What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

Well, if I wish to go to google and the browser automatically redirects me to another site, that would count as compromising my control over my computer, which, by most 'definitions' of today constitutes hacking someone else's computer. IANAL. But I don't have to worry about that because I use FireFox. The only way MS would be able to redirect me to their search engine would be to usurp Google's page and that would most likely end up in a massive lawsuit that could very well put Microsoft bankrupt for (I'm assuming it's called) industrial/corporate espionage, Violation of DMCA, or something along those lines.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Wi-Fi-Guy]

The GP was correct. Around 1987 or '88, B&D brought out a line of tools intended to compete with Milwaukee, Porter-Cable, et. al., in the pro end of the market. The line was called "Black & Decker Industrial". It did not do well because of B&D's poor brand image, so B&D resurrected a brand they acquired some years before, DeWalt, and stuck it on re-colored versions of the B&D Industrial tools. They also experimented with another brand they owned, Elu. For a while around '89-'90, some tools, especially routers, could be had with any of the three names. The versions were identical other than colors and logos.

To bring this back on-topic, AOL still has a strong base of loyal users for whom the AOL experience is synonymous with the Internet. The biggest current problem is that they are not able to recruit new users, partly because of AOL's bed rep. Some judicious fixes to the user experience and a rebranding could work wonders. The techno-literates would still avoid a walled-garden Internet, of course.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Just Some Guy]

my mom [...] is the worst computer user ever born. [...] I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....

Exactly how old are you?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Himring]

I'm 37. Hehe, I just got your joke. I got several trolls on /. and couldn't post for a bit. /. admin told me I was in timeout for a bit. One just has to be careful about what one says about microsoft....

Re:That'll Never Work

[s4ck]

Microsoft is going to slowly but surely eat away at Google. Expect GOOG to fall to ~200 in next few months. $300 is a little high for a company that DOESN'T PAY DIVIDENDS and instead of giving financials tells reports about their chef. Google is great, but it is still a bubble.

That has nothing to do with dividends. actually, paying dividend in the case of high growth(expected) tech stock is usualy followed by a correction because it dilute the capital available for development. Once a company is established, read reasonable PE ratio then the investors expect dividends. That's obviously not the case of GOOG.

Even then... Do i need to mention Berkshire-Hathaway? ... check how much it's going for. What? $80 000.00. they never paid any dividends... regardless, the they-don't-even-pay-dividend rule has nothing to do with the stock price of google. it's the expectations that drive the price... and lots of people have great expectation in this company.

i wouldn't bet on msft eating away goog...

Re:That'll Never Work

[rossifer]

innovating a new business model is hardly what real geeks would consider important innovation, right?

I think that most geeks give Netflix full credit for their original business model.

I'd like to think that geeks are a little better at ignoring the marketdroid and a little more likely to be interested in what's going on behind the curtain. Most "new business practices" don't stand up to that kind of scrutiny very well, but those that do seem to get the respect they deserve...

In my experience anyway.

Regards,
Ross

Re:That'll Never Work

[nelsonal]

Corportations have lifecycles, and dividends are the only method a corporation has of producing net benefits. From public company to the eventual bankruptcy, all other transactions enrich one side while impoverishing the other. Purchasing a non-dividend paying company is a statement of faith that the company is investing its capital in a manner that will produce larger dividends in the future. One of the main failings of investors in capital markets has been grossly overestimating the eventual value of those future cash flows.
The best example of this is from an old paper by Dr. Fama(which I will simplify) imagine two investments a forest and a mine. The mine will be exhausted in 7 years but produces $2,000 per year. The forest will take 5 years to mature and will produce $500 per year after it reaches maturity. It would take a very low discount rate for the forest to be worth more than the mine. Google Arness curves if you want the full story.
However, if you replace internet search company (or biotech or software company or radio company or any of a number of then new industries) for forest and building or shipping company for the mine people have generally paid far more for the forest than the mine.
Not to long ago someone did a study that found Altria [Phillip Morris] was the best performing stock in the Dow or S&P 500 over the last 30 or 40 years, even though it has struggled greatly with government regulation, massive lawsuits, and was never considered a "sexy growth" company during any of those time periods. While most companies had considerably better months, years, and even decades than Altria they were unable to string together consistant performance. All too often in the corporate world the forest never reaches the harvest stage due to unforeseen circumstances, which only improves the performance of the mines of the investment world. This isn't intended to be a reccomendation of any company or sector, just an example of why dividend payments are important.

