Slashdot Mirror


Time-Warner Planning AOL Split

Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."

69 comments

  1. funny by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back when AOL and Time Warner merged, everyone except techies said they didn't understand, Time Warner was a fading dinosaur while AOL was a superstar. The techies said they didn't understand, AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.

    1. Re:funny by steelfood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I once heard it being described as an old billionaire nabbing a young hot trophy wife, forgetting that the wife gets half the estate when there's a divorce, and gets progressively less hot as the years go on.

      The only difference is that the billionaire will probably naturally die before the hot wife turns into an old hag, but a corporation will remain alive as long as it can.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:funny by dk90406 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is a indicator of what will happen if Microsoft (Time Warner)buys Yahoo (AOL). I see now way Microsoft can gain anything from that deal.

    3. Re:funny by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I think them trying to buy Yahoo is telling that Microsoft isn't doing so well. Microsoft lacks focus, and they want to take shortcuts. They look at Yahoo, figure they can buy up all that content, buy out a search competitor, and everything will be great, but Yahoo itself is struggling to find meaning and purpose. I don't think Microsoft will look back at any such deal with too much enthusiasm.

    4. Re:funny by Dionysus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.

      Really? Because when I read /. from that period (like here and here), it's all about doom-and-gloom, and AOL-TimeWarner will take over the internet and stop people from access any content without being an AOL subscriber.
      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    5. Re:funny by peragrin · · Score: 1

      why do you think I want the Yahoo/MSFT deal to go through? MSFT wastes $45 billion dollars and another ~$5 billion trying to straighten out the mess. Even MSFT can't stand being crippled like that. It will take them a decade to recover.

      GO MSFT!!!! Go Yahoo!!!!

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:funny by BewireNomali · · Score: 4, Insightful

      branding and user base.

      google had google video. youtube was crushing google video. google did not have a strong presence in video online and realized that internet inertia had hit - youtube was to video what google was to search. by buying youtube - they bought the branding and presence - a presence that is now lucrative because of the content deals, etc.

      microsoft is not analogous to time warner. yahoo is not analogous to aol. yahoo has a strong web presence - this is undeniable. microsoft does not and cannot build a strong web presence (MSN gets good numbers but those are cheat numbers because of explorer defaults that most don't change) because it moves too slowly and it doesn't understand how to build a web BRAND. Unfortunately for Microsoft - recent evidence shows that younger execs - younger companies - have a better sense of building brands online. microsoft cannot do this - yahoo is not the answer. but this deal is not analogous to the AOL deal. At the time, it seemed sensible that the internet's premier portal get exclusive access to a huge library of content. Of course in retrospect it seems more sensible to strike deals with content companies so as to not cross-corrupt disparate corporate cultures - and i'm certain somewhere there are rules about the critical mass size of companies before they collapse under their own weight.

      building a presence on the web requires core strength. google has search. not sure what yahoo's is, but they have stickiness. microsoft has NO online core strength. NONE. And it's 2008. their search is mediocre in most respects compared to google. they develop also/ran products long after internet phenomenons emerge - despite having the money to chase trends so aggressive so as to appear innovative even if they are not. Their online products do not differentiate on the basis of quality and/or branding. Finally, their inexorable ties to backward compatability - be it to old formats and or dying business models - it's like trying to sprint with a ball and chain. They have a problem.

      they need to spin off a lightning quick young group - get the brightest young maverick engineers and call it microlabs or something. Let them build some crazy shit and see what pops up. this strategy here is for the fucking birds and IMO a waste of 40+ billion.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    7. Re:funny by hansonc · · Score: 2, Informative

      How short people's memories are.

      AOL bought Time Warner. The company name became AOL-Time Warner. Eventually the AOL portion was dropped but it doesn't change the fact that AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.

    8. Re:funny by dk90406 · · Score: 1
      You make some good points.
      I see some similarities between MS and Time Warner: both depends on traditional products and have, as you pointed out, no real online generated revenue (MS: OS, Office, XBOX etc. Time Warner: Media), and also between AOL and Yahoo (online only, no real traditional revenue. Their biggest asset is a large user base.

      Your last point, being that wasting 40+ billion is a bad move, was exactly my point. MS would probably fu.. up AOL, and drive users away.
      And true - the MS/Yahoo - TW/AOL Deals are not truly analogous (for one, they are in the same market segment), my prediction was that the end result would probably be the same.

    9. Re:funny by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that AOL (Yahoo) bought Time Warner (Microsoft), so that your thought that there is equivalence here is incorrect.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:funny by dk90406 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. And thinking (in the correct line of thought) that at MS/Yahoo merger would lead to Yahoo selling MS off, if clearly wrong. Bummer on my part.

