Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Fight Narrows To Two Players

Posted by Zonk on from the another-wishbone dept.

BucksCountyCycleGeek writes "Now that Yahoo! has dropped out of the race to control AOL, the field of contenders has narrowed to Microsoft and Google. While antitrust issues continue to cloud Microsoft's bid, it is getting pretty clear that AOL wants payment in cash and not Internet stock. While Google has worked with AOL in the past, Microsoft's resources dwarf them for the moment." From the CNN/Money article: "Time Warner accepted AOL's stock when the old line media company agreed in 2000 to be purchased by the Internet service provider, a deal that proved a disaster for Time Warner's stock value. Yahoo! executives also had concerns about the valuation Time Warner was seeking and possible difficulties integrating the two businesses after any deal, a person close to Yahoo! told the paper."

7 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Yesterday's technology by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AOL seems rooted in two old-fashioned categories:

    1. "The Internet is the web," whoever makes the content wins (I call it the super BBS text file repository)

    2. "The Internet is about connecting people together through my rose-colored lenses."

    Both business markets are not ally valid anymore. Smaller ISPs seem to gain users by not making themselves visible as the middleman. The more you've noticed your ISP, the more I bet you've been frustrated.

    Creating web content is better performed by billions of people than by dozens. CmdrTaco edits an article, but people come here for the +5'd comments. CmdrTaco couldn't get many +5's on his own (maybe -1 Redundants).

    The future, to me, is how to collect all those billions of opinions and creations and make it specifically friendly to every individual user.

    Google is heading in the correct direction. I let most of my domain names lapse because of Google. Yet they're still not there yet.

    The ultimate web company has to be able to give you what you want, immediately, but also correctly give you items you need even if you didn't realize you needed them.

    *Targeted ads you really want to see.
    *Content that may be different than what you're used to, but still informative or useful to you.
    *Access to information by only knowing some vague part of it. Find that TV show from a line or two. Find that song or book the same way.
    *Compensate content creators somehow.

    AOL is none of these things. They're an online newspaper and amusement park. *Yawn* I wouldn't pay $5 for them.

    Plus, how many people "hate" the name over their junk mail and bad cancellation policy?

    As for Time Warner stock, would you want a part of Time? Warner? Maybe in 1985.

    1. Re:Yesterday's technology by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You bring up some excellent points, although I think there might be people that still want the hand-holding experience initially, I just don't think it's necessary or desirable for many, and will be for even less, as net usage becomes more and more ubiquitous.

      As to the ISP, you're dead on-I pay them to provide me a pipe and leave me alone. The only time I have to care that they exist is when that pipe ceases to work. Now, that doesn't happen often, and they're very responsive to problems, but by definition, when I'm talking to them, there's -already- something wrong.

      I don't want "targeted content" from my ISP, I don't even use their mail accounts. Fortunately, I've got a good one-they've got all the standard crap in their AUP that you're not supposed to do, but they sure don't seem to actually care if you do it. (Not that I would, of course, do any of it. Just hypothetically. Really.) This is a Good Thing (TM), both for me and for them, because harassment from them over it would be just another (unpleasant) reminder of their existence. And for me, I require basically -no- support (other then when their hardware fails), they won't support Linux anyway, so you're rather on your own if you don't want to do the Microsoft or Apple bit. In that sense, I'm the best kind of customer-I send them their check and leave them alone.

      Come to think of it, I'd sure love to see a discounted service offering like that-provider cuts the price in half, and in exchange, they support absolutely nothing except the hardware outside. Now that's sure something I'd look into, especially if it offered very high speeds and didn't (even technically) then forbid you from doing anything worthwhile with them. I'd sure also love to see some worthwhile upload speeds.

      Creating web content is better performed by billions of people than by dozens. CmdrTaco edits an article, but people come here for the +5'd comments. CmdrTaco couldn't get many +5's on his own (maybe -1 Redundants).

      By definition, the power of the net is that anyone can create content. Also by definition, a good part of that will be crap, but I've sure found a lot of gems too. Make it easier to sort the gems from the garbage, and I'll be very interested. Google's ranking system really does seem to do well at this, at least for sites that are already relatively popular, but I'd love to see more resources that gear toward more obscure content.

      For the rest-Google's actually got the targeted advertising bit down. I've got adblock right here, and I block most everything. But I leave the google ads alone. I quite often find them relevant and useful, and take me to something I might actually be interested in purchasing, but at the same time, they're quiet and unobtrusive. They don't jangle in my face, visually distract from the content I'm trying to view, or (ABSOLUTE WORST SIN, and thank goodness for flashblock) make noise.

