Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

Google Wants a Piece of AOL? 223

Posted by CmdrTaco from the waste-of-money dept.
minuszero writes "BBC News is reporting that "Google is said to be in talks with media group Time Warner about a stake in its internet service provider, AOL." Talks are reprted to be in the early stages still, but one possibility is a "three-way joint venture to house AOL's content offering, with Time Warner retaining a controlling interest." Current estimates for this sort of move are around $5bn. The article also claims that Microsoft has also shown interest in tieing up MSN and AOL services." Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Wants a Piece of AOL? More

Google Wants a Piece of AOL?

Comments Filter:

  • Take bets now M$ vs. G.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlltheCoolNamesGone ( 838035 ) * on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:34AM (#13781072)
    There can be only one!

    Seriously in the long run it doesn't matter who (if any of the two) wins, the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer.

    More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....

    • Re:Take bets now M$ vs. G.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bedroll ( 806612 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:54AM (#13781254) Journal
      More on topic I don't think it matters who buys AOL I don't think either company is going to do anything else than cross plug there own products....

      Well, perhaps Google would then be able to convince Time Warner that federating IM is worthwhile. If that's the only thing that would happen from this then I'd be happy about it. Especially with MS and Yahoo! supposedly teaming up.

    • This has nothing to do with anything more than Google trying to "divide and conquer" a potential M$+AOL future.

      M$ strategy: Embrace and extend all NON-Google online assets to make it a two-party game.

      Google strategy: Marginalize M$ as deeply and often as inhumanly possible.

      MS and Google can NEVER share space. Even if Google buys a tiny percentage of AOL, it's enough to poison the well so that M$ cannot usurp AOL into its own.

      Aside: It's become clear that AOL is comfortable in its role as bastard-manipulate
    • Usually better products come about due to competition for market, not competition to consolidate the players.

      10 Companies competing to get a larger share of 300 million users will result in better products (in theory anyways).

      2 Companies competiting to reduce the field of companies from 5 to 4 will result in a smaller field of companies and will have a negative result on product quality and innovation (in theory again).
    • I agree that it really does not matter what happens to AOL. They have done nothing but lose market share over the last few years. In fact, I'm seeing many parallels between AOL and Excite@Home. Within a few years, I think AOL will meet the same fate.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:09AM (#13781369)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • And still other times competition might be good for the consumer on the face of it but the companies drive themselves into the ground in the process (the airline industry) and the customers/taxpayers get to pick up the pieces.

        So? Even in that instance competition was good for the consumer. Those who bought cheap airline tickets got their tickets and used them. You can't blame competition for short-sighted management running the company at a loss. Nor can you blame it for vote-buying, favor-currying poli

      • Other times the companies involved just rig the market.


        If the market is being rigged, a true competitive state does not exist, and the government has to step in (e.g. with anti-trust laws) and restore competition. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer. However, the free market does not always encourage competition.

    • Maybe Google is only in talks to drive M$ crazy and make them pay too much. We know that Balmer personally hates Google. That might be expected to make M$ behave irrationally with regard to their negotiations with TW.
      • "Maybe Google is only in talks to drive M$ crazy and make them pay too much. We know that Balmer personally hates Google. That might be expected to make M$ behave irrationally with regard to their negotiations with TW."

        I don't believe that. How does it benefit Google for Microsoft to drop $5 billion on a partnership with TimeWarner that sees them acquiring AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, and kicks Google off the AOL Search Page? $5 billion is chump change for Microsoft. It does not financially impact them...
    • "Seriously in the long run it doesn't matter who (if any of the two) wins, the fact that there is competition now will hopefully mean better products, innovation and hopefully an overall better deal for the consumer."

      I seriously hope Google does buy a large chunk of AOL from Time Warner. Historically, Warner Communications favored 50% co-ownership deals and even tried to sell 50% of Atari Inc. back around 1980 to IBM. Investing in AOL would not only be wise, but a defensive move against further incursion

  • Do No Evil (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 ) <`gro.sseneht' `ta' `hsalsomib'> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:34AM (#13781076) Homepage Journal
    How will google reconcile any partnership with Time Warner with their policy of doing no evil?