    11. Re:funny by nomadic · · Score: 1

      AOL bought Time Warner.

      At that scale companies don't really "buy" each other in the traditional sense, it's usually some ridiculously convoluted stock trade arrangement that really is more akin to a merger. When one "buys out" another it just means one of the mergees is the dominant one.

    12. Re:funny by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      That plus I really want to see Microsoft trying to recode all the PHP stuff. :D

    13. Re:funny by Strawser · · Score: 1

      AOL bought TW, then about a year or two later, all the AOL execs were run out, Time Warner execs took over, the name was changed to Time Warner, and the stock symbol from AOL to TWC. Before the merge, AOL had a "poison pill" clause in their charter. I don't remember exactly how it worked, but essentially, if anyone tried to take over AOL, all outstanding options would be paid over-value, and a bunch of other stuff, so no one would want to try to take over AOL. Instead, AOL "took over" TWC. Or at least that's what they thought they were doing. It just didn't work out that way, in the end.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
  2. Haste makes waste by s1d · · Score: 1

    Hasty marriages are bound for divorce

    --
    In Soviet Russia, everything runs linux.
  3. SLASHDOT SUX0RZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
    1. Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet, here you are...

  4. You've got .... by bizitch · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...layoffs

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  5. Merger not going well? by headkase · · Score: 1

    AOL to Time-Warner: "It must have been something you assimilated..."

    Really with AOL's dial-up business quite rightly going down the tubes (heheh) it does make perfect business sense to at least spin it off to die on it's own or as a bonus have some sucker buy it.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Merger not going well? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      it does make perfect business sense to at least spin it off to die on it's own or as a bonus have some sucker buy it. What? But, they told me dialup access was making a strong comeback!

    2. Re:Merger not going well? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      AOL's been spinning off their dial-up stuff for years. In Europe, they sold everything in 2006, and have been doing the same in the U.S.. They are putting all their eggs in a basket called "ad revenue", which while being a bad bet in the long run, in my book, is better than relying on selling something almost no one buys any more.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:Merger not going well? by misleb · · Score: 1

      AOL's been spinning off their dial-up stuff for years. In Europe, they sold everything in 2006, and have been doing the same in the U.S.. They are putting all their eggs in a basket called "ad revenue", which while being a bad bet in the long run, in my book, is better than relying on selling something almost no one buys any more.
      --


      Doesn't Google rely amlost exclusively on ad revenue? Or is the difference that Google is serving the ads and not just being a conduit for the ads?

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    4. Re:Merger not going well? by asilentthing · · Score: 1

      Probably more that Google has proven it can make money on it and that others have a hard time breaking into that scene.

      --
      --- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
    5. Re:Merger not going well? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but Google doesn't suck. Also I think the "serving the ads" part is part of it. Plus, Google is smart enough to have ads that people like you and me don't instinctively block. I think the the GoogleSense text ads or whatever they're called are great. Even if they are irrelevant or spammy they aren't these ludicrous epilepsy-inducing intelligence-insulting concentration-breaking banners that most companies use. AOL is strictly lowest common denominator. You can't use their stuff without going into some kind of sensory overload fugue, which I suppose just mimics the intellectual capacity of their target audience. But that's just me. I'm about as opposite to an AOL customer as its possible to be while still actually being an Internet user.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  6. I'm worried by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried..

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:I'm worried by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      me too.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    2. Re:I'm worried by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, the good ol' days of AOL dial-up:

      One sunny day, arrived in the mail,
      500 free hours from AOL!
      Twas looking for fun
      But then for my gun
      When the line busy and thus it failed.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    3. Re:I'm worried by DJ+Jones · · Score: 1

      You can't that much malicious software on one CD anymore...

    4. Re:I'm worried by Kahlua · · Score: 1

      > On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said
      > me too.


      me too!

    5. Re:I'm worried by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Time-Warner Planning AOL Split
      Posted by Zonk on Wednesday February 06, @01:09PM
      from the seems-like-every-year dept.
      Businesses America Online The Internet
      Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie [CC]. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."

      I'm woried (Score:5, Funny)
      by 4D6963 (933028) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:27PM (#22323440) Homepage Journal

      Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried..
      --
      The ARSE 0.2d2 [sourceforge.net]. Sound -> Image -> New Sound.
      [ Hide Replies | Reply to This ]

              *

              *
                  Re:I'm worried (Score:1, Funny)
                  by SoupGuru (723634) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:41PM (#22323606)
                  me too.
                  --
                  **What doesn't kill you only prolongs the inevitable
                  [ Reply to This | Parent ]

      Me too.
      > On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said
      > me too.

      me too! me too!
    6. Re:I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed a word fucktard!

