Google Wants a Piece of AOL?

minuszero writes "BBC News is reporting that "Google is said to be in talks with media group Time Warner about a stake in its internet service provider, AOL." Talks are reprted to be in the early stages still, but one possibility is a "three-way joint venture to house AOL's content offering, with Time Warner retaining a controlling interest." Current estimates for this sort of move are around $5bn. The article also claims that Microsoft has also shown interest in tieing up MSN and AOL services." Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.

Comments

Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[AlltheCoolNamesGone]

There can be only one!

Seriously in the long run it doesn't matter who (if any of the two) wins, the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer.

More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[bedroll]

More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....

Well, perhaps Google would then be able to convince Time Warner that federating IM is worthwhile. If that's the only thing that would happen from this then I'd be happy about it. Especially with MS and Yahoo! supposedly teaming up.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[bshensky]

This has nothing to do with anything more than Google trying to "divide and conquer" a potential M$+AOL future.

M$ strategy: Embrace and extend all NON-Google online assets to make it a two-party game.

Google strategy: Marginalize M$ as deeply and often as inhumanly possible.

MS and Google can NEVER share space. Even if Google buys a tiny percentage of AOL, it's enough to poison the well so that M$ cannot usurp AOL into its own.

Aside: It's become clear that AOL is comfortable in its role as bastard-manipulatee.

Stop speculating on anything else, guys.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[databyss]

Usually better products come about due to competition for market, not competition to consolidate the players.

10 Companies competing to get a larger share of 300 million users will result in better products (in theory anyways).

2 Companies competiting to reduce the field of companies from 5 to 4 will result in a smaller field of companies and will have a negative result on product quality and innovation (in theory again).

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[pete6677]

I agree that it really does not matter what happens to AOL. They have done nothing but lose market share over the last few years. In fact, I'm seeing many parallels between AOL and Excite@Home. Within a few years, I think AOL will meet the same fate.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[Shakrai]

the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer.

Call me cynical but I highly doubt Microsoft will innovate anything. They will try to buy up another solution close to what Google has (in any arena), tweak it a bit and leverage their desktop position to try and steal market share away from Google.

I grow weary of hearing about how competition is so great for the consumer. Sometimes it is. Other times the companies involved just rig the market. And still other times competition might be good for the consumer on the face of it but the companies drive themselves into the ground in the process (the airline industry) and the customers/taxpayers get to pick up the pieces.

The free market is not the solution to everything.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[JordanH]

Maybe Google is only in talks to drive M$ crazy and make them pay too much. We know that Balmer personally hates Google. That might be expected to make M$ behave irrationally with regard to their negotiations with TW.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[JasonKChapman]

And still other times competition might be good for the consumer on the face of it but the companies drive themselves into the ground in the process (the airline industry) and the customers/taxpayers get to pick up the pieces.

So? Even in that instance competition was good for the consumer. Those who bought cheap airline tickets got their tickets and used them. You can't blame competition for short-sighted management running the company at a loss. Nor can you blame it for vote-buying, favor-currying politicians that insist the taxpayers should pay for management's mistake. That's like trying to blame Apple because a kid got killed for his iPod.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[The Lynxpro]

"Seriously in the long run it doesn't matter who (if any of the two) wins, the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer."

I seriously hope Google does buy a large chunk of AOL from Time Warner. Historically, Warner Communications favored 50% co-ownership deals and even tried to sell 50% of Atari Inc. back around 1980 to IBM. Investing in AOL would not only be wise, but a defensive move against further incursion into Google's main business by Microsoft. For example, a Google led AOL would have the courage to switch the main AOL web browser over to Firefox (something Time Warner is too scared to do). If they were smart, they'd do it like the current version of Netscape...default to the Gecko rendering engine, but if the browser detects non-compliant code favoring IE, the browser renders using the IE engine. But what Google could do differently is have the browser auto-report the site back to Google, which could lower the rankings of that webpage in Google's search database unless the site owners recode their page using standard practices. In less than two years, you'd see IE specific webpages a part of history and it would severely weaking Microsoft's influence on the net. Google/AOL could continue this dual rendering engine practice until 2009, when the AOLTimeWarner/Microsoft agreement ends, or sooner if the IE specific pages disappear en masse before that date.

And that's just a small piece of what a piece of AOL would mean to Google. I'll leave the other posters to ponder the impact acquiring AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ would do for Google Talk.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[The Lynxpro]

"Maybe Google is only in talks to drive M$ crazy and make them pay too much. We know that Balmer personally hates Google. That might be expected to make M$ behave irrationally with regard to their negotiations with TW."

I don't believe that. How does it benefit Google for Microsoft to drop $5 billion on a partnership with TimeWarner that sees them acquiring AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, and kicks Google off the AOL Search Page? $5 billion is chump change for Microsoft. It does not financially impact them...in fact, their stock would probably climb on news of such a combo.

On the other hand, I can see Microsoft trying to manipulate this to get Google to burn through money in acquiring a stake in AOL. However, Google is trying to do the partnership along with Comcast to lighten their financial burden/responsibility.

It is in Google's best interest to acquire this stake.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[quanticle]

Other times the companies involved just rig the market.

If the market is being rigged, a true competitive state does not exist, and the government has to step in (e.g. with anti-trust laws) and restore competition. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer. However, the free market does not always encourage competition.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[Momoru]

"There can be only one!"

Until google ACTUALLY gets into the Office or OS world, they don't even directly compete. Microsoft competes with Google's entire business, but Google only competes with a small portion of MS's. Not everything needs to be one on one in the tech world, this is business not a sports game.

Also the title didnt mention it but Google is supposedly teaming with Comcast for this, which seems like an odd bedfellow.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[twbecker]

Stop speculating on anything else, guys.

Because your post was not speculation??

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[scbysnx]

so basicly what you're saying is.. "think what I think or you're WRONG!"

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[4of12]

the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer.

"hopefully" is the operative word.

Competition is a free for all, no-holds-barred event in which better products, technical innovation and lower prices are but a small subset of the weapons available to both Microsoft and Google.

Don't forget, either, that once the event is largely over and a single victor emerges that things can change in the opposite direction on all 3 of the named expectations.

Exhibit A: Sole sourced government.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[bshensky]

Stop speculating on anything else, guys.

Because your post was not speculation??

IMO, it was not speculation:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ce o-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/11253027 72214.html?oneclick=true

And of course, I could be wrong. But with all the provocative press Google is getting, and comments like this one from Ballmer, I can easily imagine a world with Google and M$ getting all "Alien-vs-Predator" on each other.

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[AlltheCoolNamesGone]

"There can be only one!" = Joke
Clue: Next sentance starts of with " Seriously...."

Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G....

[Momoru]

My response wasn't directly toward you, but the people who seem to really feel there can only be EITHER sony or nintendo, EITHER democrat or republican or EITHER microsoft or google.

Do No Evil

[Bimo_Dude]

How will google reconcile any partnership with Time Warner with their policy of doing no evil?

Re:Do No Evil

[MaestroSartori]

They can get AOLTW to be evil for them, thus separating them from the actual evil itself while having the evil done regardless? :D

Re:Do No Evil

[CSHARP123]

How will google reconcile any partnership with Time Warner with their policy of doing no evil?
Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders. There is a difference between being ethical and being legal. When they say DO NO EVIL it may mean do legal things. They have never said we follow some ethics as dicatated by some religion or some community.

Re:Do No Evil

[mordors9]

I thought Time Warner had done little but complain about the lemon they bought when they bought AOL out.

Re:Do No Evil

[saskboy]

Why is this moderated Funny? It's darn insightful, because Time/Warner Brothers/CNN/AOL/Satan is one of the leading evil empires of America.

Google is known for it's non-insipid advertising and useful products. If they team up with AOL it's entirely possible that they'll annialate each other, much as matter and anti-matter meeting does. On the other hand, we might be able to harness the energy release and invent warp drive.

Re:Do No Evil

[tez_h]

Uh, are you claiming that they're outsourcing their evil?

That's a work of (non-evil) genius!!!

Mwahahaha!! Ooops.

-Tez

Re:Do No Evil

[Bimo_Dude]

Actually, it was the other way around. AOL bought Time Warner, but the TW management took over AOL. IIRC, AOL didn't have much debt until the merger, and part of that deal wat that AOL would assume TW's debt. Once the merger was complete, all of the TW managemnet started bitching about AOL's [newly assumed] debt, and how AOL was the unwanted stepchild.

Since TW ownes CNN and several other media outlets, it was forgotten that the debt transfer was part of the deal.

This is not to say that the merger was, in any way, a good idea, or that AOL's stock was not over-inflated at that time.

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that Microsoft are also being nice and friendly with AOL at the moment. Just what is going on in all those boardrooms at the moment?

