Slashdot Mirror


AOL, Yahoo Mulling Merger

Mike Zahalan writes with an update to last month's news that AOL and various private equity firms were exploring the possiblity of buying Yahoo. While talks between the companies have not officially gone much deeper, AOL has now hired financial advisers to analyze their options. Still, Kara Swisher writes at All Things Digital that the complexity of a deal between the two companies will be the biggest obstacle they have to overcome. "Among the issues being grappled with: Onerous tax implications around a variety of deals; a need for complete cooperation from too many players; and the realization that a hookup of AOL and Yahoo might cause more problems than it solves. 'It looks great conceptually and everyone gets all hot and bothered,' said one prominent investor who did his own strategizing about Yahoo and AOL. 'But when you actually do the numbers, you hit a pretty big wall of impossible.'"

136 comments

  1. Why Merge? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because 0+0=1!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Why Merge? by Meshach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because 0+0=1!

      The merge will pump up all involved stock and make a lot of money for the stockholders. It may decimate the company's future but, as we learned from the SCO fiasco, that is a secondary concern.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Why Merge? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Why Merge!"

      It's a "user experience" experiment to create the proverbial Vortex of Suck, a horror calculated to make Cthulhu slouch away screaming in fear.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Why Merge? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because 0+0=1!

      But only for sufficiently large values of 0.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Why Merge? by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Funny

      When this was first news a while back I remember reading on Fark that this will merge "the site that your parents use with the site that your grandparents use."

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    5. Re:Why Merge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For large values of 0? Come on...didn't you American IT people learn you basic maths? In the UK most people understand, because we are rightly taught, that 0 is a number, not a concept. You can't talk about its value.

    6. Re:Why Merge? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Because 0+0=1!

      In all fairness, the formula in this case is more like -5.0 (AOL) + 0.5 (Yahoo!) = -10.0

    7. Re:Why Merge? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is because you poor pasty faced Brits got infected by that nasty Frenchie metric system, instead of staying with the Imperial system like God and the Queen intended. Now don't worry your little heads none, as soon as we get done liberating the Middle East we'll come save your pasty asses just like we did in WWI and WWII, but don't expect us to save them damned Frenchies again, this time the Germans are welcome to them! Also the people of Australia can go rot, after pretending to be our friends by releasing the most excellent Mad Max and then when our guards were down launching an unprovoked attack of truly evil proportions called Yahoo Serious. I mean we put up with Olivia Newton John because she was little and cute and looked good next to Travolta, but Yahoo Serious? That was just...it was wrong, and YOU KNOW IT!

      As for TFA, Good Lord I hope not. I fricking can't stand the Google "Folders? We don't need no steenkin folders!" way of doing things, and find the "more" tab of Yahoo Search (that is the little blue button below the search box after an initial search) so much better for jumping off searches, but everything AOHell touches turns quickly into poo. Hell I would rather have MSFT just buy the damned thing before AOHell got it. And anybody who don't think Yahoo is making some serious cash hasn't worked in PC repair any. You'd be surprised the amount of normal folks that have Yahoo! set as their home page. We may all think it is a cluttered mess, but they loooove it. You wanna see a regular user get mad just switch them off the Yahoo home page and be ready for the screams. I even had to set up a separate profile for my GF just so that when she launched FF (at least I got her off IE) while staying the weekend she has it come up to "her page" where Yahoo piles all the stuff she cares about into one big mess of a page. I don't get it but to the average folk Yahoo has taken the place of the daily paper. That is a LOT of eyeballs Yahoo is getting right there.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Why Merge? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When this was first news a while back I remember reading on Fark that this will merge "the site that your parents use with the site that your grandparents use."

      Well, hah hah hah, but in actual fact the idea of combining all those well off potential customers is not as stupid as you seem to think.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Why Merge? by RobNich · · Score: 1

      0.3 + 0.3 = 0.6, which rounds to 1. So yes.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
  2. Your Free Financial Analysis: by swschrad · · Score: 3, Funny

    if you burn the money instead, it keeps you warm. if you buy Yahoo, you gain nothing.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:Your Free Financial Analysis: by Miseph · · Score: 1

      I think you're being a bit unfair to Yahoo! with that comment. They're clearly on the leading edge of innovating new and compelling business strategies designed to leverage their company even further into the abyss of irrelevancy. They must have gotten a lot of very bright, very creative people together to develop and idea that spectacularly stupid... it's almost like they're writing the script for their own "Pirates of Silicon Valley" or "The Social Network" corporate creationist Hollywood retrospective, and their working title is "Jackass IT".

