Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft America Online Businesses Google The Internet

Is AOL The Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Google? 406

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wow-this-one-is-getting-overused dept.
VK writes "When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google" we had no idea just how direct a method he had in mind. Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google." Update: 09/23 19:20 GMT by J : As our readers pointed out, the original and Reg reprint both typoed "Yahoo" for AOL. Fixed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is AOL The Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Google? More

Is AOL The Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?

Comments Filter:

  • Let's try again. (Score:5, Funny)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Thursday September 22, 2005 @07:57AM (#13620626) Journal
    I think you could have made this article cheesier by saying:

    "Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

    • "Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

      No, he should had said "Is AOL the missing link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?". That way, it bear a vague link to evolution, which would cue some besserwisser into making some crack at creationism in some way that would show his own complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular, and acting as the opening salvo in an atheism-theism war on Slashdot, raising message numbers to thousands and giving the new Slashcode

    • Brilliant! But I bet most Slashdotters don't realize that Quantum Link [qlinklives.org] was the precursor to AOL as we know it today..



    • More like "Is AOL the key to Google killing Microsoft?"

      Microsoft could not buy AOL without parting with AIM due to antitrust considerations. There's already the public record about Microsoft considering AIM a monopoly back before the AOL Time Warner merger and that would be thrown back in their face. Furthermore, if AOL Music's *partnership* with the iTunes Music Store was cancelled following a Microsoft acquisition, Steve Jobs would bring up the issue to the Feds.

      Google could use AOL to chip away at Micr

  • That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @07:57AM (#13620627) Homepage Journal
    The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has...

    People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.

    So Microsoft is going to waste billions on AOL. *tries to contain glee*

    Microsoft can certainly buy that client base. They can milk it for all it's worth for maybe even ten years.

    As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

    And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

    Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

    And as a final note on this deal-based waterfront, FTA: AOL has been losing subscription customers rapidly, which is why it recently switched its business from purely subscription based to increasingly advertising-based.

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:03AM (#13620664)
      And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

      Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

      Exactly. The rest of the computer industry needs to be less worried about why Google is buying up talent and needs to start being more concerned with how they are going to buy up their own talent and put those people to work doing something that's new and exciting.

      Microsoft needs to stop playing catch up and dominate. They need to become successful innovators for the first time since the 1980s. Then they might have a chance at getting back in the game with Google.

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hungrygrue ( 872970 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:08AM (#13620705) Homepage
      People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.
      Then it would be a marriage made in heaven. These are the same people who run Windows because they have to, and they think that it is part of their computer. In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".
      • In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

        Hahaha how true how true.

        Microsoft is going to slowly but surely eat away at Google. Expect GOOG to fall to ~200 in next few months. $300 is a little high for a company that DOESN'T PAY DIVIDENDS and instead of giving financials tells reports about their chef. Google is great, but it is still a bubble.

      • Except that probably won't kill google, because those people generally use MSN search since it's built into IE, or AOL's search. I don't figure that market knows what google is.

      • Aren't these the same people who click banner ads and generate revenue?

        On a side note - I want to advertise a piece of software that I wrote on adsense - I wish there was a way to stop it from being displayed to AOL users. They're not going to do anything for me except waste my advertising budget.

      • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Funny)

        by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:45AM (#13620965)
        So what exactly are they gaining?
        Ballmer: "MWAHHAHAHA! We'll buy AOL and make them all use Windows and IE!"
        Sidekick: "Uh, Sir? They already use Windows and IE. AOL refused to port AOL to Linux and abandoned their own browser and signed agreements with us to use IE!"
        Ballmer: "Oh."
        Sidekick: (under his breath) "Ass..."

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:14AM (#13620740)
      The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

      Sir, I have Netscape and Lotus 123 on a conference call. They said they wanted their excuse back.

      • Netscape and Lotus 123

        Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.

        • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:3, Interesting)

          by schon ( 31600 )
          Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.

          Why not?