Re:Do No Evil

[jeffvoigt]

2005 - Google buys into AOL, changes motto to "Do some evil"
2007 - Google buys into Microsoft, changes motto to "Do evil"

Re:Do No Evil

[Hrodvitnir]

Could it not be both? The idea of doing good at the cost of some immediate profit might increase the long-term bottom line.

Re:Do No Evil

[nelsonal]

It would have been a fine deal, if TW had given AOL shareholders about 1/8 of the company instead of half, and if AOL had been immediatly lumped in with the cable business and the two groups told to settle differences now and get working on AOL over cable broadband. Since hindsight is 20/20 niether happened but most of the carping is over the price paid. Good for AOL shareholders (who don't realize how little they would have if Case hadn't sold the company) but bad for TWX shareholders. Unfortunatly the timing of the deal meant that both groups blame the merger for the corporate ills rather than the popping of the bubble.

Re:Do No Evil

[Narcissus]

Are they required "by law" to maximise profit, or only to do "as desired by the shareholders"?

I mean take a hypothetical: a majority of the shareholders decide to donate all income to an orphanage. Now are you saying that by law they can't do this, as this would not maximise profits?

Surely so long as they are doing what the majority of shareholders want, then there is no requirement to make a profit, right?

Re:Do No Evil

[Rude Turnip]

"Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders."

By law, they have to follow the terms of their corporate charter.

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent was a "node plant" post.
By sampling for the "funny" moderation category,
we can approximate, with a high degree of accuracy,
the average highness of the Slashdot reader.
Any questions, see slashdot.org.

Re:Do No Evil

[meringuoid]

They can get AOLTW to be evil for them, thus separating them from the actual evil itself while having the evil done regardless? :D

Hey, if it's good enough for the CIA... If Google has evil it needs doing, it can extraordinarily render it off to AOL to be done. Clean hands all round and nobody gets blamed.

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders.

No, by law they have to obey their charter. They could have easily written some legalese that amounts to "do no evil" into their charter. Anyone investing into the company expecting them to "do evil for money" would be disappointed, but would have no legal recourse since they would be the ones who failed due diligence in their investment research.

Re:Do No Evil

[Shakrai]

2008 - Google donates massive amounts of money to both the RNC and DNC, changes motto to "Resistance is futile"

Re:Do No Evil

[Pixelmixer]

I'm pretty sure, by saying Do No Evil, they realy do base it on ethics. It is true their ethics arent governed by religion or some community, but the base it on convenience and indirect, less annoying, forms of advertising, which im sure you know. But my point is that all google has to do to reconcile the Time Warner partnership is change how AOL works and take out all the crappy advertisements that they bombard their members with daily. That would fit their definition of Do No Evil. (I think this is pretty much stated in their mission statement cant remember URL)

Re:Do No Evil

[biznes2biznes]

matter and anti-matter? Or immovable object and irresistible force? Or incredible hulk marries T-Rex?

Re:Do No Evil

[alva_edison]

We saw how well this worked in the case of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Granted they aren't sharing the same body, bu still eerily similar.

Re:Do No Evil

[mrchaotica]

Maybe they're doing it for the purpose of switching AIM to Jabber, so that they can counter the threat of the consolidated MSN + Yahoo proprietary protocol? It would explain why they're picking now to do it, and promoting open protocols is about the most non-evil thing an IT company can do...

Re:Do No Evil

['nother poster]

How dare you type a truthful statement, thereby ruining the view held by so many people that corporations are required to be evil because it is mandated by law. I can just hear the sounds of millions of bubbles being burts. You, my dear Rude Turnip, are evil. Pure Evil.

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go with one of those Big Business apologists who feels that they are educating us about why corporations exist. To say "fuck off" to the common man and public benefit, right?

Buddy, I have heard your ideas before. They're the very same ones that are making our common folk poor and our planet a wasteland. They're the kind of ideas that created the likes of Enron -- a company that did absolutely nothing and managed to make millions before it all fell appart -- a company that completely made up the California power crisis, endangering people's lives by shutting off the power grid to spike up prices.

Is that really the kind of "me first" attitude on which we should base our society? I don't think so.

I don't think your views on the laws are correct, but I am not a lawyer so I may be wrong there. But if that is the case, I'm going to say this out right: if the laws are like that, that's not the way they should be. Do you remember slavery? It was the law of the land! By your logic, completely morally justifiable.

Re:Do No Evil

[Idarubicin]

Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders. There is a difference between being ethical and being legal.

As others have already noted, Google is legally required to obey their corporate charter. In some cases this will mean maximizing profits, but that isn't always true.

Also, sound and responsible management may involve foregoing short-term profit for long-term gains. Moving all the staff into smaller cubes and replacing them with temp contract workers will result in a short-term bump in net earnings, but it will cost a software company in the long-term when they can't attract or retain experienced and competent programmers.

Finally, one of Google's most valuable assets is intangible; Google's reputation for being both innovative and not evil has made them the darling of programmers, engineers, and even Wall Street. Tarnishing their reputation for being 'not evil' would be hurting the brand name and identity that they've worked so hard to build. The guys with the money invest in Google because Google can attract the best engineers, programmers, designers, and thinkers on the strength of Google's reputation. Damaging that reputation would be a grossly unsound move for management.

Re:Do No Evil

[poopdeville]

That would be so cool.

Re:Do No Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Rilly?

Re:Do No Evil

[Acts of Attrition]

You missed it:
"Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox."

Swap CDs for DVDs, add a future Google Video on Demand service, and you can get movies either delivered to your computer or straight to your mailbox. Add some ingenious integration of their Video Search (If I knew what it was, I'd be working for Google) and bam they're one of the biggest Movie distributors around.

And unless they join the MPAA at that point, they've done some pretty cool non-evil things.

Re:Do No Evil

[jratcliffe]

Nope. There are specific rules about this, a company can't just act in the interests of the majority of shareholders, it needs to act in the interests of all the shareholders, which is usually determined to be profit maximization. If this weren't the case, somebody could buy up 51% of the company, and then decide that the new company purpose was to sell him all the company's assets for $0.01, thereby depriving the 49% owners of all the value of the company.

Re:Do No Evil

[awol]

Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders.

That is such a crock. Actually the board of directors have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders which means they must excercise their authority (derived from the shareholders) in such a way that is compliant with the corporate entities rules (as defined by the Articles of Association, are they still called that in the US?) whilst representing the interests of the shareholders. That's it. There is no "mandate" to maximise profits. Even if their was such a mandate it is up to the board to interperet the best way to do that which is not always "rape the business for every cent this financial year". Indeed it is the management team rather than the baord who make those kind of decisions but it is the board that determines how the management team is compensated and so selecting a scheme and a team that does no evil is completely consistent with their fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

In Googles case doing no evil might well be a strategy that is not only cool and nice but objectively good for the shareholders since "goodwill" (a close corollary to reputation) is a very significant component of any non-asset, brand based business and Google is _certainly_ a business like that.

The assumption that "for profit" means "must make as much money as possible" therefore "must do evil" is not justified in theory or in fact.

Re:Do No Evil

[Snaller]

They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders

Do you have a link to this amoral law?

Re:Do No Evil

[Narcissus]

But one shareholder who holds 51% of the shares isn't a majority of the shareholders: they are a holder of the majority of shares. It's an important distinction to make and I was under the impression that there were rules for both types of majorities.

Having said all that, I think that you missed a couple of steps. Now, I could be wrong, but aren't there rules about becoming a majority share holder? I mean, I was under the impression that you weren't able to go and buy 51% of the shares without making this effort public knowledge. Basically, as you say, you are getting control of certain aspects of the company and to a point, I'd have thought that you could legally introduce the ruling that you gave as an example above.

In fact, I was lead to believe that that was how a lot of dot-com companies got to be public during the boom... there were lots of little mining companies that had floated but were worth nothing. Dot-company directors / owners bought enough of these penny-stocks that they were able to get these publicly floated companies to buy their IT interests and then run with that instead of mining...

Re:Do No Evil

[Snaller]

So what's this imoral law called?

Re:Do No Evil

[Fengpost]

Well, they are required to maximized the value of their shareholder's stock. The fastest way to do that is usually to maximize the profit. Anything else is irrelevent!

Re:Do No Evil

[ComputerSherpa]

Yes, I can see how Google needs to buy a stake in AOL for that. Sticking CDs into little envelopes and boxes and mailing them is so hard.

Re:Do No Evil

[ArtStone]

The way the stock market works these days, there is little correlation between profit and stock price. That has not been true for decades.

If you net up all of the profits and losses of AOL during its pre-T/W run up from 1995-2000 in the stock market, they had an accumulated net loss of over a billion dollars. They had almost no cash left, and close to a negative net worth. However, they "owned" around 25 million sets of eyeballs, which are not measurable as profit on the P&L statement. At the peak of the speculation, each subscriber's future revenue stream was being valued at around $2000, giving AOL an actual value of $50 billion.

