Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Time Warner Team Up Against Google
PlayfullyClever wrote to mention a Reuters report on an online advertising deal between Microsoft and Time Warner. The two companies are teaming up to take on Google's advertising network. From the article: "The [WSJ] said the two companies were now focusing on a deal that would combine their advertising-related assets, with little or no money changing hands. It said they expected to reach an agreement before the end of the year, but that it was still possible that Time Warner's America Online unit could strike a deal with competitor Google instead."
TW/AOL:Losses in the billions.
Microsoft Entertainment/Internet Operations: Losses in the billions
Google have every right to be worried. With the losses these two titans amass, they could well suck up a lot of advertising revenue on the way to losing record billions.
hello, this is microsoft support, press 1 to refinance your mortgage, 2 for MSN help, 3 for pills that enhance your bedtime experience, 4 for office help, 5 to see if you are an instant winner of the tw/msn lottery, 6 for xbox help, 7 to register a microsoft product over the phone or stay on the line to hear nagamo mazoomba, former vice president of internal standards group, request your help in getting $43,675,00 out of a bank account in the caymans.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So the deal is that AOL would drop Google as its main Internet search provider and switch to Microsoft's MSN service, because under their current agreement, Google derived about 11 percent of its first-half revenue from AOL.
But what happens if AOL users still go to Google despite the default search site is MSN?
MS still commands about 80% of the browser market, and its browser defaults searches to MSN, if this cannot help it, I doubt a deal with AOL could.
I believe a more substantial way is to be a good search provider, and users will be self-inviting.
I guess Time Warner stands to win whichever way the deal goes.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Remember when AOL and Microsoft were mortal ememies? This only goes to show that just as in politics, there are no long term enemies, just long term interests
What good does this do... you have to generate traffic in order to reap the bennifits. I think the relevant term here is "Pissing into the wind".
I'm not sure why these people get so many articles posted. They are quite up front about who they are / what they do. I guess Zonk likes to reward honesty ;-)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Two weakened giants leaning on each other for support.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Even if that alliance holds, I think google will win. Microsoft had its time and that times is gone.
>> Internet Operations: Losses in the billions
Hundred million of pure, net profit last year.
but how you promote those assets is entirely another. The combo of MS+Time warner AOL would indeed be formidable, if that is they learn how to target advertising in the way that google has, and to work with the viewer, not harangue them with flashing banners. Of course it's not hard to take a page from the good google book and emulate its successes. Of course as it's suggested if this deal does happen google stands to loose a great deal of revenue as AOL would no longer use Google to provide their search services. This might proove to be more damaging than any competition in advertising, because as has been seen google thrives just as much when in competition as when forging ahead in new directions.
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
I think its probably in TW/AOL best interest to work with BOTH Microsoft and Google. Ofcourse, TW/AOL is not known for its bright business decisions in the past.
Uhm... I don't know how "nice" they are to larger companies with larger legal budgets, but every smaller company I've ever heard "teaming up" with Microsoft has gotten screwed over when it was to MS's advantage to do so.
How much of googles searches does AOL account for? How will this affect Google Adsense? Less views = less money for those in the program?
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who has been critical of Time Warner's strategy, has also said that he would hold Time Warner board members personally responsible if they forged a deal for AOL that valued the Internet provider too cheaply.
How will Carl Icahn do this? Is this one very rich man trying to kill a deal?
Why would Time Warner want to screw AOL? Hmmm... what is going on behind the scenes? Or is this a sign that AOL is changing its strategy?
Or maybe Microsoft is scared of google, and is doing everything they can to prevent their search services from going the direction of excite.com.
If Time Warner's AOL unit were to strike a deal with Google instead, how many chairs do you think would be thrown in Redmond?
Two big, bloated companies, where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (ever), combining to take on a small-ish, smart, fast moving company like Google (that happens to have gobs of cash to fund their wildest dream).
I don't think anything will happen, other than a bunch of money being spent.
If they really wanted to compete, they would hire a bunch of really bright people, form a new company for them to work at, with a new independent management team, and money to spend. Let them go after Google using the best tools and technologies, and then give them an instant market by using whatever they come up with at Microsoft/AOL/TimeWarner.