          What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible <BASE HREF="search.msn.com"> into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

          • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:3, Informative)

            by Khyber ( 864651 )
            What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

            Well, if I wish to go to google and the browser automatically redirects me to another site, that would count as compromising my control over my computer, which, by most 'definitions' of today constitutes hacking someone else's computer. IANAL. But I don't have to wo

            • What Balmer Should NOT Know (Score:3, Interesting)

              by jd ( 1658 )
              It wouldn't have to visibly redirect you. In fact, since Google is financed through advertising, redirecting the search isn't the important part. All you have to do is redirect the advertising banner. Since AOL users will likely access through AOL servers, all it would require is for AOL to proxy all HTTP requests, find the ones for the banner ads, then redirect those to an MSN banner advert server. Actually, since Microsoft controls 98% of all desktops, it could be done even easier. Don't do any filtering
        • Despite the availability of other OS's and browsers to run Google searches with, this is a battle of percentages (that and Linux people seem to click on ads less than windows people). If MS can get enough of the stupid (AOL) market, then advertising on their ad network may look more enticing than advertising on Googles ad network. If that happens Google may suddenly find themselves struggling for cash, and no matter how "good" they are, they still have to pay bills.

          I don't think this is likely, and MS is pr

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Himring ( 646324 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:14AM (#13620741) Homepage Journal
      As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

      I like everything you have to say except for that. To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." People are, and always will be, stupid. To quote Hitler, "It is fortunate for leadership that people are so stupid" (I think I got that right). It usually takes something really huge to make the masses understand. It has to be flagrant because, otherwise, people just don't get it and never will. Google is popular because it's useful to both the elite and the simple. I can use it as a hardcore geek and my mom can too who is the worst computer user ever born. Also, never underestimate Microsoft. I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....
      • my mom [...] is the worst computer user ever born. [...] I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....

        Exactly how old are you?

        • I'm 37. Hehe, I just got your joke. I got several trolls on /. and couldn't post for a bit. /. admin told me I was in timeout for a bit. One just has to be careful about what one says about microsoft....

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ChrisF79 ( 829953 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:14AM (#13620745) Homepage
      I really have to disagree with you. You're looking at what Google is now and what AOL is now. I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be. That having been said, I think it would take a lot of time to completely change the image of an existing company, but it has been done in the past and could be done again. FYI, Black and Decker did this with their DeWalt brand. Construction guys wouldn't use Black and Decker products at all because they had this cheesy "at home" use to them and it was purely an image thing. So Black and Decker spun off the DeWalt brand and gave it more of a jobsite feel. Next thing you know, construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them, even though they were Black and Decker products with a new name and painted yellow. Admittedly, every case is different, but Microsoft could surely change the image of AOL with the right marketing and new approaches to AOL's business.
      • I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be.

        That plan would include MSN and look what that did for WebTV!

      • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Informative)

        by slimak ( 593319 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:40AM (#13620925)
        Having used both B&D and DeWalt tools I can say that the difference is more than just the casing and color - DeWalt tools are built MUCH better than the cheaper B&D couterpart. If you're a only using the tools a few hours a year its not a big deal, all day long its a huge difference. The main reason Black and Decker tools are not used by professionals is because in the long run, its less expensive to have a quality tool that lasts and performs well.

      • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hosiah ( 849792 )
        construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them

        I worked construction jobs from 1995 to 2000 and the three most popular brands were Makita, Makita, and Makita. Black and Decker, disguised or not, was never seen. Not everybody who wears a hard hat is stupid, some of us are merely slow-witted engineers. Which "Seven Steps of Highly Effective Managers" did you get this story from?

    • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rben ( 542324 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:21AM (#13620772) Homepage
      While I don't particularly fear for Google, we should all be concerned about the fact that Microsoft, which has twice been convicted of anti-competitive practices, and barely flinched at it's 'punishment', is now gleefully declaring that it's going to destroy another competitor.

      This latest goal of Balmer's shows that the company still isn't interested in competing through innovation, as they keep claiming, but through destroying any company that gets in their way.

      Somehow, this smells like monopolistic behavior to me, though somehow, I doubt we'll see our government do anything about it.
      • So, what's wrong with trying to destroy another company? Isn't that the whole point of competition? To drive your opponent out of business so that you can make more money? Slashdotters like to complain when markets aren't competitive because firms are too cooperative like the music industry, and slashdotters like to complain when the competition isn't friendly enough for you.