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.

Yahoo threw in the towel??

[Fahrvergnuugen]

TFA:
...Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from Yahoo, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

I think they meant:
Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

This is a classic example

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a classic example of a company that is running low on the innovation batteries so it has to rely on buying out competitors to try and crush their opposition rather than working on new an innovative ways of moving the industry or product line forward.

At the end of the day ill pay all my advertising money to anyone BUT a microsoft or timewarner.

Re:This is a classic example

[grahamlee]

My grandmother seems to be doing just fine with her mom-and-pop ISP

They must be some really old people.

Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[xmas2003]

Microsoft buys AOL
Sends all "free AOL CD's" to Google.
After a few months, Google is buried in CD's.

P.S. Remember the days when AOL floppies were actually useful since you never had to buy any? I actually had a useful purpose for an AOL CD cover recently as a free viewport on an outdoor webcam box.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. AOL should send out their CDs on CD-RWs. Then they'd have something worthwhile.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[DaPoulpe]

I, for one, used to keep their cds stacked up near my desks.
In case of any upcoming "CD In Your Face" War with my flatmate/workmates.
Saved my live many times *sigh*

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Hosiah]

Heck, I'm saving up eight different colors of AOL CDs to use as a mobile, myself. Break them in half, melt them to strings, tie the strings to dowels, and you have a hanging porch ornament that catches the sun in flashing half-arc rainbows. I tried the coaster bit, but the hole in the middle lets the moisture leak through.

Cool!

[gowen]

It looks like the new CSS-driven slashdot has got a Random Slashdot Headline generator built into it!

Look out tomorrow for "Is <$NOUN> the Key to Microsoft Killing <$RIVAL>?"
Of course, in actuality, tomorrow's headline is likely to be "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?" again

The key is Ballmer

[jkrise]

In true Mohammed Saees Al Sahaf style "Google is no more with us"..

Worked so well for Time-Warner

[Fastball]

Oh, wait...

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.

Re:You can't polish a turd

[Locke2005]

AOL's future can be predicted very easily by examining two simple curves. The first is AOL's incremental revenue per customer; note how it has been trending downward for several years now. The second is AOL's marginal cost to aquire each new customer; note how it has been steadily increasing ever since AOL started. Now note have the two curves cross in 2005. That's right, AOL now spends more to aquire each new customer than it gets in revenue from each new customer (on average). Any questions?

not that serious

[garat]

A merging of AOL with MSN will surely not "kill" Google. Yes, as the article states, Google earns roughly 25% of its profit from advertising on AOL but another article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/15/aol_msn/) also states what's most important: "AOL - which has seen net users leave the service in their millions over recent years..." Yes, AOL is constantly losing customers and will likely continue to do so. While this move might put a dent in Google's current profit, it's certainly nothing as serious as made to seem.

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!

Re:Huh?

[Knome_fan]

You might be surprised, but even RTFA doesn't help this time around, as /. just copy and pasted the blurb from the register.

But you are right, it doesn't make sense at all of course. I think one can assume that they wanted to talk about google advertising on aol, not on yahoo.

...AOL floppies were actually useful

[infonography]

Still true today!

The cases they send CDs in are sometimes clever being made of wood or metal and sometimes even having magnets in them to keep them closed. I naturally discard the paper ones unopened but the metal ones are great for sending DVDs you make to friends and family. Just make sure it's clearly marked as NOT FROM AOL. I also carry live linux dvds in case I need a quick boot. You can't be sure that a system will support booting from a USB fob, but DVD is universal and cheap.

As a company I still have no use for AOL, but they can send me their clever little boxes all day long.

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[Rosyna]

Isn't there some kind of Monopoly law that prevents these things?

That's why the FTC can review large mergers like this and reject them. Although with the recent mergers of Sprint/Nextel and AT&T Wireless/Cingular and the Oracle/Little Fish you have to wonder what the hell is going on in their minds. Oh yeah, and Kmart/Sears.

Aol...