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    2. Re:Your Free Financial Analysis: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm sure I can keep plenty warm in one of those server rooms.

  3. What will be the new name? by DWMorse · · Score: 1

    Will it then be "AOHoo"?

    Oddly enough, it seems like Yahoo is mulling throwing away the same money Time Warner did. Never learn from others' mistakes, says us?

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:What will be the new name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that AOL bought TWX right?

    2. Re:What will be the new name? by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Gesundheit.

    3. Re:What will be the new name? by Genda · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope... it'll be named "yaHOL", and sound much like the yelling Governor Schwarzenegger makes the day after eating Habanero Peppers...

      Or perhaps its the sound of the black HOL formed when two infinitely dense, dying corporate stars accrete and collapse under the weight of their own ineptitude. This may well be the perfect opportunity to measure irony waves or maybe even determine the speed of stupid in a corporate vacuum.

    4. Re:What will be the new name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will it then be "AOHoo"?

      The island Honolulu is on?

  4. We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by Shikaku · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) and call it a day because that's what the reaction will sound like.

    1. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by microbee · · Score: 1

      Or Aohoo.

    2. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by rayk_sland · · Score: 1

      Yahool or Youhowl

      --
      Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
    3. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Or just Yao and it will open up all sorts of opportunities for the Chinese market. They could have the biggest man in China (literally) as their spokesman. As long as they don't have a problem with censorship, of course. . .

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by slapout · · Score: 1

      I like "Y'all" better.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    5. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you meant the tallest Chinese woman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Defen

      The tallest man in China is not named Yao: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Juncai

      I'm guessing you meant Yao Ming the basketball player, but he's 6 inches shorter than that guy. Also, there's this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bao_Xishun

    6. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahool

      Later they will be aquired by the associated press, and rebranded as Asshool.

    7. Re:We'll call it Yaol (pronounced yowl) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOOO-o-o-o-o-v-e Got M-A-I-L!

  5. Huh? by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    What do they possibly have to gain? AOL is little more than an aged internet portal trading on legacy business from the not-too-bright.

    (Which I guess is what Yahoo is...)

    1. Re:Huh? by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Yahoo actually has a pretty strong balance sheet. It's a well run company. They do a lot more than just portals, they have a nice strong tech arm. They sold off Zimbra for $500M to VMware. They have a strong base in Asia which is the fastest growing internet market. They are #2 in search and they have some other hot properties like Flickr.

      And as far as new stuff, have you seen YQL? Very cool stuff.

      However, they aren't trading at 30x earnings like Google and Apple because they aren't part of the "smartphone bubble" and they don't have a bunch of dumb money investing in them. The smart guys are going short on Apple after Christmas.

      Anyway, Yahoo's going to be around for a long time. Yes, they should have taken Microsoft's $50B when they had the chance but they will probably get another chance before this bubble pops.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Yahoo! Pipes... a very rad parser.

    3. Re:Huh? by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Yahoo actually has a pretty strong balance sheet. It's a well run company. They do a lot more than just portals, they have a nice strong tech arm. They sold off Zimbra for $500M to VMware. They have a strong base in Asia which is the fastest growing internet market. They are #2 in search and they have some other hot properties like Flickr.

      And as far as new stuff, have you seen YQL? Very cool stuff.

      However, they aren't trading at 30x earnings like Google and Apple because they aren't part of the "smartphone bubble" and they don't have a bunch of dumb money investing in them. The smart guys are going short on Apple after Christmas.

      Anyway, Yahoo's going to be around for a long time. Yes, they should have taken Microsoft's $50B when they had the chance but they will probably get another chance before this bubble pops.