        Honestly, who cares if Ballmer said he wanted to destroy Google? If I were a shareholder I wouldn't want him to be CEO if he weren't

        • Re:That'll Never Work (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MikeFM ( 12491 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:57AM (#13622617) Homepage Journal
          It's not rocket science. Basic economics.

          It depends on how they destroy competition. If they do it by making better products that everyone would rather use then great. If they do it by using their power and money to strangle the smaller companies then that is bad for customers and the economy.

          It's also typically good to cooperate but it's not good to form a cartel which becomes much like a single big company. In this condition quality drops, prices climb, and it becomes difficult for new competition to form. This is essentially what the music industry has done and is why they've recently been charged with illegal price fixing.

          Shareholders and CEOs with an eye on nothing but the almighty buck are idiots. Money is not the end-all of existence. Having a healthy society, healthy government, healthy economy, etc is important if they want anywhere to spend their money. Jacking these things up to make a profit is a game that can only be played so long before the system crashes.
    • The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has...

      Mindshare doesn't pay the bills, cold, hard cash does. MS is going after AOL's business (either through purchasing all or part of it, or giving them a sweet deal for switching their search engine to MS) mainly because it'll hurt Google's bottom line. I've seen numbers that indicate that 10% of Google's revenue comes from AOL. W

    • Headline is backwards, anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smose ( 877816 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:36AM (#13620889)
      Perhaps it should read: Is AOL the Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Microsoft?

      Parent is on the right track: Google has forward momentum, a positive Karma of the internet. Google does what you want it to do (find stuff) and stays out of the way. That's a big plus when you just want to get things done. Outside of search, Google seems to be one place where fresh ideas originate in rapid succession, even if a lot of those ideas never materialize. These new ideas, good or bad, still don't get in the way of their core product, which is still fast and stays out of the way.

      Microsoft is in the opposite situtation. They've stalled and in many ways, are slipping backwards. They are widely seen as the behemoth, to the point that you don't have to even read the latest security warning to know that it's from another "Buffer Overflow" problem. Office hasn't done anything inventive in years, except for Clippy. Business users (the ones who actually pay for it) are getting the idea that new versions of Office don't do anything new but do screw up the UI enough that it's not worth the trouble to upgrade. These paying users are steadfastly not paying anymore by sticking with the 2k generation of products. New sales of MS Windows and Office are driven mostly by new computer sales, but some businesses are just moving the software and licenses over from retired systems.

      XBox has done well, but it has a different appeal and is becoming its own division, anyway.

      AOL is another old behemoth, and if AOL and Microsoft want to hold on for dear life together, so be it. It won't help either one.

    • The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has... People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet. So Microsoft is going to waste billions on AOL. *tries to contain glee* Microsoft can certainly buy that client base. They can milk it for all it's worth for maybe even ten years.

      In other words Microso

    • Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

      And one of the big reasons why it will never happen is that Microsoft is too focused upon monopoly maintenance, and not upon the end users of their software. Plain and simple, Microsoft's business model will not work unless Microsoft holds a monopoly position in the marketspace. It is too late for Microsoft to gain the requisite monopoly in the web because, as other have mentioned, Google (and other

      • Microsoft has proved an absolute zero at thinking up anything to do with computers.

        Innovation is definitely not their bag. They have bought or stolen everything in their OS, beginning with QDOS and ending with Vista (which is strange considering the number of people on their payroll.)

        Microsoft has proved unbeatable at reacting. They don't think of anything but but that. They have their antennas out feeling/looking for any financially successful product out there and seeing how they can take it away.

        Its very

  • Yahoo threw in the towel?? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fahrvergnuugen ( 700293 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:00AM (#13620642) Homepage

    TFA:
    ...Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from Yahoo, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

    I think they meant:
    Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

  • This is a classic example (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    this is a classic example of a company that is running low on the innovation batteries so it has to rely on buying out competitors to try and crush their opposition rather than working on new an innovative ways of moving the industry or product line forward.

