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 $5bn.
The article also claims that Microsoft has also shown interest in tieing up MSN and AOL services." Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.
There can be only one!
Seriously in the long run it doesn't matter who (if any of the two) wins, the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer.
More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some think the Internet is a bad thing. I just think that AOL is a bad thing.
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.
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.
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.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
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?
"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.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Will Google purify AOL, or will AOL corrupt Google?
Technoli
Can you read a bit the article ?
l ).
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.htm
And ssshhhhhh the deal between microsoft and AOL is already almost made.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
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.
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.
~Idarubicin
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.