      Hey, could you come redo our stadium? We're thinking of moving away from natural grass.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    4. Re:Huh? by magarity · · Score: 1

      However, they aren't trading at 30x earnings like Google and Apple

      Check the figures before posting next time:

      YHOO $16/share, 21 P/E
      GOOG $600/share, 25 P/E

  6. Wait... by Stregano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AOL is still around outside of AIM? And they have enough money to buy another company?

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Wait... by Psyko · · Score: 1

      That's what I was going to ask, how do they even have money anymore? What do they actually do? Do people still pay them for some kind of portal service or is it all ad based revenue from aim or something?

      --
      01:36AM up 426 days, 2:46, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.05
    2. Re:Wait... by xda · · Score: 1

      Ya cuz for years they charged people $9 a month for shitty email. when i was in my door to door computer fixer days I came across tons of people who had broadband but still paid AOL for providing no service other than a stupid home page and email

    3. Re:Wait... by Captain+Spam · · Score: 2, Funny

      AOL is still around outside of AIM? And they have enough money to buy another company?

      Well, it IS only Yahoo they're considering buying.

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    4. Re:Wait... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      they bought netscape.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Wait... by Cwix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My old room mates parents still pay aol 10 dollars a month. The kicker is they have Time Warner broadband that they pay 50 a month for. Trying to explain this to them results in the deer in a headlight syndrome.

      They are also trying to repair their Pentium 2 computer, instead of taking the two year old Core2Duo that my old room mate tried to give them.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:Wait... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Think they got a fair few bucks selling their UK venture to Carphone Warehouse back in the day when they were still fairly large and forcing their starter CD's on you when ever you bought anything larger than a penny sweet.

    7. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Engadget? TMZ? AOL owns them.

    8. Re:Wait... by Macrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever heard of Engadget? TMZ? AOL owns them.

      That drops AOL's value even more.

    9. Re:Wait... by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      I have $4.88 CAD in my pocket, can I get in on the bidding?

    10. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, AOL is a success. However, buying fail begets fail. Buying Yahoo will be just as good for AOL as the Time Warner merger. Just a word of caution if anyone is listening.

    11. Re:Wait... by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Yahoo leads in webmail still, has the #1 visited sports site on the net(more than ESPN or Fox), owns various strong web properties like Flickr, and is still #2 in search(which means #2 in advertising, basically). They also have excellent Finance and Fantasy sports sections

    12. Re:Wait... by Stregano · · Score: 1

      hansolo64@compuserve.com

      Compuserve. Yes, compuserve

      --
      The world is how you make it
    13. Re:Wait... by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that still doesn't help the cause :)

      --
      The world is how you make it
    14. Re:Wait... by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      Glorious!

    15. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo ... has the #1 visited sports site on the net

      and the least useful sports site, IMHO. Every RSS reader and similar app I have installed had Yahoo sports pages as the default source. With 5 billion people out there who won't understand how to configure their software, they'll either suffer through yahoo's mess or give up. Sounds similar to the way Yahoo built itself in the first place.

    16. Re:Wait... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Finally I'll be able to merge my AIM and YIM contacts into one list!

    17. Re:Wait... by syousef · · Score: 1

      My old room mates parents still pay aol 10 dollars a month. The kicker is they have Time Warner broadband that they pay 50 a month for. Trying to explain this to them results in the deer in a headlight syndrome.

      They are also trying to repair their Pentium 2 computer, instead of taking the two year old Core2Duo that my old room mate tried to give them.

      I can actually understand that. I find myself buying old stuff at closeout instead of the new model because I'm both familiar with the old, and it does some things better than the new. As an example I still have my Nikon D70 SLR even after having bought a D90 (2 generations ahead). The older camera has a flash sync of 1/500th vs (1/200th on the D90). In most other respects it is inferior, but that one feature allows you to do things you can't with the D90, albeit in very specific circumstances. So I can't bear to part with the older camera. Another example: TVs this year are much cheaper than 2 years ago but I just went through hell trying to find one that doesn't have input lag and in the end I compromised so much on a 55" (which will get more use from my wife and kids watching TV and movies) that I may yet keep the old CRT it's replacing for gaming on old PS2 consoles. Why should i upgrade to a PS3 when my PS2 does just fine for the limit use it gets now (mostly my 2 year old playing guitar hero)? Why throw out stuff that works just because they're obsolete.