The result was multiple stock splits, and a market valuation where AOL was considered more valuable than GM - to the point they had enough clout to take over Time Warner.

The "powers to be" eventually realized that having AOL management trying to run Time / Warner was a really bad idea, since Time Warner's empire is much more diverse than AOL's, and can't as easily be goosed up each quarter by fudging with a few accounting numbers. Pretty much all of the AOL management has since been booted out, and Time Warner would like to divest itself of what they perceive as AOL's "reputation" in the business community and the public, but do it in a way that still makes them money.

The AOL takeover was largely finananced by debt which still needs to be paid off (TWX has $20 billion in long term debt). $93B of TWX's total $123B assets consist of "goodwill" and "intangible assets", while the debt is real. Since 2001, the Stockholder Equity has dropped from $152 billion to $60 billion. (in 2002, they had to write off close to $100B due to accounting changes and problems with AOL)

Since dialup use is rapidly fading, the intangible and goodwill value of that AOL dialup subscriber base is fading fast - not to mention that convential media is under intense pressure from Internet competition. The clock is ticking.

Google's interest...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely their interest would be in Microsoft not acquiring AOL and slashing Google's revenue stream by replacing the "AOL" (read Google) search service with their own.

Re:Google's interest...?

[Charles Jo]

Interesting thought. But stop calling me Shirley.

Re:Google's interest...?

[ergo98]

Man my submission was a world better than the one they went with. I included details on Microsoft's speculated venture with AOL, and other good links. Slashdot editors stink.

Re:Google's interest...?

[mbelly]

I think they just want to see more flying chairs.

Re:Google's interest...?

[The Lynxpro]

"Surely their interest would be in Microsoft not acquiring AOL and slashing Google's revenue stream by replacing the "AOL" (read Google) search service with their own."

*Retaining the Google relationship with AOL Search.

*Gaining control of AOL Instant Messenger & ICQ to strengthen GoogleTalk.

*Using the AOL brand to sell wifi service to Joe Sixpack.

*Gaining control of WinAMP to continue development for Google's own purposes or to sacrifice it to Apple with an iTunes partnership deal.

*Switching the AOL browser to the Gecko rendering engine to aid standards compliance on the web and weaken Microsoft's interests.

*DigitalCities integration.

*MapQuest integration with the GoogleMaps service.

*Gaining Moviefone...perhaps directly challenging Fandango which TimeWarner did not have the stomach to do.

Yeah, its a little bit more important than how it is being reported in the trades, me thinks.

Re:Google's interest...?

[munwin99]

Mod parent up - I aggree, there's much more to this than initially meets the eye...

Google ain't stupid.

Great.....

[8127972]

.....As if I needeed more CD's in my mailbox. At least you could reformat the floppies.

Re:Great.....

[the eric conspiracy]

Call AOL customer service and tell them they should send out re-writable CDs.

Re:Great.....

[alexandreracine]

You can always send them to this guy...

Re:Great.....

[doogieb]

I saved up enough CDs (mainly AOL) a couple of years back to tile the splashback above my bath.... used loads and loads of silicon to stick them up though (enough to make me dizzy from the fumes, LOL!).... which was nice. :-)

Re:Great.....

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure the property values on your house skyrocketed with that lovely bit of home decorating...

Re:Great.....

[gregorlowski]

Hey, I have my hot coffee mug sitting on an "1175 Hours" AOL CD right now on top of my "Programming Ruby" book on my desk. My mom always used to yell at me for putting drink cups directly on the table. With AOL CD's I protect my furniture!

(And by not installing AOL on Windows I protect my OS from bug-ridden slow death, although I don't really use windows anyway, but...).

Re:Great.....

[porcupine8]

But the CDs are shinier. They make excellent wallpaper.

Re:Great.....

[A_Non_Moose]

....As if I needeed more CD's in my mailbox. At least you could reformat the floppies.

Well, if it does happen maybe Google will push for USB Keys or CDRWs...I'd rather get spammed with those.

Am I the only one who heard the Spanish Soccer Announcer's voice when I saw Google and AOL and thought "GOOOOOOAOL!"?

First bad analogy of the thread

[LeonGeeste]

This is like Rolls-Royce being "in talks" with Ford to see if they can send each other customers. But it's stupid: Rolls-Royces are bought by a more sophisticated kind of customer, while Ford goes for broader appeal. It's really pointless to think there's significant overlap.

And I don't follow or much care for what car company owns which other ones, so if Rolls-Royce is already owned by Ford or vice versa, I'd really rather not hear about it right now.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[mordors9]

That would be almost as crazy as... oh, I dunno... Mercedes buying Chrysler ... oh wait a minute... never mind....

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[ZachPruckowski]

This is like Rolls-Royce being "in talks" with Ford
How about Rolls-Royce buying a Ford factory in order to learn how to mass-produce their cars?

Google, somewhere, somehow, has some massive omni-goal. It may be that they want to own the Internet. Or it may be something else. Regardless, they may be trying to learn the basics of and improve AOL's ISP stuff. Or maybe negotiate for the IM access.

Either way, if they apply "Do No Evil" to AOL's billing, I might be able to quit them finally.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Chaotic Spyder]

is that not the point? no overlap means bigger customer base. if they had the same market there would not be much of a point other than monolopy.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they have a simplified version of Google ready to go on AOL's homepage.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[josea]

you can learn a lot of what might happen with an AOL/Google deal by looking at the reactions of people in the Detroit area (where I live) using a more realistic analogy of Daimler and Chrysler "merging", since it actually happened. The reactions where as follows:

- Everyone who owned a Chrysler vehicle read the newspaper and said "Thats great! I own a Mercedes!"
- Everyone who owned a Mercedes vehicle read the paper and said "Oh crap! I own a Chrysler!"

I think that you will get similar reactions from a AOL/Google deal, with AOL shareholders high-fiving and Google shareholders going "What the fu-?"

P.S. Ford bought Land Rover not Rolls Royce.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Anonymous Coward]

>>How about Rolls-Royce buying a Ford factory in order to learn how to mass-produce their cars?

That would not apply as part of the Rolls "experience" is having a hand-built exotic sedan. A modern assembly line just wouldn't fit with the marque.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[bennini]

actually id consider the internet right now like a swingers club.
Two couples have walked into the club looking for some action.
Google with its bride, AOL.
and
Microsoft with its 'acquired-just-in-time' escort, Yahoo!

Everyone is hoping for a little bit of action in the club...but doesn't wanna to totally lose their way.
Unfortunately, jealousy usually takes over in these sorts of situtions...which is when things really start to get hectic.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[ZachPruckowski]

Something hand-built can be mass produced. They just have everyone build a little bit of it. Or maybe they mass-produce some of the parts and they are hand-installed, and thus the car as a whole is still "hand built".

Well, if the example doesn't work, then look at it from reverse, Ford buying part of RR in order to learn about their quality control. Google wants a jumpstart into the ISP business, and they probably think improving AOL is easier than building their own quality ISP.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[SpinJaunt]

So, are you a swinger too? not that I am interested..

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck the mod who rated this post's parent as flamebait.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[The Lynxpro]

"This is like Rolls-Royce being "in talks" with Ford to see if they can send each other customers. But it's stupid: Rolls-Royces are bought by a more sophisticated kind of customer, while Ford goes for broader appeal. It's really pointless to think there's significant overlap."

Ford owns Jaguar, Aston Martin, (Range) Rover, and Volvo.

VW owns Lamborghini. Porshe is trying to reacquire VW.

Your analogy is moot, me thinks.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[The Lynxpro]

"So, are you a swinger too? not that I am interested.."

But Microsoft is the ugly old rich guy that nobody wants to play with so he has to sit back and watch. Wow, interesting allegory to Steve Ballmer. :)

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Anonymous Coward]

60% overrated?! Someone got dumped... Slashdot used to be a really good place to come and read geek news. It had thought provoking posts, no dupes, and the mods were fair in their ratings. Now this site has become the AOL/Microsoft of geek news: repeated stories and worthless moderators. There are still some good posts, but that is the only saving grace of Slashdot, and it isn't enough. The moderators of today are all pretentious, egotistical dickheads. "Oooh! Look at me! I PAID to have to have no life and watch Slashdot 24/7 and I feel like a king with these mod points! Yay for me!" Let me ask you worthless oxygen vacuums something: how many times have you burned yourself on that McGrill?

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[poopdeville]

I didn't realize Porsche sold VW off. Isn't that new Porsche SUV built on the same frame as the Toureg in the same factories?

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[The Lynxpro]

"I didn't realize Porsche sold VW off. Isn't that new Porsche SUV built on the same frame as the Toureg in the same factories?"