    At the end of the day ill pay all my advertising money to anyone BUT a microsoft or timewarner.

  • Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google (Score:5, Funny)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) * on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:01AM (#13620647) Homepage
    Microsoft buys AOL
    Sends all "free AOL CD's" to Google.
    After a few months, Google is buried in CD's.

    P.S. Remember the days when AOL floppies were actually useful since you never had to buy any? I actually had a useful purpose for an AOL CD cover recently as a free viewport on an outdoor webcam box. [komar.org]

    • Still true today!

      The cases they send CDs in are sometimes clever being made of wood or metal and sometimes even having magnets in them to keep them closed. I naturally discard the paper ones unopened but the metal ones are great for sending DVDs you make to friends and family. Just make sure it's clearly marked as NOT FROM AOL. I also carry live linux dvds in case I need a quick boot. You can't be sure that a system will support booting from a USB fob, but DVD is universal and cheap.

      As a company I still hav

    • Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes. AOL should send out their CDs on CD-RWs. Then they'd have something worthwhile.
    • I, for one, used to keep their cds stacked up near my desks.
      In case of any upcoming "CD In Your Face" War with my flatmate/workmates.
      Saved my live many times *sigh*
    • Heck, I'm saving up eight different colors of AOL CDs to use as a mobile, myself. Break them in half, melt them to strings, tie the strings to dowels, and you have a hanging porch ornament that catches the sun in flashing half-arc rainbows. I tried the coaster bit, but the hole in the middle lets the moisture leak through.

  • Cool! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:02AM (#13620654) Homepage Journal
    It looks like the new CSS-driven slashdot has got a Random Slashdot Headline generator built into it!

    Look out tomorrow for "Is <$NOUN> the Key to Microsoft Killing <$RIVAL>?"
    Of course, in actuality, tomorrow's headline is likely to be "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?" again
    • I think they've got that tied into a Microsoft story-generating bot...seriously, we've had at least one MS story per day for the past few weeks.

      Note to editors: stop. Please. I don't care about every little step MS takes. There have been a few interesting stories, but most of the recent MS stories have been pointless junk. I'd remove the MS category, but there are occasionally useful stories in there...I just wish most of it weren't flamebait.
      • I don't care about every little step MS takes.

        This "story" isn't even that -- it's pure fantasy pulled straight out the Register's ass. There's no actual news behind it.

  • The key is Ballmer (Score:3, Funny)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:02AM (#13620660) Journal
    In true Mohammed Saees Al Sahaf style "Google is no more with us"..
  • >Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages (sic!) that come from Yahoo (sic!), since it now syndicates its search to Google."

    You mean, Google relies heavily on advertising revenue from AOL?
    Gezuz, people, read your own shit before posting.
    And the editors, before approving someone's shit.

    (BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)

    • Re:Lamers (Score:3, Interesting)

      by carmaggedon ( 873905 )
      (BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)

      are you kidding? 10% might not sound like much if it's in the form of a coupon for 10% off a gallon of milk. but 10% of your revenue from one customer? that's substantial, and not something a company just shrugs off if it happens to dry up. no, losing aol ca$h money wouldn't kill google in one fell swoop, but it wouldn't be trivial, either.

  • Worked so well for Time-Warner (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:04AM (#13620676) Journal
    Oh, wait...

  • You can't polish a turd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:05AM (#13620678) Homepage
    AOL has a huge customer base, but has been steadily eroded as telecoms roll out broadband to the sticks, and this is not really going to change. AOL has a reputation for sucking, and google has a reputation for being both smart and effective. Microsoft buying AOL just combines the strengths of two successful, or should I say "suckcessful" companies who have more or less reached their apex and do not have the same potential for rapid, sustainable growth as they did when they were rising stars in the industry. They're now bloated, hulking monstrosities desperately clinging to their marketshare and experiencing problems trying to remain relevant.

    If this is google's biggest threat, they have little to fear.

    • Re:You can't polish a turd (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @12:12PM (#13622751)
      AOL's future can be predicted very easily by examining two simple curves. The first is AOL's incremental revenue per customer; note how it has been trending downward for several years now. The second is AOL's marginal cost to aquire each new customer; note how it has been steadily increasing ever since AOL started. Now note have the two curves cross in 2005. That's right, AOL now spends more to aquire each new customer than it gets in revenue from each new customer (on average). Any questions?