      To me that's all quite reasonable, but if I get lazy or complacent doing research or come to rely on features from the current generation of technology it does make it hard to let go and I may pass up much better deals the way this couple has. Do you know what they're using their AOL for? Or what they're using the Pentium II to do. There are specialised cases where the old may outdo the new, but most likely they've just become comfortable and somewhat lazy because for them there's more important things in life than gadgets and broadband access.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    18. Re:Wait... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I think we have a winner!

          Anything more, and the SEC will look into why a publicly traded company spent an unusually high amount on a worthless asset.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    19. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My uncle has been with Compuserve-AOL for about 12 years. He also has the same situation as your Time Warner broadband fees. He asked me to investigate options to lower his bill, and I mentioned the obvious "drop it."

      People routinely ignore or drop old [free-mail] addresses like hot bowling balls. But paid email is another story. Funny, because the same people have no trouble ditching their old cellphone numbers and getting lost for weeks until they finally decide to call you with their new contact info. Its just a pinch and a burn, people!

    20. Re:Wait... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      They use it, if im not mistaken, because it has the same aol games they have always played. There is no mission critical app or functionality.

      The C2D was taken over to the house, hooked up in the same place as the old one. Just to have his dad call him the next day saying he didnt like it. I believe it even had the aol program installed on it, so they could play their favorite games.

      This would be like refusing to accept a Ford Mustang because the Pinto is just so comfy. Would you turn down that D90 if your D70 had a really loose flash mount, or it couldn't save to a memory card for some reason?

      Whats the point in keeping obsolete broken junk, when you have a much nicer piece of equipment, that was free, already set up in its place.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    21. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL also owns ICQ. Which is still the premier messaging service if you love having your account hacked every other day by Russians, and have them spam your friend list with gibberish!

    22. Re:Wait... by syousef · · Score: 1

      They use it, if im not mistaken, because it has the same aol games they have always played.

      That's actually a good enough reason, if those games can't be found elsewhere. I know a lot of people that spend more than $10 a month on gaming.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    23. Re:Wait... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      You can get the same games on their webpage for free.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  7. Death throes by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember when Yahoo! and AOL were the most important companies in their field.

    AOL was so big that they bought media giant Time Warner.
    Yahoo! was so big they were the homepage of over 90% of the internet-savvy population.

    The internet changed AOL so much that it became unrecognizable as that company that used to clog mailboxes with 3.5" floppies and CDs with their software. Google surpassed Yahoo!'s hierarchical solution with its ranking-based solution.

    Now both companies are in their final years, looking for a way to survive into the next decade. But realistically, without an actual software infrastructure that can be deployed across various device domains, the companies have no compelling story to sell customers.

    They will continue to see their users migrate to Google and Apple. The best they can truly hope for is to become yet another app on Android and iOS (YAAOAAI!). They will never again be the gate keepers they once were.

    1. Re:Death throes by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      The internet changed AOL so much that it became unrecognizable as that company that used to clog mailboxes with 3.5" floppies and CDs with their software.

      AOL became a useless company once they switched from sending out free reusable floppies to non-useful CD coasters. If they want to make themselves useful again in the 21st century, they need to get back to their roots and start mass mailing something we can use. Maybe free smartphones or something.

    2. Re:Death throes by icebike · · Score: 1

      And yet, Yahoo has more subscribers than Gmail. Or at least they were in 2009, the latest figures I can find.

      Microsoft webmail properties: 256.2 million users
      Yahoo: 254.6 million users
      Google: 91.6 million users
      AOL webmail properties: 48.9 million users

      Adding Aol to Yahoo would put them in the top spot.

      That being said, I agree with your basic premise that these two companies have nothing to offer, and merging won't help them unless they can monetize the combination, something neither has been able to accomplish. I've never heard of entire companies or universities switching to Yahoo.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Death throes by icebike · · Score: 1
      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Death throes by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I vote free thumb drives.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    5. Re:Death throes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factory infected, please.

    6. Re:Death throes by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And yet, Yahoo has more subscribers than Gmail. Or at least they were in 2009, the latest figures I can find.