I just meant that Porsche is trying to get VW back...which they've been separate since...the end of WWII? A few weeks back, Porsche brought its stake in VW up to 20% and indications are they want more. They are citing savings in components, economies-of-scale logic. The same logic used by Daimler to justify the acquisition of Chrysler half a decade ago.

Re:First bad analogy of the thread

[Afecks]

lol yea as if some mods would actually respond to the reasons they modded a post the way they did...

More Junk Mail CD's

[deathCon4]

Great, Now I'll get twice as many garbage CD's in my mailbox each week. No, I don't want dial-up AOL/Google Free for 4 weeks... Ever.

Re:More Junk Mail CD's

[jim_v2000]

Great, Now I'll get twice as many garbage CD's in my mailbox each week. No, I don't want dial-up AOL/Google Free for 4 weeks... Ever. Yes, but they will be targeted specifically to you using Google's new DiskSense(tm)Technology!

Re:More Junk Mail CD's

[Kjuib]

I think you are wrong... that is not how google works. You will get plain text in the mail and they will only be relavent junk mail... like "Get High speed AOL internet on a College Student Budget!" or "Free XXX"

The Death of Google?

[Gilatrout]

AOL is like the kiss of death. Time Warner found this out the hard way. About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this.

The death of Google will not come entirely because of somehting like AOL, but rather from a lack of direction. To me it seems as if Google is going 10,000 directions at once and eventually this will cause it to fracture. They got a bucket of cash from the IPO and it seems like they can't find a way to get rid of it fast enough.

Soon enough that bucket will be empty and then Google is going to have a huge basket of toys that they won't know what to do with because the only thing they have in common with one another is that they are owned by Google.

Re:The Death of Google?

[LnxAddct]

AOL is actually the kid everyone wants to be friends with again. They've revamped alot of their business and are expected to have a strong come back. I know it sounds impossible, but thats what Wall Street is saying, and Wall Street doesn't just put its money anywhere.
Regards,
Steve

Re:The Death of Google?

[TheRaven64]

To me it seems as if Google is going 10,000 directions at once

This is a process known as research. You put a little investment into a lot of possible approaches, and then turn those that look promising into real products (development - the other half of R&D).

This concept may be unfamiliar to you - it's not very popular with large companies these days.

Re:The Death of Google?

[wheelbarrow]

The funds available for research, even for Google, are not limitless. Google is morally obligated to be responsible with their shareholder's equity and to have some transparent strategic objective to work towards. It looks to me like they just want to cast about until Sergey and the other founder find something that isn't boring.

I guess that you are OK with that. You should invest in Google stock. By your logic, Google should branch into everything from the hydrogen economy to animal husbandry.

Re:The Death of Google?

[Skim123]

They got a bucket of cash from the IPO and it seems like they can't find a way to get rid of it fast enough. Soon enough that bucket will be empty.

Once the bucket runs dry Google will just materialize some more shares out of thin air and raise another $4.11 billion.

Re:The Death of Google?

[mrchaotica]

About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this.

It could be enough of a reason if Google doesn't want the Jabber protocol to be marginalized by the MSN+Yahoo protocol. Why else would Google pick now to buy AOL, if not in response to this new threat?

Re:The Death of Google?

[BewireNomali]

wall street also likes to run up stocks because large wall street partners are deeply invested in companies. Companies like Legg Mason manipulate the market, usually because they have the most to gain. For example, a Legg Mason guy on Bloomberg television said recently, when asked about how he could justify Google's stock price given earnings, he said something to the effect of, "it's their culture. they have guys analyzing the food they eat." The journalist responds, "well, how does this translate into revenue?" and this guy responds, "imagine if that precision is applied to products." What? What does that mean?

Then a google search shows that Legg Mason owns like 15% of google, actually one of the largest pieces of the pie. They've been in since day one.

The point of which is to say, Wall Street will put its money in places where market psychology will assure quick returns. Satellite radio is an example. Howard Stern even admitted that his signing was the equivalent of a stock run-up, as convergence would quickly kill satellite radio. The audience fed into it by buying a couple of subscriptions; and the car deal was the cincher... a few people are going to get very rich before satellite radio fails.

Google benefits from good market psychology. Apple benefits from good market psychology.

AOL used to have this psychology, but they slept on innovation and got left behind. So the street walked away, and subscribers started bailing.

Then something happened; subscriber base loss stabilized a bit. AIM is the instant messenger analog to google; a free service that has the lion's share of the marketplace.

It's common for kids in general to be more technically savvy than their parents, but the parents tend to make internet decisions in the household. Internet=AOL is easy for the technophobe parent to understand, and because it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it. This hooks the KIDS in the household onto AIM. I've seen this happen - I help my nephew with his math homework on AIM all the time because his mom equates the internet with AOL, despite the fact that they have comcast broadband at home. There is also the perception that AOL is the easiest way to get your kids online. So the subscriber number for AOL can be misleading, because they have like five or seven screennames per subscriber account. And AOL parental controls gives you a very accurate understanding of your audience demographic, a significant percentage of whom are pre-brainwashed emerging impulse consumers. The American economy is artificially propped up by impulse and trend consuming, so these kids mean a lot to the economy. Hollywood alone lives on summer blockbusters, which depends almost completely on the 13-21 year old crowd. That's why you rarely see an R rated film before the fall.

So ironically, investing in AOL is one of those paradoxically sound investments. A dying company with a largely ignorant critical mass user base waiting to be told what to do. It's not a quarterly return investment, so it's not sound for the guy up the block or the cash-out investor. If you're a company who wants eyeballs and an association with what Americans perceive the internet to be, then it's a good move that should yield cash down the line as you get those eyeballs where you want them. Fiscally, they have diversified revenue stream that is relatively consistent.

The other side is that you have to pick this up even if you don't want to, because it leverages considerable revenue power to whomever does.

I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't barked down this tree before. It would have been a cheaper purchase a couple of years ago.

Re:The Death of Google?

[apparently]

and Wall Street doesn't just put its money anywhere

Welcome, Time Traveler! You appear to have drifted from the dark ages of 1999, to the refined age of TWO-THOUSAND-AND-FIVE! Let me show you around, but watch your step at the door, there's some form of unknown bubble residue decaying in the streets beyond.

Re:The Death of Google?

[The Lynxpro]

"AOL is like the kiss of death. Time Warner found this out the hard way. About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this."

More like Time Warner was the kiss of death for AOL. TimeWarner still has not paid off on the synergy promised by the original Time and Warner Communications *merger* of 1989...followed by acquiring Turner Broadcasting in the mid 90s.

AOL *merged* with Time Warner to get access to Time Warner Cable, but the plan failed. AOL should have been able to launch a decent online music service but was hampered by Time Warner's Warner Music Group (now 80% controlled by moron Edgar Bronfman & cohorts).

So how exactly did AOL ruin TimeWarner? It was obviously the other way around. Besides, a little cooking-of-the-books at AOL pales in comparison to what has been done by the Warner Bros. Pictures division since its inception (as with the rest of Hollywood). They still claim they haven't made a profit off 1989's "Batman".

Re:The Death of Google?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

It seems to me that "insightful" commentary about any company on Slashdot is about as useful as asking my dog for directions when I'm driving. Please, leave business talk to people who know what they are talking about. OK?

Mark my words`

[TarrySingh]

Erik Schmidt is cussing around. I'm beginning to worry about Google's future.

Re:Mark my words`

[8127972]

If he starts throwing chairs, we'll know that Google's in trouble.

Advanced CD distribution system?

[CaptDeuce]

Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.

What's so advanced about a room of 10,000 monkeys trained to stuff CDs into shipping packages? :-j

Re:Advanced CD distribution system?

[the eric conspiracy]

This CD distribution system on AOL isn't half bad.

http://music.aol.com/songs/new_releases_full_cds

Myabe that's what the article meant?

Re:Advanced CD distribution system?

[maxwell demon]

It's a good complement to Google's Pidgeon Rank system.

Re:Advanced CD distribution system?

[porneL]

They need really, really advanced distribution system to mail copy of Google to everyone.

Re:Advanced CD distribution system?

[Pragmatix]

Clearly the technology used to keep the room of 10,000 monkies relatively feces free is pretty impressive.

Re:Advanced CD distribution system?

[iceanfire]

in related news: CaptDeuce is being sued by aol for realeasing important trade secrets on a public forum (slashdot).

CD/RW

[MarcoPon]

Clearly Google is planning to use AOL CD delivery system to create the most widespread, giant, distribuited backup system! Maybe you'll even get a scrambled portion of your Gmail e-mails in the mailbox!

Re:CD/RW

[Hrodvitnir]

Well, seeing as they're going head to head with Microsoft, they obviously want the CD's for a more sinister application.

