Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft and Time Warner Team Up Against Google

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the still-haven't-found-what-i'm-looking-for dept.

Microsoft 137

PlayfullyClever wrote to mention a Reuters report on an online advertising deal between Microsoft and Time Warner. The two companies are teaming up to take on Google's advertising network. From the article: "The [WSJ] said the two companies were now focusing on a deal that would combine their advertising-related assets, with little or no money changing hands. It said they expected to reach an agreement before the end of the year, but that it was still possible that Time Warner's America Online unit could strike a deal with competitor Google instead."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google Must Be Quaking In Their Boots (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197613)


TW/AOL:Losses in the billions.

Microsoft Entertainment/Internet Operations: Losses in the billions

Google have every right to be worried. With the losses these two titans amass, they could well suck up a lot of advertising revenue on the way to losing record billions.

hello, this is microsoft support, press 1 to refinance your mortgage, 2 for MSN help, 3 for pills that enhance your bedtime experience, 4 for office help, 5 to see if you are an instant winner of the tw/msn lottery, 6 for xbox help, 7 to register a microsoft product over the phone or stay on the line to hear nagamo mazoomba, former vice president of internal standards group, request your help in getting $43,675,00 out of a bank account in the caymans.

Re:Google Must Be Quaking In Their Boots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197646)

Two titans? Isn't Time Warner being split up?

Bull Schitt (2, Informative)

melted (227442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197678)

>> Internet Operations: Losses in the billions

Hundred million of pure, net profit last year.

mod parent down - astrodomer (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197788)

Your "facts" have no place in this anti-micro$oft discu$$ion.

Re:Bull Schitt (3, Insightful)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197833)

The GP wrote:
Microsoft Entertainment/Internet Operations:
Why did you chop off the first part? He/She was referring to the entertainment/internet ops. Last I heard, the MSN ISP was not pulling in the customers. Last I heard, XBox has been in the red since day one. Last I heard, XBox 360 has tons of bugs. Maybe MSN search is making some profit, but that doesn't negate what the GP stated. If you look at these two business units, they will most likely be in the red. Most of MS's business units are in the red except for OS and Office. Google on the other hand, is in the black.

Me personally, I will boycott any companies that tried to gang up on Google just because they cannot compete one-on-one with Google. If a company comes along and can beat Google, I would gladly try them out. However, I would not try out companies that try to compete on business terms instead of technical/service terms. If MS/AOL wants to beat Google, let them offer a better product/service. As of now, Google offers the best features/speed for me. I guess MS can't take their own medicine.

Re:Bull Schitt (2, Informative)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197856)

Last I heard, XBox 360 has tons of bugs.

Not to stray off-topic or belittle your point, but the Xbox 360 does not have tons of bugs. Most of the so-called bug "reports" are just rehashing what someone else said. Also, almost all of the issues I've heard are really the result of user error (e.g. not reading the manual). I don't know of any one verifiable bug with the Xbox 360. That doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that the statement "has tons of bugs" is wrong.

Re:Bull Schitt (0, Flamebait)

kjots (64798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198023)

Not to stray off-topic or belittle your point, but the Xbox 360 does not have tons of bugs.

Please! It's from Microsoft; therefore, it's full of bugs.

Re:Google Must Be Quaking In Their Boots (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197874)

> TW/AOL:Losses in the billions.
> Microsoft Entertainment/Internet Operations: Losses in the billions

In other news, Anne Alyst (B.Com, MBA, CFA) of Foobar Fiduciary, has upgraded Steelcase [yahoo.com] , Restoration Hardware [yahoo.com] , Furniture Brands [yahoo.com] , and La-Z-Boy [yahoo.com] to "Screaming Buy" based on the possibilities for expansion into new growth markets.