      Yeap, I still have my hotmail and yahoo email addresses. Since when these accounts are an asset for MS and Yahoo? (hell, I'm not using them, for about 4 years now... the data related to them are taking some storage space somewhere).
      Boils down to lies, damn'd lies and statistics...

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:Death throes by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Maybe free smartphones or something.

      They should be able to get truck loads of Kin phones real cheap.

    8. Re:Death throes by owlnation · · Score: 1

      And yet, Yahoo has more subscribers than Gmail.

      What % of those are active users though? Yahoo has been around a long time in Internet terms, far longer than Google, and had email a decade before Google. For me, I'm no doubt considered a Yahoo subscriber, because I have had a couple of Yahoo accounts since they started their service. However, one I've not logged into in years, and the other I check about once a year for legacy reasons, but it has nothing but 1,000s of spam mails in it.

      One the other hand I use my gmail accounts all the time. I'd be willing to bet Gmail and Yahoo mail has about equal numbers of active subscribers, and that Gmail is on the rise while Yahoo is bleeding accounts every single day.

    9. Re:Death throes by rueger · · Score: 1

      AOL was incredibly overvalued that they bought media giant Time Warner.

      Fixed that for you.

    10. Re:Death throes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeap, I still have my hotmail and yahoo email addresses. Since when these accounts are an asset for MS and Yahoo? (hell, I'm not using them, for about 4 years now... the data related to them are taking some storage space somewhere).

      People that do use them see ads, and people buying that ad space may not know how many of the impressive number of mail boxes are actively used.

    11. Re:Death throes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks alot. You invoked Rule #34 for AOL/Yahoo Yaoi ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yaoi )

      I hope you're happy with yourself.

    12. Re:Death throes by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      AOL became a useless company once they switched from sending out free reusable floppies to non-useful CD coasters.

      Actually, they were useful... as coasters. No, really, I *did* use them as coasters(!) though neither they nor anyone else's ISP promo CDs ever actually encouraged me to sign up for anything.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    13. Re:Death throes by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They will continue to see their users migrate to Google and Apple.

      What's Apple got to do with anything?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. They should have taken the M$ money by xda · · Score: 1

    They should have taken the deal when M$ offered it. Bing is already more popular than Yahoo lol. Then again, who cares what the retarded half of the internet uses.

    1. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      The best thing that can happen is for microsoft not to get all of Yahoo's accounts.

    2. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Microsoft offered $31 a share. YHOO stock currently trades at $16.36 a share. Microsoft "substantially undervalues" Yahoo but the free market undervalues them even more.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by Genda · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the power of retards... exPresident Bush, future President Pallin, why the entire Tea Party hasn't got 5 IQ points to share betwixt'em and look at what they just did to the national legislature (lol.) That and some of the folks that ran for election this year are at least a burger shy of a Happy Meal. By definition, half the populace must fall below the median IQ, and I'm thinking on a purely numerical basis, the folks with IQs over 120 are a fast shrinking part of the population (have you seen Idiocracy?) The wise and brilliant amongst us, need to come up with an Internet Service Provider that is specifically design for those belonging to the left side of the IQ curve, and it should appeal to herd mentality and the deep and special pleasure that comes from chewing cud. It should celebrate and cater to folks whose family trees look like bamboo. It should reach deep into those mystical, magical thinking bible belters and hasten their second coming!!! We need to build the MoroNet!

    4. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by overtly_demure · · Score: 1

      the folks with IQs over 120 are a fast shrinking part of the population

      No. As the population grows, the number of people at the second standard deviation will grow proportionately. By definition.

    5. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by Genda · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention anything about standard deviations. I said IQs over 120, which represent an arbitrary measure of intelligence and as the average continues to drop, the population of those over 120 will simply move into higher and higher increments of deviation from the mean average.

    6. Re:They should have taken the M$ money by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention anything about standard deviations. I said IQs over 120, which represent an arbitrary measure of intelligence and as the average continues to drop, the population of those over 120 will simply move into higher and higher increments of deviation from the mean average.