Re:CD/RW

[pmike_bauer]

Since the US postal system isn't 100% reliable, perhaps they will use ?

Edging into AIM?

[DoddyUK]

Perhaps they're realising that Google Talk didn't do all that well, so they're staking a claim in AIM? Can't see any reason other than that, AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful.

Re:Edging into AIM?

[Anita Coney]

I don't really see how a new IM program could succeed. If everyone you know uses AIM (for example) not only would you have to change to the new system, all your friends and family would have to change too. That's not likely to happen for most users.

Maybe Google realizes this and simply wants to buy a successful IM system outright.

Re:Edging into AIM?

[Burann]

AOL owns ICQ as well, hopefully they could merge those two services together someway.

Re:Edging into AIM?

[esaloch]

It makes perfect sense to me. Google just released Google Talk and no one uses it. Now, if we had support for it in AOL Instant Messenger, then I'd imagine you would see a lot of people with gmail accounts starting to use it.

Re:Edging into AIM?

[SillyNickName4me]

AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful.

AOL has a lot of subscribers, this customer base s by far the most interestign asset they have, esp. if you are planning on moving into the ISP business (which Google seems to be showing some interest in)

Re:Edging into AIM?

[mrchaotica]

I'm personally hoping that everyone's AIM account suddenly turns into a Jabber account: Bam! Instant 50+% marketshare for an open IM protocol! : )

Re:Edging into AIM?

[The Lynxpro]

"Perhaps they're realising that Google Talk didn't do all that well, so they're staking a claim in AIM? Can't see any reason other than that, AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful."

AIM, ICQ, AOL Search, AOL Music, Moviefone, MapQuest, DigitalCities, WinAMP, the AOL Browser (switching it), the recently acquired WebLogs Inc., etc. etc. etc.

Re:Edging into AIM?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

First, AOL owns a lot of things that are useful and well used, many of which compete with Google offerings. Second AOL has a lot of subscribers still and by merging mapquest and google maps, gtalk and AIM and ICQ, AOL search and Google search, both parties can benefit from shared development and marketing costs. Third Google Talk is still in beta, and an early beta at that. Fourth, Google talk is just a jabber setup, and jabber already supports running a conduit to connect to other services, like AIM and ICQ. I imagine Google wants AOLs subscribers and install base and is willing to pony up new technologies to get them. If AIM and ICQ migrated to use the jabber protocols, it would be a happy day for instant messaging as chat became as server/platform/client agnostic as e-mail.

Google taking a lesson from AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

AOoogle keyword: merger

Fixing the spelling...?

[MaestroSartori]

Maybe they just want to remedy their original mistake, and now get back to being GoogOL! *badum TISH!*

AOL/GOOGLE

[jsmucker]

If somebody would read the Article they would know that it's the content Google wants Not the dial up side of it. But that would be to much work to really read it.

Re:AOL/GOOGLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do it!
I know of a company that was dumb enough to try to hook up with aol and they got screwed. Then a few years later, they tried it again with the same result. Good advice: STAY AWAY FROM AOL!

AOL - The most over valued company in history...

[MosesJones]

When the AOL/TW merger happened I remember nearly borking when I saw how much it valued each AOL customer at. Even with $5bn we are talking of THOUSANDS of dollars per AOL subscriber which to my simple mind sounds like a ridiculous amount of money. Clearly TW is desperate to get something out of the waste of space it was saddled with, but I'm surprised that anyone would offer this much for it.

Of course part of the reality here is that MS want AOL to replace Google's search engine with their own, and Google want AOL to keep using it.

Could Google really get that much shareholder value out of targetting the AOL customer base? Or is this a great example of how the stupid valuations of 2000 are back .... probably with another "bang" down the road.

search engine rankings

[Marc D.M.]

The article states that the rumour (Google/Comcast buying into AOL) was false, end of story. Then it goes on to talk crap about what-ifs. I get the feeling that BBC is running this story just to get better search engine rankings at Google, MSN and AOL.

Re:search engine rankings

[Kagura]

Yeah, because we all know that the BBC has problems getting a good pagerank on Google

Slashdot Summer Camp 2006

[ReluctantBadger]

SLASHDOT SUMMER CAMP 2006 - BOOK NOW!!!

Hey Slashboteers! Are you finishing university? *STILL* unemployed after the dot com layoffs? Well, have we got the answer for you! Chief Executive Officer Rob Madla and SS Officer Michael Sims invite you to join them at the Black River Public School in Holland, Michigan from the 10th August 2006 for the SLASHDOT SUMMER CAMP. Three full days of pony rides, Linux coding and male bonding. Special Appearances by NAMBLA Grand Wizard Katz with his partner Wai Tu Yung.

Activities include:

• Bouncy 'CowboyNeal' Castle - Pick a cheek and jump, bitch!
• Salami Slam - Jon Katz's unusual variation of naked leapfrog.
• Anime Association - Sit around with CmdrTaco and watch Anime with no subtitles or dubbing and pretend to know what's going on. Free Juice.
• Advanced Kernel Hacking - Workshop on changing kprintf() messages and then re-compiling to make it look like you're l337. Hosted by Alan Cox.
• Masters of Perl - Jamie shows you how NOT to code by demonstrating the latest version of CSS Slashcode.
• Delusional Paranoia 101 - How to quote 1984 and Franklin for your YRO posts.
• The Great Penguin Push - Instructional piece on cramming penguin plush toys into tight spaces.
• DivX for the C64 - Featuring our guest speaker "Junis".

Tickets are US$125 each, and the event lasts for three days. For more information, or to book a place, contact CmdrTaco

Terms & Conditions:
Spaces are limited to how many people we can lock in a basement. Camp is open to males aged between 12 and 19. No soap is allowed on the premises. CmdrTaco's Jubei cabinet is not to be used as a simulated coffin for sex games without his involvement.

google scared.

[CDPatten]

This move is because MS was showing interest in AOL and it looked like a deal was going to happen. If it did, it could really hurt google in click revenue, and media content down the road. I predict MS will win at the end of the day, because AOL can profit more from using MS technology and promotional content. For instance, if AOL got their software included on every copy of Vista like they did with Windows 98. They already use IE, and aol's/time warner getting integrated into Windows Media player would be huge for them. Microsoft's IPTV stuff is one more reason MS will spend whatever it takes to get time warner. For all you Google lovers, you better hope google doesn't blink here, or they will be in some trouble.

What's the worst company we can get involved with?

[Kaihaku]

This is like a bad twist from George Lucas' senile mind.

Today, the Rebel Alliance joined forces with Jabba the Hutt in their battle against the Empire.

In other news, the Empire has released yet another patch for their new secret space fortress in hopes of getting the station to run properly.

I seriously hope that nothing comes of this. I think of Google as a completely net based company, getting involved in physical medium is something that I would rather they did not do.

I guess this is all part of Google's campaign to take on projects that are failing miserably and turn them around. Although, NASA is a heck of allot easier to fix that AOL.

This could be big...

[jamesgamble]

AOL users get Google's search power built into the AOL client while Google gets to target AOL users with their advertising. It's a win win situation for both companies. With the money they make from a partnership like this, both companies will go through the roof. Am I the only one who Google is making nervous?

Linux/Open source CDs ?

[tines]

Maybe they just want to give a helping hand with Linux (ala Ubuntu) distribution. Some firefox/open office CDs would be nice for major releases.

Re:Linux/Open source CDs ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, stuffing everyones mailbox with useful open source software might be the only way to get people to start using it en mass.

I think that would be a great legacy for AOL, as I would appreciate a full copy of open office for my non-internet friends (they exist) rather than another CD to put in the microwave.

Re:Linux/Open source CDs ?

[centinall]

Or maybe to distribute copies of GBrowser, GOffice and GOS products that we all know are being released later this month.

Read the Summary

[socalmtb]

If somebody would read the Article they would know that it's the content Google wants Not the dial up side of it. But that would be to much work to really read it. It has been common knolwedge for a long time the most slashdot posters don't RTFAs. I think your concer is that posters no longer read the summaries or RTFSs. Even though I didn't RTFA, I knew that Google was only interested in the content because it was in the FS.

I would like to see Google get AOL

[Pecisk]

Not because I hate Microsoft, or what. No. Actually I see Google has VERY serious plans to be big big ISP in US - at least - so it would suit them perfectly. Yeah, they would have to do litle rebranding - AOL branding is seriously damaged with all management lack of common sense last five years.

Microsoft wanted only AOL because they want Google dead. So, it would prove Microsoft to stop playing these silly games with their monopoly power. And it would be a middle finger for them..

But let's see. If it is all business, everything will be fine. If it will be some "I want you to be dead" overtones like Bill and Balmer have, then, well it wont end very good.