  • not that serious (Score:4, Informative)

    by garat ( 899448 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:06AM (#13620686) Homepage
    A merging of AOL with MSN will surely not "kill" Google. Yes, as the article states, Google earns roughly 25% of its profit from advertising on AOL but another article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/15/aol_msn/ [theregister.co.uk]) also states what's most important: "AOL - which has seen net users leave the service in their millions over recent years..." Yes, AOL is constantly losing customers and will likely continue to do so. While this move might put a dent in Google's current profit, it's certainly nothing as serious as made to seem.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrP-(at work) ( 839979 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:09AM (#13620712)
    Huh? I suppose i could read the article but i'm just going to comment on the actual slashdot description..

    What does MS buying part of AOL have to do with Google having advertising pages on Yahoo?

    Is that like how like the AOL/TimeWarner merge caused my grilled cheese to burn?

    p.s. slashdot with css is freaky, but i like it!

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Knome_fan ( 898727 )
      You might be surprised, but even RTFA doesn't help this time around, as /. just copy and pasted the blurb from the register.

      But you are right, it doesn't make sense at all of course. I think one can assume that they wanted to talk about google advertising on aol, not on yahoo.

  • Aol... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stevemm81 ( 203868 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:13AM (#13620731) Homepage
    Is there some reason why large companies can't resist the temptation to acquire AOL? First Time Warner's notoriously ill-fated merger, right as broadband was emerging... Now Microsoft? I realize AOL has a large number of subscribers, still the most of any ISP, but according to Business Week [businessweek.com], they lost 900,000 subscribers just in the second quarter! As broadband becomes cheaper and cheaper, why would anyone stay with AOL? Are they even getting any new subscribers? That article also mentions AOL's goal to become a web portal, with AIM, AOL Music and MapQuest drawing users in. AIM I imagine is growing, as new preteens start using it all the time, but does this really make them any money? There's advertising on the client, I've never heard of anyone actually clicking it, or even really noticing it. MapQuest is okay, but I imagine people will gradually switch to Google Maps. I've never even heard of AOL Music, but it doesn't look like anything spectacular. And who would ever use AOL for search or free email? I think anyone under 35 wouldn't even think to look there. Perhaps that's what these companies don't understand: AOL, and really MSN as well, make most of their money off of customers' cluelessness. As customers get clued in by friends and relatives, they'll move to better services. The customers you have left will use one hour of Internet time a month and will probably eat up any profit AOL could make with their tech support calls alone.

  • AOLMicrosoft or MicrosoftAOL? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Coimhad fearg fhear ( 916390 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:13AM (#13620732)
    2005: New organisation named MicrosoftAOL
    2006: MS realised what a terrible mistake they have made and are renamed Microsoft
    2007:????
    2008: Profit!!! (at least for the investment bankers who arrange the merger and who are no doubt pushing it like crazy at the moment)
  • MSN for search, buying AOL...

    Would that be "Cutting off their air supply?"

    God I can't wait till Bush gets the arse, then you can get a DOJ with some teeth and you can chase Microsoft with pitchforks again :P

  • Google doesn't bother... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by knopf ( 894888 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:15AM (#13620746)
    During their A.M. Turing [acm.org] award lecture, Vint and Bob discussed and mentioned several times that it is virtually impossible to change parts of the Internet's underlying structures (e.g., the IP protocols), because the industry and standards are too strong. They mentioned that their luck was at the beginning to be left alone and be able to do anything they want. The standards came afterwards.

    Now guess what:

    Vinton Cerf works for Google now [slashdot.org]. Google wants to become a provider [slashdot.org] and they buy their own communication cables for an alternate internet [slashdot.org]. Ergo, Google will allow Vint to create a new Inernet protocol, which will have a number of features, which will make AOL/Microsoft cannot provide.

    Of course, AOL/Microsoft can buy the market share, but if Google's protocols and Internet is the next generation, then Google will get its market share. And there is nothing that AOL/Microsoft can do about that.