Ms. Ann Thrope, senior partner at Lotta Trimmings Hedge Fund, agrees that the fine folks at Foobar Fiduciary may be onto something. Not only does Ms. Thrope say that the market for throwable copulating chairs is a long way from saturation, but she's also Service Corp. International [yahoo.com] , a provider of funeral and cemetery services in North America: "With all the fucking chairs being thrown around in boardrooms today, someone's going to end up getting fucking buried, and that can only be bullish for SCI."

Re:Google Must Be Quaking In Their Boots (1)

akgoatley (787022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198269)

A while ago, I was reading through the list of web services Microsoft are planning to create, thinking that they're all just places Google are at already, then I realised that while there's Gmail, there's no Gmessenger or similar as far as I'm aware.

How long do you reckon before Google launches such a thing, potentially pushing MSN Messenger out the market? :-)

Ashton

Re:Google Must Be Quaking In Their Boots (1)

PAjamian (679137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198709)

You mean like this [google.com] ?

MSN Quick Fix (5, Insightful)

biocute (936687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197621)

So the deal is that AOL would drop Google as its main Internet search provider and switch to Microsoft's MSN service, because under their current agreement, Google derived about 11 percent of its first-half revenue from AOL.

But what happens if AOL users still go to Google despite the default search site is MSN?

MS still commands about 80% of the browser market, and its browser defaults searches to MSN, if this cannot help it, I doubt a deal with AOL could.

I believe a more substantial way is to be a good search provider, and users will be self-inviting.

I guess Time Warner stands to win whichever way the deal goes.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (0, Redundant)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197651)

I believe a more substantial way is to be a good search provider, and users will be self-inviting.

In the words of Theodoric of Yorrick: "Nahhh..."

Re:MSN Quick Fix (2, Insightful)

Cenuij (526885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197708)

Search no, advertising yes.

This wont help MS in the search wars at all but being able to double the audience of your target ads overnight ( MSN + AOL portal ) certainly doesn't harm the ad revenue bottom line.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (3, Insightful)

Wisgary (799898) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197713)

Exactly what I thought, as soon as I read the article I thought "Oh come on, the first thing anyone does when they reformat or install a new IE version is go to Tools>Options>homepage www.google.com" If the default search for IE is MSN search, and not even the dolts who don't know crap about the internet use it, how is this deal going to help MSN at all?

Re:MSN Quick Fix (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197731)

Well, you never know. If AOL defaults to http://search.msn.com/ [msn.com] instead of http://www.msn.com/ [msn.com] , the UI may be similar enough to Google's that people will use it, not knowing any better.

Don't believe me? Well, they ARE using AOL, aren't they?

Re:MSN Quick Fix (5, Interesting)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197848)

Got quite a few family members who use AOL, and they _ALL_ hit Google as soon as they need to search for something, bypassing the AOL default searching mechanism.

They like its simplicity and the fact that it's pretty good about giving them something close to what they were looking for, even with some of the weirdest keyword queries I've seen.

Anecdotal, I know, but don't rule out Google's mindshare even among the technically incompetent.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (4, Insightful)

ATeamMrT (935933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197802)

But what happens if AOL users still go to Google despite the default search site is MSN?

The people I know who use AOL, and this is a small number of people with dial up, they use AOL to search. They don't open up a second IE window to use google.

MS still commands about 80% of the browser market, and its browser defaults searches to MSN, if this cannot help it, I doubt a deal with AOL could.

Does MS still do this from IE? I thought there was a setting where the user can select what search engine to use, or to disable searching from the address bar. I never search from the address bar, so I don't know.

So the deal is that AOL would drop Google as its main Internet search provider and switch to Microsoft's MSN service

On the surface, this might look like a good deal for MS. But I remember how everyone thought MSNBC would become bigger than CNN. Correct me if I am wrong, but is MSNBC even #3? What happened with marrying the largest computer/tech comany with NBC?

MS is marrying with a dying company. How much longer will dial up be a market? How will AOL continue to stay alive, how much impact will their search website have?