      Different content? Absolutely. Maybe a "recommendation" system? I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but I think it could be. Although, of course, hyperlinks take us a good way there already.

      Also correct on the TV show/songs/books-although I find it's actually easy with songs if you know a line, that line along with "lyrics" usually brings it right up. TV shows sometimes have a transcript posted, so a line for them can quite often hit as well. Obviously, publishers frown on having "transcripts" of their books posted, so that's a little harder...hell, they're even trying to stop Google from doing it in a way that would benefit them immensely.

      *Compensate content creators somehow.

      You mean they're going to start PAYING me to write those +5...oh...damn. Well, it was a nice thought. In all seriousness though, most who put "content" up don't need or want paid-certainly, no one's paying me to post here, it's just something to do. I enjoy the opportunity to converse, debate, and read what others doing the same have to say, that's payment enough. As for those who do, I like the EFF's collective license model, but other ones exist too. Hopefully it'll come down to something a lot better then the current system of draconian copyright controls. I'm not holding my breath, but I am still holding out hope.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  2. AOL Bidding by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Funny

    M$: I want AOL
    Google: Me Too!

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:AOL Bidding by robertjw · · Score: 4, Funny

      No doubt, they should list it on Ebay!

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
  3. I've seen this coming for years. by Caspian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My money's on MS + AOL. I've been saying they'll merge for years. Despite their hatred for each other, they're quite similar. (Maybe that's WHY they've been such fierce competitors?) They both appeal to technologically-illiterate end-users. They both employ nasty business tactics (AOL's usually lean more towards "annoying" on one hand and "shady" on the other; MS's can better be described as "illegal" and "brutal"; all different shades of evil but all evil!). Neither wants to educate their customers. Both want to build 'walled gardens' around the Internet to some degree. And so on.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  4. Time Warner has mismanaged AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have road runner service. If you go out to the office to sign up for a cable modem, you'd never know that the same company owns AOL. They don't push it at all.

    I'm a single guy with no kids, and for me, AOL doesn't have much to offer. But I know quite a few parents with small kids who are looking for good parental controls. If Time Warner used AOL's parental controls, enforced them through the cable modem, and pushed hard to make a kid/family friendly service, I'm sure they'd do very well with it.

    Every parent of a 10 year old I know is convinced of two things about the net. First, their kids *need* it to be competitive in school. And second of all, it's a terribly dangerous and predatory place for kids. No one has a good answer for those parents. The best people can do is say, "Put the computer in the family room, so you can watch what they're doing."

    AOL and Time Warner were in an ideal position to deliver a solution for these people. I don't know why they didn't -- it looks like a case of corporate infighting and stupid internal turf wars, but that's pure speculation on my part.

  5. The brutal reality is MS will win... some facts. by CDPatten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First let me state that I believe MS will win against Google. Also let's point out that AOL accounts for 12% of Google's annual revenue, and that is nothing to laugh at ($380million). The NY Times has also reported that MS is the front runner. http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_110 3765.html

    So what is at stake and why is AOL so important? Well take a look at these stats (as reported by the NY Times the nation's paper of record).
    September rankings
    1. Yahoo: 123 million users
    2. Time Warner (AOL and related sites): 119 million
    3. MSN and other Microsoft sites: 114 million
    4. Google: 87.6 million

    Combine AOL and MSN and they almost double yahoo and are almost 3 times Google! Advertisers will KILL to get their ads in front at that number of possible people. As far as Google's superior tools... they aren't THAT much better. 87.6million vs 233million is a big difference and lets face it MS has very good developers, lots of resources, and will catch up. They always do.

    Now where is the growth? Well, the real crown jewel is getting access to Time Warner's arsenal of media content. Most people expected the next big wave to be media, and AOL is the gateway to one of the biggest deposits on the planet.

    The winner of this battle wins more then just bragging rights. If MS beats out Google, it's going to be a HUGE hit for them financially. It's more then just loosing their 12% of revenue each year. It will also mean they will loose their premier advertising title. People will start throwing money at advertising with MSN strictly for the numbers, and that will result in more losses for both yahoo and Google.

    This is much more then a warning shot across Google's bow. I see this as a precise incision, not at Google's hear, more like cutting off one of Google's legs. They can live without it, but in a race you do best with both legs.