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....

[twbecker]

Stop speculating on anything else, guys.

Because your post was not speculation??

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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...?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[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".

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

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!

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.

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

This could get interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft/Yahoo versus Google/AOL.

/readies popcorn

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.

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?

Google + AOL?

[MobileMrX]

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

What will happen?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Will Google purify AOL, or will AOL corrupt Google?

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.

Bad title

[Jugalator]

Google Wants a Piece of AOL?

Heh, the obvious title to me was rather:

Google Wants a Piece of Shit?

Cd Tracking

[fbsderr0r]

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

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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.

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.