MS should be looking forward. I see this as a short term deal, to get more of a market share in search engines. But that advantage will be gone in a few years. I think MS is trembling that google will dominate all searches, and MS will be about as popular as dogpile.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (2, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198286)

Not to mention - I believe - that Yahoo! once used Google results as well. Yahoo! no longer does (as far as I'm aware) or at least agregates them, and Google didn't seem to suffer too much. Do I have my information wrong?

Re:MSN Quick Fix (3, Insightful)

shrtcircuit (936357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197815)

Having watched the less technically-inclined use the Internet, they will use whatever search engine shows up on their screen so long as it spits something back when they type in a few words and click "Go".

If AOL switches to MSN, >95% of the users will not care unless MSN can't give them what they need.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197957)

That is not an observation that I have seen. While some users I deal with do simply stay with MSN, most seem to prefer Google and will go through the bother of figuring out how to change their homepage. Remember, MSN is the default on most new Windows boxes, and if your theory held an validity, Google would be a bit player, and that clearly is not the case, so at the end of the day, I have no idea how AOL using MSN means a damn thing.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (1, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197844)

What would keep AOL and MSN from changing their nameservice records for www.google.com to search.msn.com instead?

Re:MSN Quick Fix (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14199030)

One simple word: Lawsuits.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (2, Insightful)

Ruff_ilb (769396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197919)

I'd agree with this - despite the home page or default search site, google is now a household brand (if you could call it a brand) that's got a pretty permanent hold on what MS and other companies discounted as something useless. As google expands to the email and IM (I know, that's a stretch) areas, google is used for more and more things. I doubt it'll lose much from just having the default engine switched.

Then again, as MS is well aware, half of any "prediction" is just going to be guesswork.

Re:MSN Quick Fix (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197923)

I would suspect that AOL has a huge subscriber turnover. It would pay off for MS eventually.

MSFT and AOL (5, Insightful)

navycow (778959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197627)

Remember when AOL and Microsoft were mortal ememies? This only goes to show that just as in politics, there are no long term enemies, just long term interests

Re:MSFT and AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197658)

Do you also remember when people used to hate Microsoft and AOL with a passion? I guess some things never change.

Re:MSFT and AOL (2, Interesting)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197725)

That's not business...it's personal.

Though I must admit Sony has raised the bar so much it's hard to hate MS with a passion anymore. Compared to Sony, MS is pretty good.

Re:MSFT and AOL (4, Insightful)

gamer4Life (803857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197871)

Well Sony at least allows other companies to compete. You can argue that it's DRM and content protection schemes have bungled their electronics division enough to make them less competitive.

Sony does innovate though, and by doing so, it pushes other companies to innovate as well. Compare this to Microsoft that drives the competition out of the market, and does nothing, until someone comes out with something innovative that can compete with them. (Firefox, Google, Linux)

Re:MSFT and AOL (1, Insightful)

WesG (589258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197667)

It will be interesting to see what Google is like in a couple years. It seems that all roads lead to Microsoft....

Re:MSFT and AOL (1)

Cenuij (526885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197740)

It seems that all roads lead to Microsoft....

Right sure. Except all the other roads that lead elswhere, and unless you hadn't noticed theres a 5 lane motorway running straight up to Google HQ at the moment.

Re:MSFT and AOL (2, Insightful)

ndogg (158021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198220)

Mortal enemies? AOL was using Microsoft's software even when they had other options. The rhetoric between the two had no substance.

Re:MSFT and AOL (1)

Not-a-Neg (743469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198276)

I'm honestly surprised Microsoft hasn't bought-out AOL yet. Every release of Windows since '95 has had the AOL installer included, and for those people that don't want the REAL internet, their choices have always been either: AOL or MSN. I find it very puzzling that they wouldn't buy out their main competitor?!? Every company does it! (Adobe/Macromedia, Oracle/Siebel, CompUSA/Computer City, ...etc/etc...)

Re:MSFT and AOL (1)

cdrdude (904978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198949)

But....Microsoft would never do anything to hurt another company....