    • Re:Do No Evil (Score:5, Funny)

      by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:37AM (#13781095) Homepage
      They can get AOLTW to be evil for them, thus separating them from the actual evil itself while having the evil done regardless? :D

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:5, Funny)

        by tez_h ( 263659 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:47AM (#13781186) Homepage Journal
        Uh, are you claiming that they're outsourcing their evil?

        That's a work of (non-evil) genius!!!

        Mwahahaha!! Ooops.

        -Tez

      • They can get AOLTW to be evil for them, thus separating them from the actual evil itself while having the evil done regardless? :D

        Hey, if it's good enough for the CIA... If Google has evil it needs doing, it can extraordinarily render it off to AOL to be done. Clean hands all round and nobody gets blamed.

      • Outsourcing their evil (Score:4, Funny)

        by doublem ( 118724 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:51AM (#13781711) Homepage Journal
        Brilliant!

        They've learned that you can't survive, let alone thrive in American business for long without being evil, so they're looking to partner with AOL-Time-Warner, known masters at being evil, in order to have them do the dirty work.

        Absolute brilliance. Someone must have gotten a nice bonus for that idea.

        Oh! I just realized the best part. They're outsourcing their evil to AMERICAN workers, not an overseas seat shop, so even while outsourcing their evil, they themselves aren't being evil.

    • Re:Do No Evil (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CSHARP123 ( 904951 )
      How will google reconcile any partnership with Time Warner with their policy of doing no evil?
      Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders. There is a difference between being ethical and being legal. When they say DO NO EVIL it may mean do legal things. They have never said we follow some ethics as dicatated by some religion or some community.
      • Could it not be both? The idea of doing good at the cost of some immediate profit might increase the long-term bottom line.

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Narcissus ( 310552 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:12AM (#13781387) Homepage
        Are they required "by law" to maximise profit, or only to do "as desired by the shareholders"?

        I mean take a hypothetical: a majority of the shareholders decide to donate all income to an orphanage. Now are you saying that by law they can't do this, as this would not maximise profits?

        Surely so long as they are doing what the majority of shareholders want, then there is no requirement to make a profit, right?

        • Re:Do No Evil (Score:3, Informative)

          by jratcliffe ( 208809 )
          Nope. There are specific rules about this, a company can't just act in the interests of the majority of shareholders, it needs to act in the interests of all the shareholders, which is usually determined to be profit maximization. If this weren't the case, somebody could buy up 51% of the company, and then decide that the new company purpose was to sell him all the company's assets for $0.01, thereby depriving the 49% owners of all the value of the company.

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rude Turnip ( 49495 )
        "Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders."

        By law, they have to follow the terms of their corporate charter.

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders.

        No, by law they have to obey their charter. They could have easily written some legalese that amounts to "do no evil" into their charter. Anyone investing into the company expecting them to "do evil for money" would be disappointed, but would have no legal recourse since they would be the ones who failed due diligence in their investment research.

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:2, Informative)

        by Pixelmixer ( 907566 )
        I'm pretty sure, by saying Do No Evil, they realy do base it on ethics. It is true their ethics arent governed by religion or some community, but the base it on convenience and indirect, less annoying, forms of advertising, which im sure you know. But my point is that all google has to do to reconcile the Time Warner partnership is change how AOL works and take out all the crappy advertisements that they bombard their members with daily. That would fit their definition of Do No Evil. (I think this is pretty

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:48AM (#13782148) Journal
        Google is a publicly traded company. They by law has to maximize the profits for their shareholders. There is a difference between being ethical and being legal.

        As others have already noted, Google is legally required to obey their corporate charter. In some cases this will mean maximizing profits, but that isn't always true.

        Also, sound and responsible management may involve foregoing short-term profit for long-term gains. Moving all the staff into smaller cubes and replacing them with temp contract workers will result in a short-term bump in net earnings, but it will cost a software company in the long-term when they can't attract or retain experienced and competent programmers.