    7. Re:I'm worried by gotzero · · Score: 1

      I stopped looking out for them after I insulated my first bunker with only AOL mailings...

  7. shrinking pie split in two by prevajanje · · Score: 2, Insightful

    shrinking pie split in two, so that's even harder to sell, smart,...

  8. Missing Tag by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where's the "whattooksolong" tag?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  9. Uneblievable by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the corporate hullabaloo, layoffs of low-level employees, rebranding and marketing that only lasted, what, a few years, and they plan to just hit Ctrl + Z on the whole thing?

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Uneblievable by jb1z · · Score: 1

      Not really. AOL is an asset owned by Time Warner Inc. (http://www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/index.html). This is taking that subsidiary asset and splitting it into two separate assets. At least, that's what I make of this.

      --
      So, one of those Egg Council creeps got to you too, huh?
    2. Re:Uneblievable by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      Not really. AOL is an asset owned by Time Warner Inc I thought AOL was the one who purchased Time Warner, not the other way around.
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:Uneblievable by jb1z · · Score: 1

      They did, technically. But the company now operates as Time Warner, Inc. with AOL being one of the subsidiaries. Their wiki page is pretty thorough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner

      --
      So, one of those Egg Council creeps got to you too, huh?
  10. Is it too soon... by Nyktos · · Score: 1

    ... to hope for a Microsoft Yahoo! post-merger demerger? Only with Yahoo pocketing all the cash?

  11. Split by Teflon_Jeff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, they're going to make two departments, one that's profitable and growing, and one that can be cut and eliminated in one year? Makes business sense to me. They call it "cutbacks"

    --
    "Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Split by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      Dang, I thought it was a promotion when they told me I would run my own business unit.

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    2. Re:Split by Teflon_Jeff · · Score: 1

      So, that Corporate Headhunter was the OTHER type of headhunter? That explains the dress code.

      --
      "Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
  12. AOL does NOT own Time Warner Cable by steelfood · · Score: 2, Informative

    Time Warner does.

    And yes, it's Time Warner, not AOL Time Warner.

    AOL has long been merely a division within Time Warner.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  13. cue google by ihatethetv · · Score: 1

    Hopefully google will sweep in and buy AOL and get a good price for it. I think that'd be an easy way to pick up a bunch of users who aren't so tech saavy while upping its marketshare in email and IM.

    I hope they kill off the aol portal and AIM and replace them with something decent.

    I know google's getting too big for its britches, but I also want to see them keep beating up MSFT. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now at least.

    -G

    1. Re:cue google by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/18/1748218

      If any IM network needs killing off, its msn.

    2. Re:cue google by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      I would only appreciate such a move if they upgraded the service to something better than dial-up. Something from the spectrum auction, perhaps?

  14. Party time... by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's wonderful! 2008 may be a great year! Both Yahoo and AOL may soon be no more.

    Now if we can just find a way to rid ourselves of eBay, Real, Symantec and a few others...

  15. Bolt your mailboxes ... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

    ... it's time to mail out some free dial-up CDs to increase market share. No wait, this is 2008: free Blu-Ray discs!

    1. Re:Bolt your mailboxes ... by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      You're talking about AOL. They'll send out HD-DVDs.

  16. DNS hijacking by MadAhab · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this has anything to do with why DNS "not found" queries suddenly started directing me to a search/advert server run by RoadRunner.

    That's some evil shit. If I were a phishing enterprise I'd be watching this closely. When your own ISP is pharming you, it's just a matter of time before something evil crawls out from under a rock and takes notice.

    Maybe it was me calling up "www.fuckroadrunnerdnshijackingisevil.com" and a few dozen alternatives, or maybe it was portscanning their server, or maybe they just used caller ID to call up my account, but while I was on the phone complaining to them (I refused to give them my phone number or name), they suddenly turned off the service.

    I think I'll be switching to DSL soon.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    1. Re:DNS hijacking by ZerMongo · · Score: 1

      Bad news: Verizon does the same thing on their DSL.

    2. Re:DNS hijacking by NullSolaris · · Score: 1

      There is a way to turn this off according to Verizon, I can't remember where the directions are though.

      --
      Reading Slashdot for the vulnerability announcements is like buying Playboy for the articles --A.C.
    3. Re:DNS hijacking by MadAhab · · Score: 1

      Well then I'm out of choices. So much for the fucking market taking care of things.

      Fuck those fucking motherfuckers, all of them.

      And fuck the FCC. Burn it to the ground. The role of government is not to line their citizens up to be ass-raped by business. If I wanted to live in that kind of society I'd move to fucking mainland China.