How? I don't know.

Duck if you're in Redmond...

[bennomatic]

...there's going to be a whole lot more thrown chairs.

Re:Duck if you're in Redmond...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was out of the loop for sometime...what is this reference to chairs I see just about everywhere now a days?

Kinda makes sense...

[nine-times]

As broadband picks up, AOL has become more focused, it seems, on sevices (AIM) and their web portal. That's some of the same territory Google owns and wants. If google could connect their new IM with AOL's network, it'd sure help its success (thought I'm not sure where the revenue in that is), and pushing google's ads to all the AOL customers must be attractive.

Not that I have any inside info or business knowledge, but yeah, I can see reasons why Google would be interested.

This could get interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft/Yahoo versus Google/AOL.

/readies popcorn

If M$ tried, Elliot Spitzer's head would explode!

[oldwarrior]

But Google, with their "good works" program), will get palms and rose petals laid before them...

When your own valuation is equally stupid...

[Shivetya]

it is best to put it to use before someone catches on. If AOL was the most over valued presence on the internet in their heyday I think Google is the same for ours.

Yeah Google is doing cool things, moving quicker than their competitors, but they are horribly overvalued. The best thing for them to do is buy up as much IP & resources as possible to form the basis of an enduring and broad based company.

Re:When your own valuation is equally stupid...

[Viper Daimao]

Exactly. I really dont see how their stock is worth over $300 a share. They are overvalued, and that is exactly why they had a second public offering a few months ago.

Re:AOL - The most over valued company in history..

[russellh]

it's all the extra revenue from customers who can't cancel the service (and aren't using resources anymore)

Clearly?

[HerculesMO]

Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.

Uhm... Why would Google want to associate itself with a company whose history has shown it can't keep up with the times, for a mailing scheme? If there is a genuine interest in Google to buy stock in AOL it has to be for more than that, because any idiot with half a brain can put together a decent distribution system. Netflix did it in a year -- imagine what Google could do?

Re:Clearly?

[Anonymous Coward]

*whoosh*

Look, up in the sky!

It's a bird!

It's a plane!

It's the joke flying over your head!

Re:Clearly?

[magicchex]

Do people often stare blankly at you?

Waste-of-Money-Dept?

[ranson]

Hmmm so many steps are taken to prevent moderators from pushing THEIR agenda, but Rob gets to use the 'from the' section carte blanche. Interesting. Well Rob, AOL actually has some good assets, and almost every financial analyst with any notariety has gone on record saying the upcoming web portal is going to be a HUGE moneymaker for Time Warner. And from time to time AOL does get things right (Live8, spam campaign, SPF, to name a few). Good thing you're not running Google since your mind is already made up though...

Re:Waste-of-Money-Dept?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember hearing this when PUSH technology was being pimped with IE4.

PORTALS! PORTALS! WE NEED A PORTAL!

It turned out no one *needed* a portal.

I won't be holding my breath this time either.

Google + AOL?

[MobileMrX]

Google + AOL?
Finally! An indisputable reason to call the company Gay-O-L.

Who's google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this Google company I've been hearing so much about lately?

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

When Google goes down in flames my company can loot their bucket of toys!

Gecko

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, could this mean that we in the future might see a version of the AOL browser that uses gecko rather then trident? That would be a huge boost in marketshare for gecko based browsers.

What will happen?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Will Google purify AOL, or will AOL corrupt Google?

Re:What will happen?

[Billly Gates]

From a former employee I would say no to aol. It has no soul whatsoever. It has no future and I cringe about the quality of its software.

I want the AOL culture as far and I mean AS FAR as possible from the innovative high moral of google. Look what happened to netscape after AOL bought them out? Need I say more?

Hi slashdot editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you read a bit the article ?

From the header of the fucking article : "Time Warner's chief executive has denied reports that it may be about to sell a stake in its America Online (AOL) unit to Google and Comcast."

Fuck it really, slashdot is a total waste of time now.
Slashdot used to have some informations, now it's just garbage, slashdot is as worse as FOXNEWS ( hello the Japanese mafia using a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to launch terrific storms against the U.S. mainland => http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170064,00.html ).

And ssshhhhhh the deal between microsoft and AOL is already almost made.

Re:Hi slashdot editors

[The Lynxpro]

"From the header of the fucking article : "Time Warner's chief executive has denied reports that it may be about to sell a stake in its America Online (AOL) unit to Google and Comcast."

Yeah, and Steve Jobs at Apple said they wouldn't market a flash-based iPod yet they later brought out the Shuffle and the Nano. Jobs also spoke out against an iPod Video model, but now all the new iPods do video. Shall I mention the two-button mouse?

There's a lesson to be learned in that.

Bad title

[Jugalator]

Google Wants a Piece of AOL?

Heh, the obvious title to me was rather:

Google Wants a Piece of Shit?

Re:Bad title

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, my first thought upon reading the headline was "Yeah, well, I'd like a piece of Lucy Pinder. That doesn't mean it's going to happen."

Cd Tracking

[fbsderr0r]

every time i move AOL CD's seems to track my new
address faster than my bills. their evil.

Shut down AOL?

[planetsphinx]

Hey, maybe Google wants to buy AOL to shut it down! Doesn't every geek wish they could just dump AOL into space and never think of it again? This would help all these poor AOL people transition to the real internet, and help them stop thinking that AOL -is- the internet..
Just a hopeful thought.

Google Nose

[Ranger]

Clearly Google needs to create a smell search engine. Otherwise I don't see how Google was convinced that TimeWarner/AOL's shit don't stink.

Re:Google Nose

[multipartmixed]

They don't need a search engine, just a Smell-o-scope.

TimeWarner says it's a "market rumor"

[msbmsb]

Reuters article

At roughly the same time this gets posted on /., it gets debunked.

Here's earlier article from Philly Inquirer

[Jayfar]

The Philadelphia Inquirer (in Comcast's hometown) originated the story (registration-free link thru sister paper).

Plaster the world with discs!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Who knows, this could end up being a big win...

• Google remains the preferred search engine for AOL
• OpenOffice.org begins to appear on CD's being mailed out to everyone
• Google could use AOL's POP's to provide a Google-branded ISP

The synergy potential is actually quite significant -- very much moreso than an AOL+Microsoft combination, which was clearly intended to do nothing more than muscle Google out of the search market.

Re:Plaster the world with discs!

[Morgalyn]

I would mod you +1 Interesting if I had mod points today.

Re:AOL - The most over valued company in history..

[Disoculated]

Members are only a part of AOL's revenue stream. They mostly make their money from advertising on aol.com, spinner, moviephone, digital city, nullsoft, ICQ, AIM, etc. So the member/dollar metric doesn't really apply to them any more.

In fact, the specter of that metric is why AOLTW is valued as low as it is. Until AOL gets measured on something other than it's monthly fee divided by it's membership, nobody is going to care how much profit it makes.

If Google did have a stake in AOL, it'd have access to 50% of the instant messaging marketplace rather than trying to build one of it's own, with tens of millions of pairs of eyeballs looking at their targeted ads.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Oops, here's the link

[Jayfar]

Missed closing quote = dead link in my previous post. The Philadelphia Inquirer (in Comcast's hometown) originated the story (registration-free link thru sister paper).

Actual revenue stream?

[Darth_brooks]

I'm sure the fanboys will rush in with the "flamebait" mods, but....

Could google simply be looking at purchasing a consistent revenue stream? I mean, how does google make money? Where is its steady source of revenue? There's adwords and......umm....the five people that actually bought google earth pro? They're not really selling much of anything. It's nice that they're being altruistic, but if I'm an investor, I'd like to see them actually make some money

AOL, if purchased cheap enough, is a cash cow. Scamming a customer base out 22 bucks a month for dial-up and "content" has to be able to earn you a profit once you go all hack 'n slash on the layers of fat that have built up around the company. There's some decent infrastructure there, and a recognizable brand name. It ain't worth 5 billion dollars, but it's worth something.

Any deal for AOL probably includes whatever's left of Netscape, maybe there's something there worth having, too.

Re:Actual revenue stream?

[r1_97]

Neither flame bait nor insightful. G already has a growing and steady source of advertising revenue from it's leading search engine. AOL has eyeballs - lots of them to be channeled into users of other G services. Further, don't forget about AOL's Instant Messenger which G doesn't want to see getting into M$'s hands.

Re:Actual revenue stream?

[PaxTech]

Or could they just be attempting to drive the price up to screw Microsoft? Or hell, even just to distract Microsoft into thinking AOL is worth something, and that they should buy it before Google does.

It's a chess match, but only the players involved can see the whole board. We're just speculating wildly here, but then that is the purpose of Slashdot. ;)

Re:Actual revenue stream?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has many revenue tools - their serach servers are popular - when they 1st came out they ran for $10k per box (I am not aware of their current pricing). Branded and unbranded searching is growing.