        Finally, one of Google's most valuable assets is intangible; Google's reputation for being both innovative and not evil has made them the darling of programmers, engineers, and even Wall Street. Tarnishing their reputation for being 'not evil' would be hurting the brand name and identity that they've worked so hard to build. The guys with the money invest in Google because Google can attract the best engineers, programmers, designers, and thinkers on the strength of Google's reputation. Damaging that reputation would be a grossly unsound move for management.

        • MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)

          by JavaRob ( 28971 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @12:04PM (#13782695) Homepage Journal
          Excellent point. Even if they *were* legally required to "maximize profits", that's a very vague requirement, and it's NOT AT ALL self-evident that being evil, fighting dirty and pissing off your customers is the best way to maximize profits.

          Would Google have the brain-power they have now if not for the whole "do no evil" policy? Not likely. These are people who can choose to work anywhere, or choose to find a place in academia if they find the corporate world too repugnant. Google attracted them, it didn't "buy" them. It doesn't keep them on through intimidation and bribery, but through interesting projects and creative flexibility.
    • I thought Time Warner had done little but complain about the lemon they bought when they bought AOL out.

      • Re:Do No Evil (Score:2, Informative)

        by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 )
        Actually, it was the other way around. AOL bought Time Warner, but the TW management took over AOL. IIRC, AOL didn't have much debt until the merger, and part of that deal wat that AOL would assume TW's debt. Once the merger was complete, all of the TW managemnet started bitching about AOL's [newly assumed] debt, and how AOL was the unwanted stepchild.

        Since TW ownes CNN and several other media outlets, it was forgotten that the debt transfer was part of the deal.

        This is not to say that the merger was, in an

        • Re:Do No Evil (Score:2, Interesting)

          by nelsonal ( 549144 )
          It would have been a fine deal, if TW had given AOL shareholders about 1/8 of the company instead of half, and if AOL had been immediatly lumped in with the cable business and the two groups told to settle differences now and get working on AOL over cable broadband. Since hindsight is 20/20 niether happened but most of the carping is over the price paid. Good for AOL shareholders (who don't realize how little they would have if Case hadn't sold the company) but bad for TWX shareholders. Unfortunatly the

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Maybe they're doing it for the purpose of switching AIM to Jabber, so that they can counter the threat of the consolidated MSN + Yahoo proprietary protocol? It would explain why they're picking now to do it, and promoting open protocols is about the most non-evil thing an IT company can do...

  • Google's interest...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:36AM (#13781087)
    Surely their interest would be in Microsoft not acquiring AOL and slashing Google's revenue stream by replacing the "AOL" (read Google) search service with their own.
    • I think they just want to see more flying chairs.
    • "Surely their interest would be in Microsoft not acquiring AOL and slashing Google's revenue stream by replacing the "AOL" (read Google) search service with their own."

      *Retaining the Google relationship with AOL Search.

      *Gaining control of AOL Instant Messenger & ICQ to strengthen GoogleTalk.

      *Using the AOL brand to sell wifi service to Joe Sixpack.

      *Gaining control of WinAMP to continue development for Google's own purposes or to sacrifice it to Apple with an iTunes partnership deal.

      *Switching the AOL bro

  • Great..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:36AM (#13781089)
    .....As if I needeed more CD's in my mailbox. At least you could reformat the floppies.
  • Great, Now I'll get twice as many garbage CD's in my mailbox each week. No, I don't want dial-up AOL/Google Free for 4 weeks... Ever.
    • Great, Now I'll get twice as many garbage CD's in my mailbox each week. No, I don't want dial-up AOL/Google Free for 4 weeks... Ever. Yes, but they will be targeted specifically to you using Google's new DiskSense(tm)Technology!

  • The Death of Google? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gilatrout ( 694977 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:41AM (#13781136)
    AOL is like the kiss of death. Time Warner found this out the hard way. About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this.