[stevemm81]

Is there some reason why large companies can't resist the temptation to acquire AOL? First Time Warner's notoriously ill-fated merger, right as broadband was emerging... Now Microsoft? I realize AOL has a large number of subscribers, still the most of any ISP, but according to Business Week, they lost 900,000 subscribers just in the second quarter! As broadband becomes cheaper and cheaper, why would anyone stay with AOL? Are they even getting any new subscribers? That article also mentions AOL's goal to become a web portal, with AIM, AOL Music and MapQuest drawing users in. AIM I imagine is growing, as new preteens start using it all the time, but does this really make them any money? There's advertising on the client, I've never heard of anyone actually clicking it, or even really noticing it. MapQuest is okay, but I imagine people will gradually switch to Google Maps. I've never even heard of AOL Music, but it doesn't look like anything spectacular. And who would ever use AOL for search or free email? I think anyone under 35 wouldn't even think to look there. Perhaps that's what these companies don't understand: AOL, and really MSN as well, make most of their money off of customers' cluelessness. As customers get clued in by friends and relatives, they'll move to better services. The customers you have left will use one hour of Internet time a month and will probably eat up any profit AOL could make with their tech support calls alone.

Re:Aol...

[MadEE]

"...but according to Business Week, they lost 900,000 subscribers just in the second quarter!"

Yeah but they are still billing their credit cards so it's not as bad as it sounds.

AOLMicrosoft or MicrosoftAOL?

[Coimhad fearg fhear]

2005: New organisation named MicrosoftAOL
2006: MS realised what a terrible mistake they have made and are renamed Microsoft
2007:????
2008: Profit!!! (at least for the investment bankers who arrange the merger and who are no doubt pushing it like crazy at the moment)

Google doesn't bother...

[knopf]

During their A.M. Turing award lecture, Vint and Bob discussed and mentioned several times that it is virtually impossible to change parts of the Internet's underlying structures (e.g., the IP protocols), because the industry and standards are too strong. They mentioned that their luck was at the beginning to be left alone and be able to do anything they want. The standards came afterwards.

Now guess what:

Vinton Cerf works for Google now. Google wants to become a provider and they buy their own communication cables for an alternate internet. Ergo, Google will allow Vint to create a new Inernet protocol, which will have a number of features, which will make AOL/Microsoft cannot provide.

Of course, AOL/Microsoft can buy the market share, but if Google's protocols and Internet is the next generation, then Google will get its market share. And there is nothing that AOL/Microsoft can do about that.

Antitrust

[C0deJunkie]

Yes,it's called Antitrust. Named law is meant to avoid the creation of such a giant entity that could potentially, based on it's "dominant position", alter the market.

Re:Antitrust

[hcob$]

It's actually intended more to prevent monopolistic "abuses" and encourage fair play. You can have a monopoly.... just as long as you're not using that power to prevent people from entering the market. Think Netscape v. IE. IE was REQUIRED to be installed by M$oft. Eventually they even made it a "part" of the OS. Effectively FORCING people to use IE. Now, you could use Netscape, but the barrier of entry for Netscape to be used was outrageous because there already was a web browser on the system, so no one installed it.

The bottom line: The law is to prevent abuses, not bar people from making a monopoly.

Man, if the answer is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... "buy AOL", what the %@(&#!@% was the question??

Predatory. Microsoft must be split.

[SamSeaborn]

Once again, evidence that Microsoft needs to be broken into a bunch of smaller companies.

Windows Inc. would be afraid that Google threatens it's dominance of the world's computing platform, but would not be able to use MSN Inc. to battle Google. Windows Inc would be forced to make Windows better.

Office Inc. would want their software running on all computers everywhere, it would make Office for Linux, maybe even Office for the internet -- Office Inc would have no interest in ensuring Windows was the dominant computing platform.

Internet Explorer Inc. would embrace technologies like Java and Flash ensuring seemless compatibility with their browser. They would ship a top notch version of IE for all platforms including Mac and Linux. They would not worry about these technologies threatening Windows' dominance of the world's computing platform.

And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google, and would not have the resources to perform its *illegal* predatory business tactics.

Sam

"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:"Killing"

[porkThreeWays]

It's a common mistake

The keys are like right next to each other

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."

