Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
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.
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.
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.
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)
"What happend to just paying for a product without being constantly nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?"
"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".
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
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.