    The death of Google will not come entirely because of somehting like AOL, but rather from a lack of direction. To me it seems as if Google is going 10,000 directions at once and eventually this will cause it to fracture. They got a bucket of cash from the IPO and it seems like they can't find a way to get rid of it fast enough.

    Soon enough that bucket will be empty and then Google is going to have a huge basket of toys that they won't know what to do with because the only thing they have in common with one another is that they are owned by Google.

    • Re:The Death of Google? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:54AM (#13781252)
      AOL is actually the kid everyone wants to be friends with again. They've revamped alot of their business and are expected to have a strong come back. I know it sounds impossible, but thats what Wall Street is saying, and Wall Street doesn't just put its money anywhere.
      Regards,
      Steve

      • Re:The Death of Google? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:13AM (#13781900)
        wall street also likes to run up stocks because large wall street partners are deeply invested in companies. Companies like Legg Mason manipulate the market, usually because they have the most to gain. For example, a Legg Mason guy on Bloomberg television said recently, when asked about how he could justify Google's stock price given earnings, he said something to the effect of, "it's their culture. they have guys analyzing the food they eat." The journalist responds, "well, how does this translate into revenue?" and this guy responds, "imagine if that precision is applied to products." What? What does that mean?

        Then a google search shows that Legg Mason owns like 15% of google, actually one of the largest pieces of the pie. They've been in since day one.

        The point of which is to say, Wall Street will put its money in places where market psychology will assure quick returns. Satellite radio is an example. Howard Stern even admitted that his signing was the equivalent of a stock run-up, as convergence would quickly kill satellite radio. The audience fed into it by buying a couple of subscriptions; and the car deal was the cincher... a few people are going to get very rich before satellite radio fails.

        Google benefits from good market psychology. Apple benefits from good market psychology.

        AOL used to have this psychology, but they slept on innovation and got left behind. So the street walked away, and subscribers started bailing.

        Then something happened; subscriber base loss stabilized a bit. AIM is the instant messenger analog to google; a free service that has the lion's share of the marketplace.

        It's common for kids in general to be more technically savvy than their parents, but the parents tend to make internet decisions in the household. Internet=AOL is easy for the technophobe parent to understand, and because it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it. This hooks the KIDS in the household onto AIM. I've seen this happen - I help my nephew with his math homework on AIM all the time because his mom equates the internet with AOL, despite the fact that they have comcast broadband at home. There is also the perception that AOL is the easiest way to get your kids online. So the subscriber number for AOL can be misleading, because they have like five or seven screennames per subscriber account. And AOL parental controls gives you a very accurate understanding of your audience demographic, a significant percentage of whom are pre-brainwashed emerging impulse consumers. The American economy is artificially propped up by impulse and trend consuming, so these kids mean a lot to the economy. Hollywood alone lives on summer blockbusters, which depends almost completely on the 13-21 year old crowd. That's why you rarely see an R rated film before the fall.

        So ironically, investing in AOL is one of those paradoxically sound investments. A dying company with a largely ignorant critical mass user base waiting to be told what to do. It's not a quarterly return investment, so it's not sound for the guy up the block or the cash-out investor. If you're a company who wants eyeballs and an association with what Americans perceive the internet to be, then it's a good move that should yield cash down the line as you get those eyeballs where you want them. Fiscally, they have diversified revenue stream that is relatively consistent.

        The other side is that you have to pick this up even if you don't want to, because it leverages considerable revenue power to whomever does.

        I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't barked down this tree before. It would have been a cheaper purchase a couple of years ago.

      • Re:The Death of Google? (Score:4, Funny)

        by apparently ( 756613 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:17AM (#13781931)
        and Wall Street doesn't just put its money anywhere

        Welcome, Time Traveler! You appear to have drifted from the dark ages of 1999, to the refined age of TWO-THOUSAND-AND-FIVE! Let me show you around, but watch your step at the door, there's some form of unknown bubble residue decaying in the streets beyond.
    • To me it seems as if Google is going 10,000 directions at once

      This is a process known as research. You put a little investment into a lot of possible approaches, and then turn those that look promising into real products (development - the other half of R&D).