Why "Kill" Google?

[Halo-]

Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google? Google makes a great product that has arguably is one of the most important and useful tools on the web. On top of this, they don't charge anything to use it.

Yes, Google makes money. Sure, money is good, and everyone want more. But for crying out loud, just because someone else has success in an area of business doesn't mean you have to squash them. Microsoft should focus on making Windows better. The reason Google is good is because they spend their effort trying to be the best search engine, not the only search engine.

I'm not saying companies shouldn't aggressively pursue their competitors, but this just reeks of jealousy. I know that Google has a lot of new services (and likely more on the way) which compete with Microsoft (GMail vs. Hotmail, Google Search vs. MSN Search, GTalk vs. Messenger, Google Earth vs. Terraserver) but still...

It would be different if I thought MS was going to build a product which would "kill" Google by simply being better, but I suspect the plan is more to cripple Google as much as possible, and bring everyone down to a "well, it could be better but this is good enough" level.

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

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the bitter irony of it all. MS is one of the most wildly successful companies of all time. They actually have done some good, a lot more people use PCs thanks to windows, it's hard to deny that. They've been good to shareholders. Why on earth they want to "kill" anyone is beyond me.

It's high time we as a world society start pushing for a code of ethics for business officers. The FTC got all huffy about "accounting practices" after a few CEOs lied to the world about billions of dollars, bankrupted major companies and then tried to skate off in to the sunset and their multimillion dollar properties. There are generally accepted accounting practices but it's time to step it up a notch.

Business roundtable is kind of a start. I'd be willing to go as far as to put a letter on the end of a publicly traded company's ticker that symbolizes their lack of committment to the 21st century business code of ethics. Basically, you shouldn't knowingly or unknowingly use slave labor, not knowing isn't an excuse, you should make some reasonable effort to know. You shouldn't "try kill other companies" or put them out of business, competition is actually good and I think fierce competition is what makes this industry great but actively trying to hurt the comptetition is completely unethical and it shouldn't even be joked about; (jokes from CEOs turn into work orders in the trenches, leadership starts at the top, including ethical leadership) There should be some kind of political portion also which would be much harder to come up with in a clean way that would appeal to everyone, basically don't bribe, contributions are one thing but bribes (particularly in developing nations) are something else. Some percentage of profits should be given to employees and the community as a basic standard, clearly some companies need help in this department. etc.. perhaps some stuff regarding gifts.. if your profits to employess on public service ratio is too high (cough, walmart, cough) then maybe you should put more money in to them and a little less in to share holder's pockets.

I'm not advocating some kind of big machine to enforce this or anything like that. It's a basic code of conduct that publicly traded businesses should agree to. If they don't then they are marked for it. It won't hurt startups, they'll have to plan for it but it doesn't cost them anything. If you're "good" then it won't hurt you at all. If you're found breaking the code of conduct, then you're ticker is branded with a letter that signifies as much. There could be some sort of time limit to get out of the dog house and some kind of appeals process, when a huge mega corp acts, they often don't know what all of their pieces are doing but they should and there should be some reasonable attempt to know that they are acting in an ethical manner. You're company agrees to follow it or you get a Z on the end of your ticker. If you're found not following it then you get a Z until you comply or 6 months, which ever is longer.

Then the ethical mutuals out there (enviro. and shit like that) they can have another benchmark, no "Z" companies. I'm not particularly bleeding heart or anything like that, I'm not anti-corporation, but I'm just sick of all this kind of bullshit. Planning to build a monopoly or end your competition is just as bad as being a rober-baron; now some companies will kill themselves and they don't deserve to live but actively trying to cause that in the competition is wrong, I don't want to do business with those companies.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[robklaus]

Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google?

Think about the future Jack! At the current time it does not look like MS and Google's businesses intersect, but consider the future. All traditional advertising models are setup around a principle of scarcity. There are only so many allotments of radio frequencies, or tv frequencies, or newspaper pages, so advertising on them is very expensive. With internet based distribution of ads there is no physical scarcity, its simply a matter of delivering the right ad to the right person at the right time.

Consider podcasts, now being touted as a killer of traditional media. Once everyone and their mother has a podcast, how do you find the podcast for you? How does an advertiser know which podcast in which to spend ad dollars?