Many of the other tools they have can be used for revenue - assuming that they are not already doing that:
I use Earth to help me find a house to move to (get the address from MLM, then see the area) - how long before realtors are paying to link in to that?
The desktop search can now be expanded to search mapped network drives. How long before that expands to search network locations - and different OS's? And how long before that is paid for? (I would pay for that - my company would pagy for that)

Google has many ventures open - almost all of them are free. But Google wants to make more money (all businesses have to plan for the future). Some, if not most of these can be turned into revenue streams in time. But link that to an ISP...

Want to take full advantage of google Picasa, Earth or translate? Log in to your Google account. You can get your Google account for just $X per month (free at the moment - seriously, use gMail or customized home page etc - you have a google account). Will people pay? Not many, no.
But, use Google as your ISP for just $X per month and get all that paid for stuff free. Yes. Many will pay for this.
Then, down the road a little: Use Google as your ISP for $X - and if you want all those extra services, pay an extra $y. Who will want to lose the tools they have become accostemed to?

(One of) AOL's biggest grip on users is e-Mail. People don't want to lose 'John5637398857hsgd6@aol.com' (go figure). GMail has the potential to replace that.

But reading the posts here I realize that Google has it easy. All they have to do is read through these posts! We have given them enough ideas for the next 20 years!! Along with a healthy amount of public opinion on those ideas!

If only I could get you all to discuss my company - your ideas would probably carry me through retirement! I need to work on publicity :o)

I know I appear to be an annonymous coward (too rushed to create an account!) To show I am not:
jsmart@internetdesign.com

Re:Actual revenue stream?

[ZorbaTHut]

Ads. I think the various financial documents show that Google has been profitable for a while. You'd be astonished at how many people will pay enormous amounts of money for advertising.

Google's interest in AOL

[MooseTick]

"Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system"

You actually believe Google will pay $5B for a CD distribution system?

Do people actually think before they post?

Re:Google's interest in AOL

[stunt_penguin]

Good god, he was joking. Modded....funny...see?

Re:AOL - The most over valued company in history..

[Maximum Prophet]

Um, AOL has 20,000,000 subscribers. 5 Billion/ 20 Million = $250 per subscriber, which is about 10 months of service. Microsoft could easily pay this much, so could Google. TW would be fools to sell out this low. IMHO.

i almost wish google would buy AOL

[digitallysick]

then they can clean it up, aol is absolute trash, maybe if google could get aol (maybe even netscape and icq??) it might be great, i remember when netscape was the browser of choice, and icq (before the 99a version) used to be great!! maybe google could turn it back around again

Outsourcing their evil

[doublem]

Brilliant!

They've learned that you can't survive, let alone thrive in American business for long without being evil, so they're looking to partner with AOL-Time-Warner, known masters at being evil, in order to have them do the dirty work.

Absolute brilliance. Someone must have gotten a nice bonus for that idea.

Oh! I just realized the best part. They're outsourcing their evil to AMERICAN workers, not an overseas seat shop, so even while outsourcing their evil, they themselves aren't being evil.

Re:Outsourcing their evil

[That's Unpossible!]

They're outsourcing their evil to AMERICAN workers, not an overseas seat shop

http://www.seatshop.co.uk/?

Re:What's the worst company we can get involved wi

[Anonymous Coward]

what about thier servers that they sell to businesses?

google mini I think it's called...

closed captioning for the humor impaired

[syrinx]

Seeing as several people have already posted saying "But why would Google want AOL's CD distribution system?" I think it's clear that Slashdot needs to invest in a Closed Captioning for the Humor Impaired system. Those who have tragically been humor impaired would then be able to read the story as:

Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox. (THIS IS A JOKE)

and this would cut down on the unneeded posts expressing disbelief, as well as the replies to those posts mocking them. Please do not mock these people; they have a disability. I think a Closed Captioning for the Humor Impaired system would restore a bit of dignity to those disabled individuals.

Re:closed captioning for the humor impaired

[Caiwyn]

Joke or no, AOL's direct marketing is nothing to laugh at. If Google were to buy AOL, they'd have a jabber-based IM client (that ostensibly would hook into the number 1 IM network out there), Winamp (Google Video, perhaps?), and the Netscape browser, for accessing their other services. And AOL's CD distribution system (more importantly, its database of recipients) would be one way to get those tools into the hands of the unwashed masses. Sure, we can just download those things. But we've heard of them, and other folks may not have. Getting a CD in the mail is advertising and utility all in one.

Re:closed captioning for the humor impaired

[TheHawke]

A Closed Captioning for the Humor Impaired system... I assume that would be a supersized Cluebat.. Aimed at their central nervous system (be either up in the skull or down between their legs), would be extremely effective.

Re:closed captioning for the humor impaired

[Blitzenn]

""

Thanks for the reminder. I seem to forget that that Slashdot is a comedy site myself. That does put the article in the appropriate light. ;)

Re:closed captioning for the humor impaired

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiot. Because google is to primative to crawl whitepages.com for a database of recipients, right.

Re:What's the worst company we can get involved wi

[hardcnxn]

I was under the impression that Google also was in the server biz, selling their search algorithms to businesses with a lot of data, essentially. That seems physical to me. They were even looking to hire mechanical engineers a short while ago.

I also don't see how a portal is "physical".

But I also feel uneasy about it.

AoL Got me Through College

[Skraut]

As a CS student in the early 90's I found a link to request an AOL 3.5 Disk (This was in the pre-CD days) I then proptly wrote a shell script which requested an AoL disk for each of the 1500 people in my dorm. I set out a box which said "Don't want your AoL disk, Dump it here" and a week later I had over 500 blank disks. I was set for whatever I needed.

Add AOL to Google Index

[0xC2]

Google's mission is to index the Universe, yet, correct me if I'm wrong, most of the AOL universe is closed to Google. They would like to change that, I would assume.

No contest

[Anonymous Coward]

on one side you have 90% of desktop OSs, 50% of server OSs, 99% of the office suite market, 50% of the game console market, combined with 30% of search, 65% of web email, number one most visited domain, etc etc

on the other side:

the biggest name in search and a dead POS walled garden ISP.

not putting my money on Google/AOL in this one

Slow off the mark

[alan.briolat]

Just goes to show nobody reads real news on real paper... I read about this 3 weeks ago as a footnote in the Business section of The Independant (a UK paper).

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/articl e313023.ece

Google Talk

[dantheman82]

If I were Google, I'd be interested in AOL for the customer base and...their millions of IM users. Talk about scaling the number of Google Talk users! Next up, including automated context-sensitive ads on the side of the chat window (like with Gmail) rather than the (annoying) picture or video ads AOL puts up now.

Remeber when...

[n6kuy]

Google used to be cool?

I like the way this tastes..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything with M$-G has to be good.

A Stake? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Google would put a stake in AOL.

Re:What's the worst company we can get involved wi

[Chunni Babu]

You mean including Google's miserable failures like blogsearch, reader, and Print.

reprted

[logik3x]

*reported

Google's genius

[solomonrex]

See, at night the 10,000 monkeys type on 10,000 keyboards, and just based on odds, they will eventually create GoogleOS, killing M$ once and for all and establishing a new, more enlightened electronic overlord for us all to loathe.

GOOGLE!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOT!

MOD PARENT UP

[JavaRob]

Excellent point. Even if they *were* legally required to "maximize profits", that's a very vague requirement, and it's NOT AT ALL self-evident that being evil, fighting dirty and pissing off your customers is the best way to maximize profits.

Would Google have the brain-power they have now if not for the whole "do no evil" policy? Not likely. These are people who can choose to work anywhere, or choose to find a place in academia if they find the corporate world too repugnant. Google attracted them, it didn't "buy" them. It doesn't keep them on through intimidation and bribery, but through interesting projects and creative flexibility.

doing evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to do no evil?

Re:CD/RW Delivery System

[pmike_bauer]

Since the US postal system isn't 100% reliable, perhaps they will use carrier pigeons?

Hmm

[danpsmith]

Doesn't anyone else find this news slightly foreboding after the announcement that MS and Yahoo would be joining IM networks soon? I believe that if Google could get enough of AOL to be able to make AIM congruent with their open standard IM protocol, this could be better news than anything else. A Google version of AIM sounds like such a better idea than MS/Yahoo (two particularly awful IM programs) competing with AOL (who has the most users by far) and Google. I can only hope this is one of the reasons Google is interested.

Google needs to buy AOL

[mulcher]

If I was Goog I would just buy the whole thing and get some almost exclusive cotent licensing deal with TimeWarner. Maybe it is wise for Google to wait until dial-up is dead, but then again the average AOL user is not the average slashdotter. I remember ~6 months ago Google said that AOL was something like 60% of its revenue. I wonder if that has changed or still the same. If this has gone down that is a good thing, but I would imagine with Google fedexing Schmidt to New York that it hasn't.