      This concept may be unfamiliar to you - it's not very popular with large companies these days.

      • The funds available for research, even for Google, are not limitless. Google is morally obligated to be responsible with their shareholder's equity and to have some transparent strategic objective to work towards. It looks to me like they just want to cast about until Sergey and the other founder find something that isn't boring.

        I guess that you are OK with that. You should invest in Google stock. By your logic, Google should branch into everything from the hydrogen economy to animal husbandry.
    • They got a bucket of cash from the IPO and it seems like they can't find a way to get rid of it fast enough. Soon enough that bucket will be empty.

      Once the bucket runs dry Google will just materialize some more shares out of thin air and raise another $4.11 billion [reuters.com].

    • About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this.
      It could be enough of a reason if Google doesn't want the Jabber protocol to be marginalized by the MSN+Yahoo protocol. Why else would Google pick now to buy AOL, if not in response to this new threat?
    • "AOL is like the kiss of death. Time Warner found this out the hard way. About the only thing going for it is it's IM tool and that is not enough of a reason to buy this."

      More like Time Warner was the kiss of death for AOL. TimeWarner still has not paid off on the synergy promised by the original Time and Warner Communications *merger* of 1989...followed by acquiring Turner Broadcasting in the mid 90s.

      AOL *merged* with Time Warner to get access to Time Warner Cable, but the plan failed. AOL should have be
    • It seems to me that "insightful" commentary about any company on Slashdot is about as useful as asking my dog for directions when I'm driving. Please, leave business talk to people who know what they are talking about. OK?

  • Advanced CD distribution system? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptDeuce ( 84529 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:42AM (#13781143) Journal
    Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.

    What's so advanced about a room of 10,000 monkeys trained to stuff CDs into shipping packages? :-j

  • CD/RW (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarcoPon ( 689115 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:42AM (#13781147) Homepage
    Clearly Google is planning to use AOL CD delivery system to create the most widespread, giant, distribuited backup system! Maybe you'll even get a scrambled portion of your Gmail e-mails in the mailbox!

  • Edging into AIM? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DoddyUK ( 884783 ) <doddyuk@gmaiGAUSSl.com minus math_god> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:42AM (#13781148) Homepage
    Perhaps they're realising that Google Talk didn't do all that well, so they're staking a claim in AIM? Can't see any reason other than that, AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful.
    • I don't really see how a new IM program could succeed. If everyone you know uses AIM (for example) not only would you have to change to the new system, all your friends and family would have to change too. That's not likely to happen for most users.

      Maybe Google realizes this and simply wants to buy a successful IM system outright.
    • AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful.

      AOL has a lot of subscribers, this customer base s by far the most interestign asset they have, esp. if you are planning on moving into the ISP business (which Google seems to be showing some interest in)
    • "Perhaps they're realising that Google Talk didn't do all that well, so they're staking a claim in AIM? Can't see any reason other than that, AIM is the only thing AOL has to offer which is even remotely useful."

      AIM, ICQ, AOL Search, AOL Music, Moviefone, MapQuest, DigitalCities, WinAMP, the AOL Browser (switching it), the recently acquired WebLogs Inc., etc. etc. etc.

  • Fixing the spelling...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:44AM (#13781161) Homepage
    Maybe they just want to remedy their original mistake, and now get back to being GoogOL! *badum TISH!*

  • AOL/GOOGLE (Score:2, Informative)

    by jsmucker ( 812692 )
    If somebody would read the Article they would know that it's the content Google wants Not the dial up side of it. But that would be to much work to really read it.

  • AOL - The most over valued company in history... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:47AM (#13781184) Homepage

    When the AOL/TW merger happened I remember nearly borking when I saw how much it valued each AOL customer at. Even with $5bn we are talking of THOUSANDS of dollars per AOL subscriber which to my simple mind sounds like a ridiculous amount of money. Clearly TW is desperate to get something out of the waste of space it was saddled with, but I'm surprised that anyone would offer this much for it.

    Of course part of the reality here is that MS want AOL to replace Google's search engine with their own, and Google want AOL to keep using it.