How about the death of physical media? Music is at this point, and I suggest the books will be next (once an appropriate hardware device is constructed). All of the businesses that exist to bring you this media are being challenged, because the real cost WILL BE in marketing to you (i.e. helping you find the music YOU like), and not in distribution. The costs of this are based around scarcity --> there are only so many 'Today' shows on which an author or musician can be displayed to market themselves.

Google or a company like them is poised to be that solution. Gmail, Talk, Wifi or whatever all give them insight into how to market digital media to you in a highly targeted manner. This represents a huge amount of money and potential revenue growth. MS revenue growth has slowed. One could suggest that this is because the OS has become a commodity and everyone has it already. So for a company to keep growing, new business models are needed. MS could be that company and that is how they are trying to position themselves.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[.killedkenny]

but this just reeks of jealousy

You nailed it. Gates and Ballmer like to talk about Google's "honeymoon", as if the buzz about Google is more about the hype of something new and not about providing great tools and a positive user experience.

Bill Gates said, "They have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information."

Notice how Bill said "we are going to GIVE people tools"? That is a lie. Microsoft wants to SELL people tools. Google is the one GIVING tools.

I weep I weep and thrice I weep

[kahei]

WTF is this, what happened to the Microsoft I knew that delivered products and listened to feedback and invented little things like reusable components and even kinda sorta slew the mighty ogre of IBM? How did it get infected with the belief that manipulating the market and brand is it's core business? How did it forget how to create software and listen to users, and learn to focus on strategic acquisition and shit?

Oh, wait, it was Ballmer. And being big. But mainly Ballmer.

Hey, in 10 year's time, when MS is in recievership, I wonder who the Ballmer of Google will be?

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.

More likely to kill AOL

[Peter_JS_Blue]

Google will suffer a bit but I think the real casualty will be AOL. This is how I think it will play out :-

1. MS buys AOL
2. MS forces AOL to use its search engine, not Googles. AOL starts to suck a bit more than usual.
3. MS starts milking AOL for all its worth. AOL starts to suck big time.
4. Google loses a bit of revenue, but finds other, innovative ways to make it up.
5. AOL starts to suck so much that TimeWarner has to step in to prevent the remaining 47 subscribers from leaving.
6. In the end AOL either gets taken over completely by MS or TW or simply left to rot.

well...AOL is probably not for sale

[buddhahat]

According to today's NYT, Time Warner says that AOL is their future. So the MS buying AOL scenario seems less likely. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/business/media/2 2warner.html

The Beginning of the End for Google

[DesScorp]

You guys can think what you want, but when Microsoft marks another company for death, usually they win. Google might not go away, but MS will find a way to beat it in the marketplace. MS's stuff won't be as good, and they won't win by fair play....but they'll win. Gates and Balmer have their minds set on it and that's that. Game over. If you're a Google employee, enjoy it while you're on top, because you're going to be polishing your resume in a couple of years. Balmer especially is one very vengeful fucker.

"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." - Steve Ballmer

This isn't Linux, where an open source project can't be killed. Google is a busniness, subject to business pressures. I don't rule out the possibility that Microsoft may actually find a way to buy Google one day. At the very least, Google will end up like Lotus, Apple, Wordperfect; profitable, with a dedicated fanbase, but small and irrelavent compared to the MS juggernaut. Worse, they could end up like Netscape. There was a lot of brainpower in that company too. It didn't save them.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[Pecisk]

Show me their frags list for last five, seven years. Netscape was mererly success because well, Netscape sucked that time (be honest, Netscape 4.x series was big disaster). Lotus 1-2-3 - too historical event to be compared to this.

See, in those times, not everyone expected Microsoft to act THAT bad. Now industry and competitiors are much more educated about whereabouts of Microsoft.

What will happen to Google? I don't see ANY weapon Microsoft can lay against it now. Monopoly power? Get over it, it WON'T work, because they abused it last years SO much that no company or entity of business or govemerment ANY kind is bound to believe them. So they will buy AOL and try to revert search to MSN? So what, it is somehow makes MSN Search superior? People aren't THAT stupid anymore, at least majority - sure, they don't know precisely what is this all internet thingy is, but they want 'to google'. MSN can't beat that - and with their attitude I'm sure they won't.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[hobo sapiens]

That may be a bit hasty.