  • nothing but silly speculation

  • Man, if the answer is ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:17AM (#13620755)
    ... "buy AOL", what the %@(&#!@% was the question??

  • Predatory. Microsoft must be split. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SamSeaborn ( 724276 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:17AM (#13620757)
    Once again, evidence that Microsoft needs to be broken into a bunch of smaller companies.

    Windows Inc. would be afraid that Google threatens it's dominance of the world's computing platform, but would not be able to use MSN Inc. to battle Google. Windows Inc would be forced to make Windows better.

    Office Inc. would want their software running on all computers everywhere, it would make Office for Linux, maybe even Office for the internet -- Office Inc would have no interest in ensuring Windows was the dominant computing platform.

    Internet Explorer Inc. would embrace technologies like Java and Flash ensuring seemless compatibility with their browser. They would ship a top notch version of IE for all platforms including Mac and Linux. They would not worry about these technologies threatening Windows' dominance of the world's computing platform.

    And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google, and would not have the resources to perform its *illegal* predatory business tactics.

    Sam

    • And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google

      You misspelled "go bankrupt within a month of it not being the default homepage."
    • *sigh*

      Windows Inc. would be afraid that Google threatens it's dominance of the world's computing platform, but would not be able to use MSN Inc. to battle Google. Windows Inc would be forced to make Windows better.

      They aren't afraid of Google as a computing platform. They are afraid of Google as a search interface. See Bill's interview posted recently on /.

      Office Inc. ... Internet Explorer Inc.

      ...still wouldnt give a flying f*ck about linux because the market share isn't there.

      And, MSN Inc. woul

  • "Killing" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:19AM (#13620763) Journal
    "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?"

    "Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."
  • When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google"...

    Yeah, like they said they would kill Linux? Great, now I'll be seeing a new "Get the Facts" campaign about Microsoft's search engine. Then, there will be the different "Total Cost of Ownership" reports either way, and somebody, somewhere will claim that their code was illegally copied into Google and Microsoft will offer "search engine" indemnification.

  • ....that a turd like AOL would have become the key to the internet's fate?! I can't help but think I've been transported to a world where Monty Pythonian logic rules.

  • Why "Kill" Google? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Halo- ( 175936 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:25AM (#13620811)
    Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google? Google makes a great product that has arguably is one of the most important and useful tools on the web. On top of this, they don't charge anything to use it.

    Yes, Google makes money. Sure, money is good, and everyone want more. But for crying out loud, just because someone else has success in an area of business doesn't mean you have to squash them. Microsoft should focus on making Windows better. The reason Google is good is because they spend their effort trying to be the best search engine, not the only search engine.

    I'm not saying companies shouldn't aggressively pursue their competitors, but this just reeks of jealousy. I know that Google has a lot of new services (and likely more on the way) which compete with Microsoft (GMail vs. Hotmail, Google Search vs. MSN Search, GTalk vs. Messenger, Google Earth vs. Terraserver) but still...

    It would be different if I thought MS was going to build a product which would "kill" Google by simply being better, but I suspect the plan is more to cripple Google as much as possible, and bring everyone down to a "well, it could be better but this is good enough" level.

    • They are just pissed because google has the nerve to run their data center
      on a better platform...that and they cannot sell them any windows license's.
    • Why does MS want to kill google? It is very simple actually - one because they are there, and two everyone needs a rival to go up against.

      We all know Microsoft is starting to lack focus and vision. As it stands they are more of a copy-cat then innovator, so what they are trying to do is get their employees focused on someone as the "other side of the force" persay so that there slowly becomes a new objective out there - even if it is "Kill Google" its still better then "be the best in abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv

    • Re:Why "Kill" Google? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:24AM (#13621254)
      Microsoft wants to kill google for a number of reasions:
      1. Google is getting more positive attention than Microsoft
      2. Google is a poster-child for the successful deployment of Linux
      3. Google doesn't buy (many) Microsoft Products
      4. Microsoft can't buy Google
      5. Microsoft fears anything that has to do with computers that they can't buy
      6. Smart people who rather work for Google than Microsoft
  • AOL has been circling the drain for years now, losing customers and money. Let them suck life and money out of Microsoft, and let the AOL aura of low quality and pandering to the technological morons bleed onto microsoft
  • I realize that there are probably more subtle points to consider in this argument but saying that AOL will be used as a tool to kill google is a bit like threatening to use a clumsy old dinosaur to kill a young, quick cheetah.