And? (0)

Donald Darko (936706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197636)

What good does this do... you have to generate traffic in order to reap the bennifits. I think the relevant term here is "Pissing into the wind".

PlayfullyClever = Troll (4, Interesting)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197655)

I'm not sure why these people get so many articles posted. They are quite up front about who they are / what they do [playfullyclever.com] . I guess Zonk likes to reward honesty ;-)

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (1)

joschm0 (858723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197765)

http://www.playfullyclever.com/

OMG! That's about the most annoying website I've ever seen with all those floating keys and Richard Stallmans all over the place.

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197892)

The amount of times I've been modded down for complaining about the amount of incredibly blatant digg farming, and here we finally have a perfect of example of why this kind of thing is a real problem. playfullyclever's strategy, aside from keyword searching the antislash database for +5 comments (they have excellent karma now btw)*, is to farm digg articles, submitting them to slashdot. You know what? I'm siding with THEM. They are actually right about this "slashbot" mentality thing, and it sickens me.

* I thought about doing this, or checking for others doing it, but couldn't be bothered. I never knew there was an actual _TOOL_ for this exact purpose. Amazing. If this was wikipedia moderators would get a tool to check for this. In fact, I'm shocked that there isn't some provision for this in the code. The lameness filter already checks for similar recent posts, mostly to prevent accidental doubles. There should be a similar script that checks +5 comments from strictly on topic previous stories. I suppose the reason we don't have all these fantastic tools is that they have the excuse of processor usage to hide behind, despite the fact that the amount of mods to be making use of this function at any one time is not that large.

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198097)

The cool thing is that whenever anyone mentions playfullyclever, it'll just post the above +5 debunking comment and get moderated up for it.

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (1)

jzeejunk (878194) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198078)

I might be trying to prove a point by being so upfront about it. BTW they have a link on their website which says computer hack or something. don't click that, it messes up some streaming plugins in firefox.

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (1)

jzeejunk (878194) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198103)

Okay I didn't mean "I", I meant "They"

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (1)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 8 years ago | (#14199056)

He (they) must not being doing a good job with thier "blatant plagarism" -- their slash rating is below average. Slash Rating [mshiltonj.com]

Re:PlayfullyClever = Troll (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14199116)

You mean this is not the first to make the main page? It is not the first and no one has been fired? See, if it were me you'd get one mistake this big and the second one you'd be looking for a new job. Is that harsh? Maybe.

Then again, maybe there is even an intentional desire to make /. a parody of itself. I think that would be unfortunate because I think this kind of system has a lot of merits. I would, once again, call for moderation of articles BEFORE they are posted on the mainpage and only the +4s and 5s would make it. This would have been -1 for sure. Seriously, same exact thing as what is done now except that each proposed news story would go up for moderators to comment and moderate.

The eds don't seem to post much and I don't know if they understand how woefully inadequate they are to the task of editing. Why not take this thing the next step and REALLY depend on the wisdom of your readers to set the course?

In other news... (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197656)

Sears and K-Mart team up against Wal-Mart.

Two weakened giants leaning on each other for support.

Sears+K-Mart (1)

Buddy_DoQ (922706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197930)

If only they'd change their name and hired good ol'boy Bruce Campbell to promote them.... "Shop smart, shop S-Mart!"

Even if that alliance holds (1, Funny)

beforewisdom (729725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197665)

Even if that alliance holds, I think google will win. Microsoft had its time and that times is gone.

Accudata selling contact info of preteen girls (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197680)

Accudata selling contact info of preteen girls. List is sortable buy gender.

http://www.accudatalists.com/ [accudatalists.com]

GenNext
This group ranges from "tweens" to twenties and was born between 1977 and 1997. This file has over 1.5 million contacts.