    Could Google really get that much shareholder value out of targetting the AOL customer base? Or is this a great example of how the stupid valuations of 2000 are back .... probably with another "bang" down the road.
  • The article states that the rumour (Google/Comcast buying into AOL) was false, end of story. Then it goes on to talk crap about what-ifs. I get the feeling that BBC is running this story just to get better search engine rankings at Google, MSN and AOL.

  • google scared. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 )
    This move is because MS was showing interest in AOL and it looked like a deal was going to happen. If it did, it could really hurt google in click revenue, and media content down the road. I predict MS will win at the end of the day, because AOL can profit more from using MS technology and promotional content. For instance, if AOL got their software included on every copy of Vista like they did with Windows 98. They already use IE, and aol's/time warner getting integrated into Windows Media player would

  • What's the worst company we can get involved with? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kaihaku ( 663794 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:49AM (#13781209) Homepage
    This is like a bad twist from George Lucas' senile mind.

    Today, the Rebel Alliance joined forces with Jabba the Hutt in their battle against the Empire.

    In other news, the Empire has released yet another patch for their new secret space fortress in hopes of getting the station to run properly.

    I seriously hope that nothing comes of this. I think of Google as a completely net based company, getting involved in physical medium is something that I would rather they did not do.

    I guess this is all part of Google's campaign to take on projects that are failing miserably and turn them around. Although, NASA is a heck of allot easier to fix that AOL.
  • AOL users get Google's search power built into the AOL client while Google gets to target AOL users with their advertising. It's a win win situation for both companies. With the money they make from a partnership like this, both companies will go through the roof. Am I the only one who Google is making nervous?

  • Linux/Open source CDs ? (Score:2, Informative)

    by tines ( 806906 )
    Maybe they just want to give a helping hand with Linux (ala Ubuntu) distribution. Some firefox/open office CDs would be nice for major releases.

  • I would like to see Google get AOL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:53AM (#13781243)
    Not because I hate Microsoft, or what. No. Actually I see Google has VERY serious plans to be big big ISP in US - at least - so it would suit them perfectly. Yeah, they would have to do litle rebranding - AOL branding is seriously damaged with all management lack of common sense last five years.

    Microsoft wanted only AOL because they want Google dead. So, it would prove Microsoft to stop playing these silly games with their monopoly power. And it would be a middle finger for them..

    But let's see. If it is all business, everything will be fine. If it will be some "I want you to be dead" overtones like Bill and Balmer have, then, well it wont end very good.

    How? I don't know.

  • Duck if you're in Redmond... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @08:57AM (#13781269) Homepage
    ...there's going to be a whole lot more thrown chairs.
  • As broadband picks up, AOL has become more focused, it seems, on sevices (AIM) and their web portal. That's some of the same territory Google owns and wants. If google could connect their new IM with AOL's network, it'd sure help its success (thought I'm not sure where the revenue in that is), and pushing google's ads to all the AOL customers must be attractive.

    Not that I have any inside info or business knowledge, but yeah, I can see reasons why Google would be interested.

  • This could get interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft/Yahoo versus Google/AOL.

    /readies popcorn

  • Clearly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HerculesMO ( 693085 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:04AM (#13781334)
    Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.

    Uhm... Why would Google want to associate itself with a company whose history has shown it can't keep up with the times, for a mailing scheme? If there is a genuine interest in Google to buy stock in AOL it has to be for more than that, because any idiot with half a brain can put together a decent distribution system. Netflix did it in a year -- imagine what Google could do?
  • Hmmm so many steps are taken to prevent moderators from pushing THEIR agenda, but Rob gets to use the 'from the' section carte blanche. Interesting. Well Rob, AOL actually has some good assets, and almost every financial analyst with any notariety has gone on record saying the upcoming web portal is going to be a HUGE moneymaker for Time Warner. And from time to time AOL does get things right (Live8, spam campaign, SPF, to name a few). Good thing you're not running Google since your mind is already made up

  • Google + AOL? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MobileMrX ( 855797 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:12AM (#13781383)
    Google + AOL?
    Finally! An indisputable reason to call the company Gay-O-L.