      You're just showing off how clever you are, quick lads get the pitchforks and torches!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. What does AOL do? by Nemesisghost · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know how AOL still makes money? I thought they went out of relevance when the death of dial-up occurred.

    1. Re:What does AOL do? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      "Does anybody know how AOL still makes money?"

      They're mass production consultants, running various training classes and expert one-on-one sessions, around both the US and Europe. Specialism: mass production of CDs. Sideline: coasters.

    2. Re:What does AOL do? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Suck/track credulous fools to diverge personal info and then sell it as marketing data, just like everyone else on the net. What else?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:What does AOL do? by underqualified · · Score: 1

      they get paid $0.10 in royalties every time a comedian makes fun of them

    4. Re:What does AOL do? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      They have this weird subscription service where you pay them money to connect to them over your current ISP, and they pretend to be your ISP. Also Voodoo.

    5. Re:What does AOL do? by overtly_demure · · Score: 1

      They've stopped mailing out millions upon millions of CDs. That must have saved a few bucks.

    6. Re:What does AOL do? by KriticKill · · Score: 1

      Its very simple. AOL was once the internet home of a large number of internet retards. No, it was the internet home for 'duuuuuurrrrrrrrrrr'. These idiots keep giving AOL money, even though they don't offer a ISP service anymore. And thats how AOL isn't dead yet. Its probably technically fraud, except that none of these dipshits notice that a service they're paying a monthly subscription to doesn't actually exist anymore. Don't try to reason with the non-logic. Just go with it.

  10. Wrong company coming out on top by garylian · · Score: 1

    Yahoo! at least has some brand name left, while AOL is just a farce at this point. If they were going to do a merger, it should be the other way around.

    Interesting side note: For the first time in over a year, I saw a commercial on TV that actually said "AOL Keyword". I haven't heard that phrase in a long time, which just shows how far off the map AOL has fallen.

    1. Re:Wrong company coming out on top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That whole fad is so AOL Keyword "retarded".

  11. I've heard of Mulling... by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    http://www.mulling.com/
    But what's AOL and Yahoo?

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  12. The other wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'But when you actually do the numbers, you hit a pretty big wall of impossible.'"

    Don't forget the wall of stupid. They'd have to deal with that one, too.

  13. Yahoo Turned Down Microsoft for AOL? by timeOday · · Score: 1

    Wow Yahoo, if you merge with AOL after throwing Microsoft's bid back in their face a couple years ago, there will be some serious questions of why you declined such an eligible suitor in favor of a bum. Have you lost all your self esteem? Or are you one of those hopeless cases in love with the idea of changing and redeeming your partner? That never works!

    1. Re:Yahoo Turned Down Microsoft for AOL? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Wow Yahoo, if you merge with AOL after throwing Microsoft's bid back in their face a couple years ago, there will be some serious questions of why you declined such an eligible suitor in favor of a bum. Have you lost all your self esteem? Or are you one of those hopeless cases in love with the idea of changing and redeeming your partner? That never works!

      Or maybe Yahoo will get offered a lot more money. Though I don't know where AOL will get it from. Also, we're just seeing this from the AOL side. Yahoo hasn't indicated they have even the remotest interest in this. After all, I'd get hot and bothered, if I fantasized about buying Yahoo for the money in my wallet, but I think they would want a bit more than my $140 for the company.

  14. AOL by demonbug · · Score: 1

    Does anyone actually know what AOL does these days?

    I know what Yahoo does; they host my fantasy football league (they might have other stuff too, I'm not sure; that's the only thing I've visited their site for in the last few years). Haven't seen anything from AOL since before their last ill-fated merger.

    Their branding is pretty much worthless, I can't think of any products they sell or sites they own that I would want to visit (oh wait, wikipedia says they recently bought TechCrunch; sadly I don't read it), and I haven't seen any evidence that either of these are going to change - is it time for them to give up and sell off their assets? What do they have to offer to Yahoo (or anyone else, for that matter)?

    1. Re:AOL by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      They run a lot of news and portal sites. Recently bought tech crunch.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:AOL by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      You know, I heard that one of the sites they bought was TechCrunch.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:AOL by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Didn't they buy TechCrunch recently?