There can only be one Google!! /Highlander
Since the Borg Collective and AOL are all about pushing an inferior, overpriced product to an uneducated bunch of end users via slick marketing and since Time-Warner is AOL's parent company, I'd suspect that this might be a very good fit for both of them. I have to agree with an earlier poster who mentioned that any time the Collective "teams up" with another company, the other company is either assimilated or gets screwed.
Frankly, I avoid the MSN home page, MSN searches, etc. because I refuse to "feed the beast". My experience with MSN is that they cannot get past blinky "Flash" things, so I doubt it will fly very well. I wonder if this isn't part of the whole AOL take-over bid by Microsoft, though.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
If and when Google does survive all of these attacks, they'll be a stronger company for it. Of course, the nearest term consequence could be a company whose eventual aggressiveness would make Microsoft look like a kitten. At least they won't sneak up and take everyone by surprise the way that Microsoft seemed to in the early 1990s with Windows 3.1, 95 and NT 4.0.
Of course, since they're in the business of storing and processing information, Google could end up being a greater threat than Microsoft ever could in the wrong hands.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
In addition to posting blatant advertising for the BeatlesBeatles and Joel on Software and TheEscapist and other stuff in a very "Microsoft/TimeWarner future partnership ass-kissing networked" sort of way, they don't even have a problem accepting submissions and posting them from blatant trolls and rip-offs like the submitter of this article (see the following current headline on the site of the submitter of this article):
In short, the editors are such fucking incompetant idiots that they willingly and knowingly entertain the submissions of admitted plagiarists. On the other hand, it's a really great way to make sure that Slashdot is never taken seriously anywhere by anyone. Seriously, Slashdot editors (Malda, etc) -- get your shit together. Half the joy of even bothering to show up and check Slashdot out each day now isn't for the articles or discussions, but to see what careless, stupid, sell-out, dimwitted shit you guys will do next.
Win Slashdot? (12/05/05) - PyWiz
Some of the slashbots have started to take notice that all of our posts are blatantly plagiarized. They wonder out loud in their replies why we would do such a thing? Well for all you curious slashbots that wonder why we felt the need to beat the world's most famous News for Trolls website, your answer is here
Slashdot: News for Trolls. Stuff That Doesn't Matter.
Okay, first of all for all of your slashbots that are out of the loop, we (known on Slashdot as PlayfullyClever) are blatant plagiarists. Almost (and by almost I mean more than 90%) all of our posts are reposts found using the Anti-Slash Database Tool, which allows the user to search for high-modded posts on a particular topic. Basically when a new article comes out on Slashdot we skim the summary for key words and plug them into the database tool. When we find a relevant-looking (I say relevant-looking because we don't actually read the summary so sometimes our posts are a little off base) post, we simply copy paste it and post to Slashdot. The funny part about this is that almost all of our posts get rated 5, just as they were originally. It is especially amusing when we get a high rating in spite of the fact that someone spots our plagiarism and points it out in a reply, as happened here.
Why would we do this? Well, there are several reasons. First of all, we do it for kicks. As I said earlier, it is rather amusing how little new information is actually added in Slashdot discussions. Simply towing the party line will get you a 5 rating, even if, as happens in many cases with our reposting, the post is slightly or completely offtopic.
The second major reason is promoting our site. We have a link in our signature and of course when we submit articles we get hits from people clicking on our name. We've gotten over 500 unique hits in the past 3 days the site has been up, and considering the quality of site we have, that's some quality advertising.
Some of you might be thinking that we're selfish and that we're destroying what once used to be a respected discussion forum. Well, you're wrong. First of all, with all the FPs, Penisbirds, and GNAA trolls, our reposting is hardly degrading anything of worth. Second of all, the moderation system is build to handle just our type of cleverness (namely, playful) by allowing readers to mod us down if they don't find our comment interesting. Obviously, even though it is plagiarized, our comments still hold the interest of a large number of moderators. Of course there is the slight moral problem of representing someone elses work as our own, but I mean come on, this is the 21st century, get over it.
In conclusion, all you slashbots who whine about PlayfullyClever being a "blatant plagiarist": you're right. Now STFU. kthx, py
Your "facts" have no place in this anti-micro$oft discu$$ion.
"Microsoft and Time Warner team up against Google" - Based on the article, it could have also been worded, "Google and Time Warner team up against Microsoft". No decisions have been made and both Microsoft and Google are looking to team up with Time Warner.
Their sites are WAY to cluttered!