  • What will happen? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:19AM (#13781440)
    Will Google purify AOL, or will AOL corrupt Google?

  • Hi slashdot editors (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can you read a bit the article ?

    From the header of the fucking article : "Time Warner's chief executive has denied reports that it may be about to sell a stake in its America Online (AOL) unit to Google and Comcast."

    Fuck it really, slashdot is a total waste of time now.
    Slashdot used to have some informations, now it's just garbage, slashdot is as worse as FOXNEWS ( hello the Japanese mafia using a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to launch terrific storms against the U.S. mainland => http://www.f [foxnews.com]
    • "From the header of the fucking article : "Time Warner's chief executive has denied reports that it may be about to sell a stake in its America Online (AOL) unit to Google and Comcast."

      Yeah, and Steve Jobs at Apple said they wouldn't market a flash-based iPod yet they later brought out the Shuffle and the Nano. Jobs also spoke out against an iPod Video model, but now all the new iPods do video. Shall I mention the two-button mouse?

      There's a lesson to be learned in that.

  • Bad title (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:21AM (#13781460) Journal
    Google Wants a Piece of AOL?

    Heh, the obvious title to me was rather:

    Google Wants a Piece of Shit?

  • Cd Tracking (Score:2, Funny)

    by fbsderr0r ( 601444 )
    every time i move AOL CD's seems to track my new
    address faster than my bills. their evil.
  • Clearly Google needs to create a smell search engine. Otherwise I don't see how Google was convinced that TimeWarner/AOL's shit don't stink.
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer (in Comcast's hometown) originated the story (registration-free link thru sister paper).

  • Plaster the world with discs! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:29AM (#13781520) Homepage Journal
    Who knows, this could end up being a big win...
    • Google remains the preferred search engine for AOL
    • OpenOffice.org begins to appear on CD's being mailed out to everyone
    • Google could use AOL's POP's to provide a Google-branded ISP
    The synergy potential is actually quite significant -- very much moreso than an AOL+Microsoft combination, which was clearly intended to do nothing more than muscle Google out of the search market.

  • Actual revenue stream? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darth_brooks ( 180756 ) <clipper377@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday October 13, 2005 @09:35AM (#13781563) Homepage
    I'm sure the fanboys will rush in with the "flamebait" mods, but....

    Could google simply be looking at purchasing a consistent revenue stream? I mean, how does google make money? Where is its steady source of revenue? There's adwords and......umm....the five people that actually bought google earth pro? They're not really selling much of anything. It's nice that they're being altruistic, but if I'm an investor, I'd like to see them actually make some money

    AOL, if purchased cheap enough, is a cash cow. Scamming a customer base out 22 bucks a month for dial-up and "content" has to be able to earn you a profit once you go all hack 'n slash on the layers of fat that have built up around the company. There's some decent infrastructure there, and a recognizable brand name. It ain't worth 5 billion dollars, but it's worth something.

    Any deal for AOL probably includes whatever's left of Netscape, maybe there's something there worth having, too.
    • Neither flame bait nor insightful. G already has a growing and steady source of advertising revenue from it's leading search engine. AOL has eyeballs - lots of them to be channeled into users of other G services. Further, don't forget about AOL's Instant Messenger which G doesn't want to see getting into M$'s hands.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 13, 2005 @10:02AM (#13781797)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • As a CS student in the early 90's I found a link to request an AOL 3.5 Disk (This was in the pre-CD days) I then proptly wrote a shell script which requested an AoL disk for each of the 1500 people in my dorm. I set out a box which said "Don't want your AoL disk, Dump it here" and a week later I had over 500 blank disks. I was set for whatever I needed.
  • If I were Google, I'd be interested in AOL for the customer base and...their millions of IM users. Talk about scaling the number of Google Talk users! Next up, including automated context-sensitive ads on the side of the chat window (like with Gmail) rather than the (annoying) picture or video ads AOL puts up now.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close