    4. Re:AOL by overtly_demure · · Score: 1

      What was that scary crunching noise!

    5. Re:AOL by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know what Yahoo does; they host my fantasy football league (they might have other stuff too, I'm not sure; that's the only thing I've visited their site for in the last few years)

      Flickr and delic.io.us both seemed to require yahoo email addresses to login the last time I looked, and those are both popular sites.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. Easy to finance by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

    This makes perfect sense, and stands to be one of the largest mergers in history, as the only currency that can accurately measure these companies' value is Flooz. The combined company should be worth nearly $250 Trillion when adjusted to 1999 dollars.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  16. Portal, email and instant messenger merger? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Do we really need AIM, ICQ, Yahoo messenger, AOL mail, Netscape mail, Compuserve mail, Yahoo mail, AOL portal, Yahoo portal, and Yahoo search all under one roof? Hasn't AOL bought up and gutted enough companies just to keep the domain emails alive and nothing else?

    How about making AOL and Yahoo messengers speak XMPP and making the server interoperate? How about working on making a decent search technology as a limited partnership to compete with Microsoft and Google? They don't need to merge, but they could be useful to one another without merging.

    1. Re:Portal, email and instant messenger merger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here:

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

      They've worked on it in the past. It's not out of the question, at least for AIM.

  17. Another garbage truck collision? by pyrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recall an IT industry commentator comparing on the hp-Compaq merger as two garbage trucks colliding. I thought that was a reasonably accurate analogy.

    But these two companies are kind of...worse. Maybe two honeywagons colliding? It'll take a while to get all that stink mopped-up!

    1. Re:Another garbage truck collision? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Like two zombies giving each other fellatio...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Another garbage truck collision? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone with a yahoo email account will fucking HATE it if AOL take control. They bought out my long-time provider, mail.com, and all the other squillion email domains that went with it, and they fucked up royally, losing screeds of emails, duplicating them n times, and the interface absolutely fucking sucks. It still sucks horribly, but you all know what it's like changing your "permanent" email address - nigh on impossible, so I'm stuck paying for sub-standard service. They've added new caps, the online interface won't run in any Opera simulation mode, and I STILL can't send mail with the acknowledge flag set.
      If we're really lucky, perhaps YAHOO engineers will prevail and kick the legions of sucky AOL technology out the door quick smart - I can only dream...

  18. I've heard this joke before... by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Because 0+0=1!

    For large values of 0?

    Seriously, if I worked at either of these companies I'd be looking to exit soon. AOL/Yahoo sounds like any remaining value will be gone long before the merger closes.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  19. The new name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MeToo!

  20. Probably for the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a sad thing to die alone, I'm glad they found each other.

  21. I think it was SNL by NetNed · · Score: 1

    SNL had it on their fake news that this merger "is like to seniors dating at a retirement home. No one really minds it cause they will both be gone soon"

  22. AOL? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I doubt they can buy a cup of coffee at this point.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  23. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Two massive chunks of suck on the internet are in danger of collapsing into a suck-singularity!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  24. Lead balloons? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

    Looks like it could be one.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  25. "Looks great conceptually" by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was wondering about that one too. Any conception I can come up with doesn't look good, so they must have much better imaginations than I do.

  26. Well then... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    I have to say, this seems a little underwhelming. Two companies that most people have all but forgotten, now forever together in their techno-obscurity.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  27. Yahoo Messenger by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Will be sad if that dies in the merger ( or just dies.. didn't realize yahoo was so bad off ) as that has become a defacto standard for a lot of people.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Yahoo Messenger by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Just like AIM used to be.

  28. This is brilliant! by cjcela · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can merge with Comcast, Time Warner, and the likes, and we all can have only one giant company that sucks, instead of many!

  29. Drowning company grabs brick by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    I leave it to the reader to decide which of the two is the drowning company and which is the brick

  30. Corporate Centipede by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    Oh good. Having just watched Human Centipede I now have two examples of crappy mergers that won't work.

  31. As I saw last time: This makes perfect sense! by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    If they do this, only one company will need to declare bankruptcy!