Google is simple. There arent millions of distrations. You dont have to SEARCH for the search bar. you dont have to wait for the eyeblasters to load so that they can in turn obstruct your searching. GEEEZ people. it looks good the first time but after the 9999999th time you login just to do a simple search, and have to wait forever for the main page to connect to billions of addservers to serve you graphic adds, you end up back at google.
This is the start of Microsoft's new strategy of cutting off revenue streams for Google. As an added bonus (they think) this might slow their momentum and (insert evil laugh) could maybe trigger a collapse in shares of Google.
aha..so this explains why today i cant get into my gmail account from my roadrunner (timewarner) isp.
tsk, tsk.
for Google. Google is pissing a lot of DickHeads on Wall Street, especially the old media Barrons(I don't like those old networks, but they can join hands to KILL Google) Anyway, don't trust their gmail. It's down since this morning.
Why is Google successful?
Trust.
Google appear to put the user first. Indeed, that's where they started, building a search engine to help people. Money came later (and haven't they done well?).
Microsoft and Time Warner started with wanting to make money. That comes - and, more to the point, feels as though it comes - way before the user.
And we don't trust them.
Google ads rely on advertisers (the person with the ad, and the person with the ad space) trusting them to put the right ads in the right place. Google does - and everyone makes money. Trust, trust trust - the foundation stone of trade.
But who would trust Microsoft and Time Warner to do that?
"Cats like plain crisps"
If only they'd change their name and hired good ol'boy Bruce Campbell to promote them.... "Shop smart, shop S-Mart!"
-Buddy of DoQ
The only way to go against Google is to create a better search engine than Google.
Not impossible probably, but it's quite unlikely that Microsoft or TW can do it.
Microsoft is prevented to do anything exciting on the Internet by it's very own corporate culture.
Any other attempt, like making to use Google more difficult is not only stupid, but suicidal.
If my ISP or browser does not let me use what I want, I drop them without hesitation.
Crappy companies banning together...
Makes it even easier to avoid both of them!!
(Ya'll stand a little bit closer together now... I only got one shotgun shell left and I want to make it count.)
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
"Microsoft and Time Warner Team Up Against Google"
or perhaps similarly
"NBC and ABC team up against CBS"
And then you watch their nightly broadcasts which are almost exactly the same, sometimes even down to the order of the stories. Are these behemoths really against each other or are we being played as fools?
AOL + MS = A better Internet.
somebody's trying to mate elephants with hippopotamus.
Yeah i wouldnt trust those google people, i hear they're on the internets. Seriously tho' - if trust is dependant on uptime, they're more trust worthy then hotmail.com :P
AOL got 120 million visitors, yahoo 115 millions, MSN 110million, google 70million this past September. MS just became top dog by almost triple google and about double yahoo as far as online advertising markets reach goes. There are companies that are dying to get their hands on a way to get in front of 200million people, that's allot more appealing then 70million. Google might have slightly better tech for the time being, but MS will catch up, and they will steal google's thunder. Google hasn't been able to create much of a profit in any way other then click ads and that is in pretty big jeopardy.
With the largest repository of media content in the world, combine that with the most users, ground breaking IPTV tech, and the two largest telcos in the country, Microsoft is looking really good right now. Google better do some sole searching, because they are in some trouble.
My recommendation is to sell sell sell (google's stock that is).
http://www.digg.com/deals/Microsoft_and_Time_Warne r_Team_Up_Against_Google
Try this link instead: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1896641,00.as p?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
Penny - plain text accounting
The bottom line is that people use Google because it works and they can trust them. Do you trust MS or AOL/TW?
It seems that most people are in favor of Google "winning". I don't want either to win. Why? It's bad for us. It's bad to have one complacent company in complete control of a market. Here's what happens, as history shows over and over and over.
1. Company 1 becomes a rising star.
2. Everyone loves company 1 because they have good products, service, blah
3. Company 1 beats out company 2, 3, 4, and 5 to become master of it's universe
4. Company 1 has no competition, so they have no motivation to innovate, progress, explore
5. Company 1 easily assasinates any small company that attempts to gain any foothold in the market, instead of competing fairly.
6. The market stagnates while company 1 does everything in it's power to maintain it's stranglehold.
It's bad for competition, period. There's nothing good about ANY company, even the beloved "we will do no evil, blindly trust us" google, to be a monopoly. If they do ultimately win, take my word for it, eventually you WILL see a decrease in the quality of their service until they become the evil they claim they never will.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
that will keep the empire out of here forever.