Re:Accudata selling contact info of preteen girls (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198077)

Roman Polanski just lost one of his testicles through orgasmic ejaculation of unheard of strength. Ripped right through his urethra.

assets are one thing... (3, Interesting)

thelost (808451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197686)

but how you promote those assets is entirely another. The combo of MS+Time warner AOL would indeed be formidable, if that is they learn how to target advertising in the way that google has, and to work with the viewer, not harangue them with flashing banners. Of course it's not hard to take a page from the good google book and emulate its successes. Of course as it's suggested if this deal does happen google stands to loose a great deal of revenue as AOL would no longer use Google to provide their search services. This might proove to be more damaging than any competition in advertising, because as has been seen google thrives just as much when in competition as when forging ahead in new directions.

Advertising and AOL (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197759)

Since the Borg Collective and AOL are all about pushing an inferior, overpriced product to an uneducated bunch of end users via slick marketing and since Time-Warner is AOL's parent company, I'd suspect that this might be a very good fit for both of them. I have to agree with an earlier poster who mentioned that any time the Collective "teams up" with another company, the other company is either assimilated or gets screwed.

Frankly, I avoid the MSN home page, MSN searches, etc. because I refuse to "feed the beast". My experience with MSN is that they cannot get past blinky "Flash" things, so I doubt it will fly very well. I wonder if this isn't part of the whole AOL take-over bid by Microsoft, though.

2 cents,

Queen B

Could be better (2, Funny)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197690)

I think its probably in TW/AOL best interest to work with BOTH Microsoft and Google. Ofcourse, TW/AOL is not known for its bright business decisions in the past.

Doing business with Microsoft? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197695)

Uhm... I don't know how "nice" they are to larger companies with larger legal budgets, but every smaller company I've ever heard "teaming up" with Microsoft has gotten screwed over when it was to MS's advantage to do so.

Re:Doing business with Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198113)

larger companies, like IBM ? It hasn't stoped them.

So much going on here... lets look at this closer. (2, Insightful)

ATeamMrT (935933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197699)

The Journal said that, under negotiations between Time Warner and Microsoft, AOL would drop Google as its main Internet search provider and switch to Microsoft's MSN service.

How much of googles searches does AOL account for? How will this affect Google Adsense? Less views = less money for those in the program?

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who has been critical of Time Warner's strategy, has also said that he would hold Time Warner board members personally responsible if they forged a deal for AOL that valued the Internet provider too cheaply.

How will Carl Icahn do this? Is this one very rich man trying to kill a deal?

Why would Time Warner want to screw AOL? Hmmm... what is going on behind the scenes? Or is this a sign that AOL is changing its strategy?

Or maybe Microsoft is scared of google, and is doing everything they can to prevent their search services from going the direction of excite.com.

Re:So much going on here... lets look at this clos (3, Informative)

AnotherDaveB (912424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198107)

  1. El Reg [theregister.co.uk] suggests AOL brings in US$380m ad revenue to Google.
  2. It wouldn't make any difference to Adsense publishers, Adsense advertisers (Adwords) would probably want to look again at MS advertising options.

A Question (3, Funny)

SlashAmpersand (918025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197707)

If Time Warner's AOL unit were to strike a deal with Google instead, how many chairs do you think would be thrown in Redmond?

Re:A Question (2, Funny)

rolandog (834340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198064)

42

Throwing their money down the drain... (4, Interesting)

puppetman (131489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197726)

Two big, bloated companies, where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (ever), combining to take on a small-ish, smart, fast moving company like Google (that happens to have gobs of cash to fund their wildest dream).

I don't think anything will happen, other than a bunch of money being spent.

If they really wanted to compete, they would hire a bunch of really bright people, form a new company for them to work at, with a new independent management team, and money to spend. Let them go after Google using the best tools and technologies, and then give them an instant market by using whatever they come up with at Microsoft/AOL/TimeWarner.