Google needs that access point (which they get now, only indirectly).
If Google buys just the online unit and the IM unit, then MSFT will probably buy just the dialup unit. Then MSFT switches everyone to MSN and google is up the creek.. MSFT's goal is still accomplished. Why Google did not pre-empt this I
do not know. Anyway, with Comcast and the Net things are moving towards the 5th network... Terry Semel at Yahoo with content (+ much more MSFT friendly). Google
has a pretty good opportunity with Comcast is it works. Very large cable network
to start the Google end to end experience.

This is an entire shake up of the industry folks. Technology, content, and direct leased access (eye-balls) is important. Yes you can change the homepage, but most AOL users use the AOL navigator. Google has to buy AOL and formulate a strategy to move dialup users to fixed access DSL or there own network. Or they have to figure out how to get that 60% of their revenue back after MSFT takes it away.... I think
owning AOL is a cheaper option. Plus Google needs to make a content play. Either through licensing with Yahoo... Since google is mostly tech oriented it needs all the help it can get. If Google can take the AOL pigskin and run with it of course, it will essentially hammer some nails into MSN.

On slashdot, we tend to forget that money makes the world go around.
If this is too expensive for Google, it defintely raises some major anti-trust issues (again)for MSFT. Google buying AOL should invigorate that company. AOL/TimeWarner was a good venture, it was just 5 years too early... if Google can leverage its technology advantage (all those PhDs) perhaps they can do something cool.

BTW I think Apple will own digital media. Everyone will buy a video ipod. It is the beginning of the end of DVDs.

nomoreaolcds.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this site:

http://www.nomoreaolcds.com/

Re:AOL - The most over valued company in history..

[texaport]

Members are only a part of AOL's revenue stream. They mostly make their money from advertising

Isn't that what Time-Warner said five years ago when grossly overpaying for AOL?

Once upon a time, AOL actually netted $20+ from more than two-thirds of members.
Doing the math you'd arrive at a half billion dollars per month of non-ad revenue.

I doubt they now get $99 million per month with all the free accounts for 45 days,
automatic 6 month membership for each Dell computer sold, and the 3 month bribes
when customers call the cancellation phone number. Anything to raise the numbers!

--
AOL should no longer be charging existing members $23.90 a month *
Starting in July, one phone call will convert that old plan to $9.95
* Except when bundled with Star Office and that almost-free computer
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1209 653

Great, now gmail goes downhill !

[smoker2]

Oooh look ...

watch out

[binarybum]

For all of you that are still buying the mantra "don't be evil" this should finally change your mind. purchasing part of /merging with time warner aol is like trading souls with the anti-christ.

Missing the point

[jalefkowit]

All these comments about why Google would be interested in AOL and I have yet to see anyone pointing out the one I think most compelling:

Google's revenue today comes almost entirely from advertising -- and AOL accounts for 12% of the revenue Google earns from AdSense.

If AOL terminated its contract, Google would feel some pain and its stock price could take a significant hit. Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that TimeWarner and Microsoft, Google's main rival, are talking about forging an alliance between AOL and MSN. That can't come as welcome news in Mountain View, Calif.

If MSN bought AOL from Time Warner and terminated that contract, it would be a big blow to both the company's revenue stream and, presumably, its stock price. Thus Google (or, more specifically, all those Google execs and VCs with a mountain of paper wealth tied up in GOOG shares) has an interest in keeping AOL afloat as a separate entity from Big Redmond, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the money they make back in AdSense revenues from AOL.

Overthinking...

[Duncan3]

You're missing the real point here....

Only AOL noobs are still ignorant enough to click on ads! Anyone that's been on the net more then a month has spyware/virus/adware and ad blockers installed, by themself or by a savy friend. Or they just own a Mac and don't have to deal with all that.

You don't think anyone with any clue ever actually clicks on those ads do you?

AOL = noobs = ad clickers = Money for Google!

There goes my keyboard

[p.rican]

"Aside: It's become clear that AOL is comfortable in its role as bastard-manipulatee."

That was the most succint and spot-on description I've heard in a LONG time.

(Sorry, I should've just modded you up, but that was too funny to pass up)

What happens when...

[Izrath]

Finally! We will have an answer to the age old question: "What happens when a unstoppable force hits an immovable object?"

Re:AOL - The most over valued company in history..

[Disoculated]

And AOL probably would have made a lot more off of advertising for Time Warner if they hadn't made all the TW fiefdoms hate their guts after trying to force them to use AOL mail instead of Outlook. But that's got nothing to do with their valuation of 5 billion now.

In the first 6 months of this year AOL had revenue of 4.2 billion with operating income of 692 million. Performance was similar for last year.

That means that at 5 billion, they'd pay for themselves with interest in 5 years. Providing they can just stay where they're at (and god forbid, increase revenue), they could pay for themselves with interest in 5 years.

Which doesn't sound all that overvalued, does it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

sick of it

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking google fanboys make me sick. Please - do something with yourselves.

If you love google so much just go work there.

RE:

[rupert0]

Im just waiting for GoogleOS .. :-P

Is Google Evil Now?

[NitsujTPU]

Ok... so, is Google evil now?

I wouldn't call this evil... I would call this, reducing the stock price so new investors can get a piece... Didn't they see what happened to Time-Warner? Hasn't Time-Warner been rueing purchasing AOL since about 6 months after they did so?

Re:Is Google Evil Now?

[NitsujTPU]

Oh, wait.

I guess that grabbing Time-Warner wouldn't be bad though. Googling through CNN would be the best thing since sliced bread. If I had an RSS feed of news stories that I found interesting, I'd be thrilled.

The Future's So Bright...

[sarge apone]

I believe the whole anti-AOL feelings are still part of a grudge 'l33tists' have from a decade ago. AOL really brought the Internet to the masses so technophobes could access the Internet, which pissed off the people would liked dialing into BBS at $4/minute. It's like when cars came with automatic transmission - only serious drivers drive stick, everyone else is n00b who slows down the road.

If AOL still has longterm security problems, it is their reliance on using Internet Explorer. For whatever reason I have yet to figure out, Time Warner still treats Netscape like the redheaded stepchild. But their continued support of the Mozilla Foundation, in whatever way, should be the one saving grace all of us should be thankful for. 'Lest we forget, if Microsoft becomes a significant voice on the AOL board, what do you think happens to Mozilla?

Time Warner has just tied their online cable service with free AOL service. Say what you will about AOL overall, but they are the only online service that offers free subscription antivirus to the masses (yeah, it is McAfee, but still). Someone else mentioned the Sirrius Satellite service, so if AOL offers free service to broadband customers while offering popular free subscription services as well, AOL becomes a player again. I'd rather have the resources and experience of Time Warner and Google behind that, and just maybe Google kicks TW butt into finally marketing and implementing Netscape/Mozilla.

I have been wanting Google to throw their hat into this, especially if they have a potential to lose 40% of their market (according to a past post). Either way, I say start buying shares of TimeWarner - MS and Google have deep pockets, and the money's gonna start flying.

Your post office thanks you.

[seanvaandering]

huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world

Your Local Post Office thanks you.

When quantity outweighs quality

[Thecarpe]

Google is out to get the sheep. AOL is the most costly ISP out there. It is mass marketing that sucks in people who aren't smart enough to shop around for better technology and better deals. AOL is like the anti-market economy (in much the same way that Sony is with all of it's bass ackwards proprietary stuff that bucks the industry and screws consumers - minidisks and memory stick duo pros. This is a battle for extremes. Do you court the programmers and linux guys or do you court the dumb masses? Ultimately, they are capitalists, so we should probably brace ourselves for some stupid cartoon that represents Google and a few commercials from the guy in the Capital One bits...

AOL is missing the boat

[lcsjk]

"huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world"

Do you realize the advertising possibilities that could be accomplished if AOL were to include a selection of copy-able "top 10 music" from country, blues, rock, etc., and a couple of "top 10 pictures/videos" to watch while the music plays. They could even call it an exercise video for slashdotters. Guys would go to work humming the latest AOL theme song!

Then if you sign up for 30,000 free hours (must use within 45 days)you could buy the rest of the album for $0.50 per tune. AOL could own the music distribution business and artists would pay them to be on the free AOL CD.

Imagine the income if users were to pay $0.50 to own an AOL CD!

It's mind boggling! I can't stand it anymore! I'm going back to bed.

Yeah, right

[fm6]

I know it sounds impossible, but thats what Wall Street is saying, and Wall Street doesn't just put its money anywhere.

Which is why they are never invest money in bad ideas, unsellable products, and plain old con artists.