Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses America Online The Internet

Time-Warner Planning AOL Split 69

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time-Warner Planning AOL Split

Comments Filter:
  • funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @02:16PM (#22323318) Homepage
    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.
  • by prevajanje ( 1228134 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @02:27PM (#22323460)
    shrinking pie split in two, so that's even harder to sell, smart,...
  • Split (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Teflon_Jeff ( 1221290 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @02:43PM (#22323632)
    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"
  • Re:funny (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dionysus ( 12737 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @03:07PM (#22324002) Homepage

    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 [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org]), 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.
  • Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @03:32PM (#22324318)
    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.

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?

Working...