    If Microsoft really wants to be an industry leader again Steve Ballmer should focus on finding ways for Microsoft to solve problems for IT consumers that other companies have not already found ways to solve rather than threatening to destroy other companies

  • I weep I weep and thrice I weep (Score:4, Funny)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @08:33AM (#13620861) Homepage

    WTF is this, what happened to the Microsoft I knew that delivered products and listened to feedback and invented little things like reusable components and even kinda sorta slew the mighty ogre of IBM? How did it get infected with the belief that manipulating the market and brand is it's core business? How did it forget how to create software and listen to users, and learn to focus on strategic acquisition and shit?

    Oh, wait, it was Ballmer. And being big. But mainly Ballmer.

    Hey, in 10 year's time, when MS is in recievership, I wonder who the Ballmer of Google will be?

  • More likely to kill AOL (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Peter_JS_Blue ( 801871 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:00AM (#13621077) Homepage
    Google will suffer a bit but I think the real casualty will be AOL. This is how I think it will play out :-
    1. MS buys AOL
    2. MS forces AOL to use its search engine, not Googles. AOL starts to suck a bit more than usual.
    3. MS starts milking AOL for all its worth. AOL starts to suck big time.
    4. Google loses a bit of revenue, but finds other, innovative ways to make it up.
    5. AOL starts to suck so much that TimeWarner has to step in to prevent the remaining 47 subscribers from leaving.
    6. In the end AOL either gets taken over completely by MS or TW or simply left to rot.

  • well...AOL is probably not for sale (Score:4, Informative)

    by buddhahat ( 410161 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:10AM (#13621140) Homepage
    According to today's NYT, Time Warner says that AOL is their future. So the MS buying AOL scenario seems less likely. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/business/media/2 2warner.html [nytimes.com]

  • The Beginning of the End for Google (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:11AM (#13621143) Journal
    You guys can think what you want, but when Microsoft marks another company for death, usually they win. Google might not go away, but MS will find a way to beat it in the marketplace. MS's stuff won't be as good, and they won't win by fair play....but they'll win. Gates and Balmer have their minds set on it and that's that. Game over. If you're a Google employee, enjoy it while you're on top, because you're going to be polishing your resume in a couple of years. Balmer especially is one very vengeful fucker.

    "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." -
    Steve Ballmer [theregister.co.uk]


    This isn't Linux, where an open source project can't be killed. Google is a busniness, subject to business pressures. I don't rule out the possibility that Microsoft may actually find a way to buy Google one day. At the very least, Google will end up like Lotus, Apple, Wordperfect; profitable, with a dedicated fanbase, but small and irrelavent compared to the MS juggernaut. Worse, they could end up like Netscape. There was a lot of brainpower in that company too. It didn't save them.
    • Show me their frags list for last five, seven years. Netscape was mererly success because well, Netscape sucked that time (be honest, Netscape 4.x series was big disaster). Lotus 1-2-3 - too historical event to be compared to this.

      See, in those times, not everyone expected Microsoft to act THAT bad. Now industry and competitiors are much more educated about whereabouts of Microsoft.

      What will happen to Google? I don't see ANY weapon Microsoft can lay against it now. Monopoly power? Get over it, it WON'T work

  • I see the same mistaken thinking going on (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:19AM (#13621189)
    Namely, that people are growing smarter and that smarter (by this faction's definition) means people will see Microsoft and AOL for being shams and suddenly see the light and adopt the (sadomasochistic) ways of Linux.

    Excuse me while I open a window and laugh.

    Car manuals that put the New York Yellow Pages to shame for size and are competitive with sets of encyclopedias have been on the shelves of libraries for years. People know less and less every year about their cars. They know less and less every year about most things because the people who know more and more tend to be doing their jobs correctly: they make it work, and they make it work transparently to the user as to the guts of the process.