Google does have one thing going for it, a recognizable name and a product that is just better than anything M$ has ever come up with, and as a previous poster said, it's free!

What will kill Google in the end (and it's a matter of time, like you alluded to) is what is killing M$ now: brain drain. Google has the best and the brightest. It's only a matter of time until Google becomes a company with an unmanagable suite of applications to support, and then the only innovations we will see are things like a new module on that stoopid customizable portal page they made (cannot remember the uri). The real hackers will of course get bored supporting existing work and move on to the next big thing. It's just the nature of our industry. IMHO, Google will stave off this scenario by sticking to what they do best and staying away from CRAP like AOL.

I actually wonder if M$ is trying to bait Google into buying AOL. Anytime you get away from your core business (aka what you do well) then you are in trouble (musical instrument analogy: Yamaha makes good keyboards. Nobody wants their crappy guitars though). Imagine if M$ had stuck to doing OS...they might (and I say might) have a decent product. Google ought to learn from that and keep doing what they do well.

I see the same mistaken thinking going on

[suitepotato]

Namely, that people are growing smarter and that smarter (by this faction's definition) means people will see Microsoft and AOL for being shams and suddenly see the light and adopt the (sadomasochistic) ways of Linux.

Excuse me while I open a window and laugh.

Car manuals that put the New York Yellow Pages to shame for size and are competitive with sets of encyclopedias have been on the shelves of libraries for years. People know less and less every year about their cars. They know less and less every year about most things because the people who know more and more tend to be doing their jobs correctly: they make it work, and they make it work transparently to the user as to the guts of the process.

You don't need to know how a mainframe works to do your banking, you need not know how a cash register works to buy something. You need not know what an unsigned integer is to compose a letter on a word processor. Windows is easy to use. AOL is easy to use. Put them together and you have the all around ease of use killer setup for home users.

Once again, the tail does not wag the dog. Your kids at school do not control your PC buying decisions and if they did Apple would be the only brand in the USA and there'd be NO Internet as it back then DID NOT fit into Apple's (Job's) worldview. Your average anti-corporate anti-conformity geek in the IT department does not control the corporate PC buying decisions and if they did, we'd all be using BSD command line only boxes. The general "I don't care how it works, I just want it to work" public controls the market.

Sorry to burst your fanciful bubbles, but the Tyranny of the Masses has been the rule and not the exception since before Hannibal crossed the Alps. We can just bring it to you faster and more efficiently than the Roman populace ever could to their wrongly pontificating intellectuals.

Monopoly Maintenance is what I'm worried about

[crovira]

Microsoft has proved an absolute zero at thinking up anything to do with computers.

Innovation is definitely not their bag. They have bought or stolen everything in their OS, beginning with QDOS and ending with Vista (which is strange considering the number of people on their payroll.)

Microsoft has proved unbeatable at reacting. They don't think of anything but but that. They have their antennas out feeling/looking for any financially successful product out there and seeing how they can take it away.

Its very depressing to witness such stullifying behavior.

Re:Lamers

[carmaggedon]

(BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)

are you kidding? 10% might not sound like much if it's in the form of a coupon for 10% off a gallon of milk. but 10% of your revenue from one customer? that's substantial, and not something a company just shrugs off if it happens to dry up. no, losing aol ca$h money wouldn't kill google in one fell swoop, but it wouldn't be trivial, either.

What AOL is really for

[ewe2]

Is so Microsoft can own ICQ and AIM. They don't want Google winning IM, so this kills two birds with one stone: present a credible competitor for anti-trust monitors while taking over most of the IM market. I'm not sure Microsoft won't ruin the advantage they gain with this, however. Turning everything into MSN isn't everyone's idea of IM heaven. Who cares about the subscribers? It's the network infrastructure and IM audience they want for Microsoft Internet.

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.