Re:Throwing their money down the drain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197858)

It says in the article little or no money will be changing hands. So this is just a win for Microsoft (this is unfortunate if you hate Microsoft). Since the deal will kind of hurt Google (They'll loose about 11% of there revenue which is generate through the AOL deal), and Microsoft's own msn service will benefit with increased traffic. I don't see how anyone can argue that this hurts Microsoft in anyway, that said Google has been able to gain traffic to it main site with quality search which is something Microsoft is currently behind in technologically. Like an earlier comment mentioned despite Microsoft setting your default home page to MSN, most user then change that setting to Yahoo or Google.

uh.. (0, Offtopic)

wingman358 (912560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197748)

There can only be one Google!! /Highlander

The same boring story (-1, Offtopic)

Outsomniac (930516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197753)

Microsoft is the worm... Google is the spice... getting tired of, are You not?

You gotta give their enemies credit (3, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197762)

If and when Google does survive all of these attacks, they'll be a stronger company for it. Of course, the nearest term consequence could be a company whose eventual aggressiveness would make Microsoft look like a kitten. At least they won't sneak up and take everyone by surprise the way that Microsoft seemed to in the early 1990s with Windows 3.1, 95 and NT 4.0.

Of course, since they're in the business of storing and processing information, Google could end up being a greater threat than Microsoft ever could in the wrong hands.

How Stupid is Slashdot? (4, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197785)

In addition to posting blatant advertising for the BeatlesBeatles and Joel on Software and TheEscapist and other stuff in a very "Microsoft/TimeWarner future partnership ass-kissing networked" sort of way, they don't even have a problem accepting submissions and posting them from blatant trolls and rip-offs like the submitter of this article (see the following current headline on the site of the submitter of this article):

In short, the editors are such fucking incompetant idiots that they willingly and knowingly entertain the submissions of admitted plagiarists. On the other hand, it's a really great way to make sure that Slashdot is never taken seriously anywhere by anyone. Seriously, Slashdot editors (Malda, etc) -- get your shit together. Half the joy of even bothering to show up and check Slashdot out each day now isn't for the articles or discussions, but to see what careless, stupid, sell-out, dimwitted shit you guys will do next.

Win Slashdot? (12/05/05) - PyWiz

Some of the slashbots have started to take notice that all of our posts are blatantly plagiarized. They wonder out loud in their replies why we would do such a thing? Well for all you curious slashbots that wonder why we felt the need to beat the world's most famous News for Trolls website, your answer is here [playfullyclever.com]


Slashdot: News for Trolls. Stuff That Doesn't Matter.

Okay, first of all for all of your slashbots that are out of the loop, we (known on Slashdot as PlayfullyClever) are blatant plagiarists. Almost (and by almost I mean more than 90%) all of our posts are reposts found using the Anti-Slash Database Tool, which allows the user to search for high-modded posts on a particular topic. Basically when a new article comes out on Slashdot we skim the summary for key words and plug them into the database tool. When we find a relevant-looking (I say relevant-looking because we don't actually read the summary so sometimes our posts are a little off base) post, we simply copy paste it and post to Slashdot. The funny part about this is that almost all of our posts get rated 5, just as they were originally. It is especially amusing when we get a high rating in spite of the fact that someone spots our plagiarism and points it out in a reply, as happened here.

Why would we do this? Well, there are several reasons. First of all, we do it for kicks. As I said earlier, it is rather amusing how little new information is actually added in Slashdot discussions. Simply towing the party line will get you a 5 rating, even if, as happens in many cases with our reposting, the post is slightly or completely offtopic.

The second major reason is promoting our site. We have a link in our signature and of course when we submit articles we get hits from people clicking on our name. We've gotten over 500 unique hits in the past 3 days the site has been up, and considering the quality of site we have, that's some quality advertising.

Some of you might be thinking that we're selfish and that we're destroying what once used to be a respected discussion forum. Well, you're wrong. First of all, with all the FPs, Penisbirds, and GNAA trolls, our reposting is hardly degrading anything of worth. Second of all, the moderation system is build to handle just our type of cleverness (namely, playful) by allowing readers to mod us down if they don't find our comment interesting. Obviously, even though it is plagiarized, our comments still hold the interest of a large number of moderators. Of course there is the slight moral problem of representing someone elses work as our own, but I mean come on, this is the 21st century, get over it.