....Are better than one.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
All I see is MS making a land grab at someone else's success.
No, Microsoft is providing a user base, and Time Warner is providing the advertisements... kinda like I bring the baseball bat, you bring the ball. Together we'll kick the other team's ass. And when you consider the numbers that AOL/TW and MSN have in their respective user bases, the revenue they can generate there alone could pose a viable threat to Google. I'm not a fanboy of either MS or Google, just saying...
-everphilski-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A lot of people keep mentioning how MS and AOL working together won't amount to much since neither is trust worthy and thus users will flock back to Google. Well guess what? AOL has 120 million users. I'd argue most of those users trust AOL enough to use their service, including a slightly crappier, but fully integrated search engine via MS.
M$-AOL. Because good clean code counts. With the track record of the software coming from said companies; we can only look forward to a stable, robust, and premium priced internet service. *shiver*
MSN until recently stood all by itself and did not depend on Entertainment. It still doesn't. It's now a part of Windows division.
Severe Growing Pains
Slashdot was created by Taco 7 years ago. He, and many of the editors (from what I gather) have a background in CS.
Being a old school "Editor" is not really a priority of the people who weed through the many many submissions and eventually decide what gets posted when.
They are probably woefully understaffed.
If you want to complain, try the suggestions link or email em.
ps - I don't think I'm posting anything YOU (Seumas) don't know but . . . sometimes I like to feed trolls.
... is my best friend. :-)
*opens firefox, displaying google.ca - begins hugging the computer monitor*
Between Dish Network and DirecTV.
Which is better?, said the TW cable refugee in a flame protection suit -lol-
Just a thought... but it is usually standard practice for a 'dying' company's CEO's or Board of Directors to 'try' a separate or new strategy to guide the company some other direction. Then they give themselves huge bonuses for the brainpower they expended, regardless of whether their 'new strategy' worked or not. When it doesn't work, they get fired, get a good separation package, and leave someone else holding the bag. Standard procedure is usually some variation on this.
While I understand this is a severely cynical view, could it be that TW is trying to loose the 'ol' ball and chain' that they see forming in AOL? The time to sell a company is when it is still going good, but the future looks grim - so you get maximum pay-off, and someone else takes the hit.
Just a thought.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
wow, just because google came up with such a good idea and totally dominated all those power hungry companies, they still want to take it down... http://ggstfu.com/ stupid aol
You know, I hate internet ads as much as the next guy. I realize that without them, site like slashdot couldn't survive, but honestly, I don't click on banner ads unless I'm REALLY looking for the particular product/service in that ad, which doesn't happen too often...
Recently, I finally set up my http://www.google.com/ homepage... Interesting service for those of you who haven't set it up yet... Frankly, my browser has pointed to a blank page for years... This is the first time I can think of since netscape navigator went down the toilet that I've actually set a homepage in my browser, and the reason is simple: A google homepage is simple, nonintrusive, and USEFUL...
If either m*crosoft or AOL could come up with a service or utility that I could say the same about, I wouldn't be so objectionable just because of the source, but the point I was originally going to get at remains the same: I click on google ads because they relate to what I need. Every ad I see from m*crosoft or AOL or pretty much most any other site is intrusive, unwanted, and usually unrelated to anything I'm looking for. It doesn't matter how many of their services they combine, they're not going to generate more clicks from me. If as many people feel like I do, I don't think this tactic is anything more than a propaganda technique designed to appease stockholders.
Its only illegal if you don't get caught
Even if it doesn't, it doesn't get in my way and annoy me.
How much of googles searches does AOL account for? How will this affect Google Adsense? Less views = less money for those in the program?
:)
Not sure about Adsense but it may be good to loose some customers who make no sense. How many here really want to sell computer hardwawe, software and services to AOL users?
Exactly what I'm getting at. M*crosoft makes money by shoving in your face, and forcing you to deal with it. Google makes money by actually providing something useful... Its an interesting puzzle to wonder, would m*crosoft make more money because they can shove a popup in front of 9/10ths of the planet, or google, because people actually click their link ads because they want them? I wonder what would happen if google teamed up with sites like ebay, and the OSDN... I bet b*llgates (yes, thats one word) and steve ballmer would dirty their pants.
Its only illegal if you don't get caught