    You don't need to know how a mainframe works to do your banking, you need not know how a cash register works to buy something. You need not know what an unsigned integer is to compose a letter on a word processor. Windows is easy to use. AOL is easy to use. Put them together and you have the all around ease of use killer setup for home users.

    Once again, the tail does not wag the dog. Your kids at school do not control your PC buying decisions and if they did Apple would be the only brand in the USA and there'd be NO Internet as it back then DID NOT fit into Apple's (Job's) worldview. Your average anti-corporate anti-conformity geek in the IT department does not control the corporate PC buying decisions and if they did, we'd all be using BSD command line only boxes. The general "I don't care how it works, I just want it to work" public controls the market.

    Sorry to burst your fanciful bubbles, but the Tyranny of the Masses has been the rule and not the exception since before Hannibal crossed the Alps. We can just bring it to you faster and more efficiently than the Roman populace ever could to their wrongly pontificating intellectuals.

  • What AOL is really for (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 ) <ewetoo@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:29AM (#13621326) Homepage Journal
    Is so Microsoft can own ICQ and AIM. They don't want Google winning IM, so this kills two birds with one stone: present a credible competitor for anti-trust monitors while taking over most of the IM market. I'm not sure Microsoft won't ruin the advantage they gain with this, however. Turning everything into MSN isn't everyone's idea of IM heaven. Who cares about the subscribers? It's the network infrastructure and IM audience they want for Microsoft Internet.

  • In a nutshell... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hosiah ( 849792 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @09:44AM (#13621491)
    This is like if Target wanted to "kill" Saks Fifth Avenue. So they buy Kmart.

  • Still playing catch up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @10:18AM (#13621753) Journal
    Seriously, Microsoft is primarily concerned with Google because I think deep down they fear that Google will decide to hop into their much more lucrative fields (i.e. Operating Systems and Office Suites). Microsoft is fighting a losing battle online. They got a late jump on the internet. Everything they have tried online, from webmail, to messenging to internet service started too late and could not compete with AOL (as much as I hate saying that) and now losing to broadband.

    Look at sights used for web searches and of the major ones, MSN has to be one of the least used. I am sure some people do not mind the clunky and overloaded website design, but most people I know prefer the cleaner google, or heck even Yahoo is typically cleaner in appearance then MSN.

    MSN Messenger is quite seriously a joke. Here is a service that few people really use. AOL IM stills has the majority share here as well since they were one of the original IM services. They also bought up another "original", ICQ. Yahoo, I believe is probably 2nd in the IM race and has a strong support base from its e-mail service and people who use Yahoo as a primary search tool.

    I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series. Quite simply these bring in more money, and there is no real foreseeable end to the need for Operating Systems and Office suites. But in typical fashion, they will try to buy their way into a market and be the anti-thesis to innovators.

  • Better hurry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:21AM (#13622269)
    'cus the way google is going, buying up dark fibre and installing wifi access, it's pretty obvious that they want to provide services direct to users and bypass the ISPs entirely.

    MS may end up buying AOL just at the time when it becomes irrelevant.

  • It Could Be Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fupeg ( 653970 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @02:30PM (#13623937)
    Personally I don't care if Microsoft or Googles dies/wins/{insert melodramatic verb here}. But this could be very interesting. Google has been able to take an unusual business tactic of promoting lots of disparate innovations and then trying to find ways to monetize them. To be honest, it hasn't really worked all that well -- yet. Their lack of monetary success on these fronts has been easily hidden by their massive success in their "old" business: search related advertising. That old business brings in billions that fund all the new businesses, that don't bring in much money (yet.) So what happens if Google has a down quarter where their revenues slipped significantly. Their revenues have generally gone up every quarter since their IPO, so that would be a huge change. It would be interesting to see if they would try to cut costs if their revenues were slipping. They might mean less Google Labs projects. Or maybe they would stick with their same business model, even though that might mean a huge drop in their stock price. Either way, it would be interesting to see how they "grow up" in the face of real adversity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close