    (If I knew were I first read this, I'd attribute. Needless to say, this quote was from another messageboard somewhere when this first came up a couple months ago.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  32. Just one more step towards Quaker Oats Holdings! by SEE · · Score: 1

    Just wait for them to buy MySpace.

  33. The new name.... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    And I predict they with name themselves "graveyard.com"

  34. This again? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

    Back in the minicomputer days we referred to this as "dinosaurs mating"

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  35. The death of irrelevance by willith · · Score: 1

    Awesome! Now two brands that have become totally irrelevant to my online experience can curl up together and die! Good riddance! Don't let the door hit your collective ass on the way out!

  36. Ugh... by bradgoodman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Two dead bodies sewn together make a Frankenstein...

  37. Do the math people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo! + AOL = Yahoo!

    (This is because AOL = 0)

  38. AOL is big enough to buy Yahoo? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked.

    I'm using Yahoo mail now. If this goes through, it will give me that final push I need to move to Gmail or something.

  39. Let me tell you how to make a small fortune from.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buying Yahoo.

    Purchase it with a large fortune.

  40. I heard Wang and Osborne were mrging too by donberryman · · Score: 1

    sorry

  41. Lazy and Stupid by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If banks spent less time throwing out stupid shortcuts to financial success based on brand names that front for little or nothing in useful product, but more time funding development of useful products, we'd have more useful products - and the banks would have more money.

    But they don't know anything anymore except gaming the economy. Brand name mergers are the laziest way to do so. It's all sizzle and no steak, but they get their share of the money explosion from their banker peers on the sizzle.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  42. First, you get the money, then, you get the yahoo. by Count+Fenring · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, is AOL's actual plan to just keep buying other companies who haven't been relevant since the late 90s, until such time as the massive collection of 90s nostalgia somehow changes, alchemically, into something worthwhile?

  43. Nobody cares! by euroq · · Score: 1

    After about 5 hours on Slashdot, there are 8 comments. Yippee.

    --
    Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  44. Re:Danger Will Robinson! Danger! by overtly_demure · · Score: 1

    Unless one is an anti-suck suck.

  45. Dear Yahoo... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Dear Yahoo,

    Just stop breaking things and messing with the classic views. If you have to cut some staff, fine. Don't get bought. It'll just get worse and I'll have to change my e-mail. Don't show obtrusive ads. We're willing to look at ads if they're not obtrusive. Most of your current ads are blocked by my HOSTS file. Stop being a dick, and maybe I'll stop blocking your ads. See Google for a reference. Don't have anything to do with AOL. They're the kiss of death.

    Sincerely, somebody who remembers when you were great, and is really loath to change, but will if you screw it up badly enough.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  46. AOL ads on bus stops by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

    This last weekend I noticed some modern, fuzzy looking AOL ads in bus stops along El Camino Real, in Mountain View and Palo Alto. These news might partially explain them, because otherwise, I haven't got the slightest idea of what they're selling with them.

  47. How to create nothing from something by gooneybird · · Score: 1

    Company 1 CEO: "Hey we're losing money. Let's find someone to buy us. No one wants to buy us. Let's merge with someone else"

    Company 2 CEO: "Hey we're losing money. Let's find someone to buy us. No one wants to buy us. Let's merge with someone else"

    CEO 1 to CEO 2:

    Yes let's merge our two losing companies. At least then we can make sure that we secure Golden Parachutes for senior management,
    make boatloads of money for our lawyers and fuck all the shareholders, fuck all the "little" employees, all in one step.

    We've seen this show before.

  48. Compaq Alpha bumping to HP PA-Risc is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo bumping to AOL is like two obese Lesbian Nuns grinding their genitals against eachother, and then as they walk down the hall they intentionally touch every God-damned doorknob just so everyone gets a yeast affection they would never know what to do with. Really, I refer to Yahoo and AOL as Nuns because they have none in value.

  49. worked so well last time by danlip · · Score: 1

    because it worked so well last time AOL merged with another company, they want to try it again.

  50. POP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, either way, you'd still end up with advertisements in all your outgoing mail, no? And who cares about the interface if they support POP?

  51. This could be just like Skynet! by TheABomb · · Score: 1

    The original Skynet, that is. The one that mattered in 1997.

    --
    MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.