What Balmer Should NOT Know

[jd]

It wouldn't have to visibly redirect you. In fact, since Google is financed through advertising, redirecting the search isn't the important part. All you have to do is redirect the advertising banner. Since AOL users will likely access through AOL servers, all it would require is for AOL to proxy all HTTP requests, find the ones for the banner ads, then redirect those to an MSN banner advert server. Actually, since Microsoft controls 98% of all desktops, it could be done even easier. Don't do any filtering at all, but simply change IE so that whenever you go from Google to another site, the HTTP header is mangled to look like the browser's previous page was on MSN.

Both of these would be invisible to the user, very difficult for Google to spot, but visible to advertisers and sponsors, which would potentially cripple Google's revenue stream. (This is why advertising is a lousy business model - anything that exists only on a logical level is totally mutable, making it easy for people to steal.)

Obligatory Ballmer 'roid rage link

[higuy48]

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

My favorite part has always been when he actually hurts himself in the middle of it.

Re:Bad publicity?

[Lifewish]

They can't. This is the power of Open Source - once you've sent it out into the world, you can't call it back. Very handy in situations like this.

AOL & MS have different work cultures.

[managedcode]

Moving MSN into Products and Platforms means, they are now under direct supervision of Bill. MS has aggressive work culture while AOL is packed with laid-back typical corporate Americans. Bill will first fire Ballmer if he bought AOL or they will buy AOL minus it's lousy employees.

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.

I'm not so certain innovation is what draws geeks

[brokeninside]

So much as the implementation. At its core, Netflix isn't doing anything other than what libraries and rental shops have been doing for decades. What makes Netflix different is their execution of the business model: good selection, prompt service, decent price.

re: Microsoft vs. innovation

[kupci]

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

Yes, it was Compaq's 386, and IBM's poor strategy, that benefited Microsoft. IBM made many mistakes, for great reading see Robert X. Cringley's Accidental Empires book. Among the problems - IBM underpowered the original IBM PC, and then was slow bringing out the 386. They tried to make the hardware proprietary, by using the 'Microchannel' architecture, the market didn't buy it and went with Compaq's 386 architecture instead.

So the whole innovation deal, that open source just copies, but doesn't innovate, is baloney, one only needs to look at Microsoft. Which came first, Turbo Pascal or Visual Basic? Mosaic or Internet Explorer? Java or C#? ln -s or Microsoft's smart links? etc etc.

But this whole innovation argument is annoying Microsoft FUD. Rather, Microsoft seems to follow the kaizen model, i.e. constant improvement - look at Windows 3.1 to Win 95 to Win XP. And Visual Studio is a great IDE. And this is exactly the situation with Google. I think we'll see Microsoft improve, just as Windows has improved with Linux competition, and C# is an improvement on VB with Java competition, however just like these apps won't be destroyed, neither will Google, since it's outside the realm of MSFTs desktop realm.

It Could Be Interesting

[fupeg]

Personally I don't care if Microsoft or Googles dies/wins/{insert melodramatic verb here}. But this could be very interesting. Google has been able to take an unusual business tactic of promoting lots of disparate innovations and then trying to find ways to monetize them. To be honest, it hasn't really worked all that well -- yet. Their lack of monetary success on these fronts has been easily hidden by their massive success in their "old" business: search related advertising. That old business brings in billions that fund all the new businesses, that don't bring in much money (yet.) So what happens if Google has a down quarter where their revenues slipped significantly. Their revenues have generally gone up every quarter since their IPO, so that would be a huge change. It would be interesting to see if they would try to cut costs if their revenues were slipping. They might mean less Google Labs projects. Or maybe they would stick with their same business model, even though that might mean a huge drop in their stock price. Either way, it would be interesting to see how they "grow up" in the face of real adversity.

Huge numbers of abusive practices of all kinds...

[Futurepower(R)]

Not just "abusive marketing practices". Huge numbers of abusive practices of all kinds, so many that it might be impossible for one person to document them. Here is just a hint: Microsoft has never been a trust-based company.

Windows 98 had a memory management scheme which would cause it to crash if too many programs were opened. Resellers are required to disclose the names of their customers. Microsoft invented new protocols for connecting to the internet, which, predictably, were found to have security vulnerabilities. With the introduction of Windows XP, Microsoft began integrating its own computers with those of its customers. Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser is amazingly buggy.

Here was an early attempt of mine to document the problems: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. I only began to scratch the surface of the abuses.