      The Founding Fathers would tar and feather Kevin Martin. He's a traitor to America.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    4. Re:DNS hijacking by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Insight does the same thing. That is, until you manually change your DNS servers.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    5. Re:DNS hijacking by ardle · · Score: 1

      The role of government is not to line their citizens up to be ass-raped by business. Someone should have told them that a long time ago - that's what businesses think government is for ;-)

      There was a (brief) time when government regarded big business as a way of providing stable employment for citizens; those days are long gone. Corporations' function is once again maximum profit, disguised by the fact that this profit is promised to citizens in the form of pensions.
      Corporations are now pretty much obliged to seek the cheapest staff in order to maximise profit, thus providing justification for oursourcing and short- or no-term employment contracts for citizens.
      So the citizens are working longer hours with less job security and for less money.
      Where's all the profit going? Pension funds - for the elite minority who have a pensionable job or can afford to keep up pension contributions out of their own pocket.

      Products may not be a shareholder's best source of income, short-term (think SCO as an extreme example, Internet Explorer as a lesser one): in fact, customers are inconvenient because "free will" can allow them to purchase alternative products if they have the choice. Bulk orders and contracts are preferable.

      Another example: Intellectual Property - very hard to keep in the hands of citizens, thanks to laws government currently supports.
  17. er... news? by Tom · · Score: 1

    And what, exactly is news about this?

    This split has already happened in Europe. My company, for example, bought the access part of AOL Germany, and that was a year ago. It was always just a matter of time until the same thing would happen in the US.

    And yes, there were layoffs. Mostly in the audience part, which fired about 75% of its people in two waves (one right after the split, one about three quarters later). The access part went well here, but I'm not sure about other countries. Some of the bidders, like us, were interested in the whole company, while other bidders quite openly stated that they only cared for the customers, and would've probably layed off everyone.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:er... news? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      And what, exactly is news about this? It's news in the same sense that any article talking about SCO's demise is news.
  18. Goodbye by HABITcky · · Score: 1

    Goodbye

  19. Three words by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Army of Lamers

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  20. What's with this spinoff-to-shutdown thing. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    If they know the ISP business is going down the tubes, and the advertising/search part is fine, why are they spinning off one knowing it's going to die off. Why don't they just exit the business. Seems like a lot of extra corporate footwork for the same result.

    1. Re:What's with this spinoff-to-shutdown thing. by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Because there's a good chance there's a sucker out there who doesn't know AOL's dial-up business is going down the tubes. Said sucker will pay good money for the spun-off property. Why throw something in the trash when you can get some cash for it and make winding it down somebody else's problem?

  21. AOL was doing well two years ago? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think AOL was a successful company in 2006... Or even 2003. Seemed to me like they were over about five or six years ago, when home DSL/cable connections became ubiquitous.

  22. If they were even half smart... by jeillah · · Score: 1

    they'd move the access business to TWC's Roadrunner group which does the same thing more or less but over faster wires. They could consolidate call centers and support and save $$$. Then when they sell the rest of TWC shares to the public TWX can wash their hands of all the tech stuff and stick to selling crap to the unwitting public...

  23. Trying to boost revenue w/ Hometown member ads by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Even for paying customers who haven't signed up for them (signing up for them used to increase the web space allocation from 2 to 20 MB).

    William
    (who will have to install an ad-blocking script if AOL customer service won't reverse it for his account)

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  24. The AOL brand itself must be worth a fortune! by ardle · · Score: 1

    Oh, sorry - this isn't the 90's ;-)

  25. saw this coming by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    I knew they'd hate each other from the beginning. AOL is the scum of the earth and Time Warner's just greedy. Actually that goes together great but remember that story about how all the other scum of the internet doing illegal stuff hates each other and they all doublecross each other and all that. This is kinda the same thing lol. Now as soon as G4 lets what's left of TechTV go, all will be right with the world.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  26. It shows that they learnt from SCO.. by ardle · · Score: 1

    ...how how gullible (desperate) the market is. They couldn't try SCO's stunts with their own stock but they will have noticed that simply making noise pumps stock price. There's good money in it, if you don't eventually have to pay legal fees ;-)
    I find it hard to believe that nobody in MS would allow this purchase to go ahead without pointing out that it's crazy - and probably impossible, legally. Therefore I cannot believe they are sincere about this plan.

    MS can now spend a year reminding desperate traders about their grand plan.
    Cleverest thing MS did: say that they would borrow most of the money for the purchase. If MS are borrowing money, then a company has enough faith in them - in the medium-to-long term - to lend it: an implied vote of confidence from a third party.