In conclusion, all you slashbots who whine about PlayfullyClever being a "blatant plagiarist": you're right. Now STFU. kthx, py

Re:How Stupid is Slashdot? (4, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197886)

Did the mods even READ my post? Read the post. Look at the submitter of the article. Click on the submitter's name/link. Duh.

Re:How Stupid is Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197950)

It's basically like George Bush and the iraqi War mentality.. you can site fact after fact, and give 100000 reasons of why somthing should'nt be the way it is, and they will turn around and justify it in every means possible (even if its blatantly obviously fucked up!).

Why mod this as troll? should be modded +5 insightful painful truth. Editors of slashdot are not even editors. They dont EDIT or REVIEW anything. They are basically zombies, and ignore the fact that in the last year slashdot's prestige has declined significantly due to just the fact no one cares where their news sources come from (Trolls, Blogs, etc..)

Re:How Stupid is Slashdot? (1)

Mike Savior (802573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198380)

I submitted ONE article in my usership here, and they edited the small amounts of wit in the body (I didn't leave out any of the details, for those ready to criticize). So the /. editors DO edit, they only actually edit when they feel they need to say something over your voice.

Re:How Stupid is Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198580)

The thing is, I really hate being yet another "Slashdot is going downhill!" whiner, but they really seem to be. I've been around long enough to remember Slashdot before it was called Slashdot. Through Hellmouth and Jon Katz and when they started the interviews and started adding all these other subsections and colors and (OMFG - CSS compliance as of late!). And in all that time, Slashdot has fluctuated. The whole Andover thing. The whole OSDN thing. Michael getting married (WTF?) and Geeks in Space . . .

But in the last six months, it has gone from "sometimes lazy slashdot editor behavior" where they post a dupe or let a big typo slip by to the point where you can rarely go a day without multiples of the following happening - and I'm just talking about in the front-page section. I'm not talking about the GNAA type of stuff in the responses.

+ Duplicate from the same week, day or hours before.
+ Duplicate from the same or previous years.
+ Trip...er..licate . . .
+ Intentional slashvertisement.
+ Unwitting (or uncaring) slashvertisement ala **BeatlesBeatles, etc. Or worse - press relases.
+ Unwitting (or uncaring) contribution to trolls (ala CleverlyFunny and others)
+ Crap I've already seen on Drudgeerport. If Drudgereport is reporting it, it's sort of . . . done with.
+ Wierd slashvertisement sort of buddy system gratis thing where a particular site seems to get EVERY article they write featured on Slashdot. It's almost like one of the editors' girlfriends ran TheEscapist or PennyArcade or JoelonSoftware or something and they felt compelled to post a blurb on Slashdot about every single article out of support.

And sure, people could "just leave", but a lot of us have been here for seven or eight years and really don't want to have to do that. But man . . . it's almost like the Slashdot editors don't even care about Slashdot anymore. I find a lot of faults with Zonk, but at least he seems to TRY. It even seems as if the rest of the Slashdot elders just always decide to go fishing or take long naps for weeks at a time and stick Zonk and ScuttleMonkey with all the actual work and don't follow up to make sure their quality is up to par (or maybe even teach them what to do in the first place.... not that the old Slashdot editors seem to have a clue anymore what that should be either). . . .

Re:How Stupid is Slashdot? (1)

cdrdude (904978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198907)

You must be new here! :-P

(904978 to 6865)

You have to love Slashdot. (4, Insightful)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197792)

"Microsoft and Time Warner team up against Google" - Based on the article, it could have also been worded, "Google and Time Warner team up against Microsoft". No decisions have been made and both Microsoft and Google are looking to team up with Time Warner.

Re:You have to love Slashdot. (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14199028)

Thank You. I am glad someone else noticed that. The article clearly stated twice that it's not set in stone.

It said they expected to reach an agreement before the end of the year, but that it was still possible that Time Warner's America Online unit could strike a deal with competitor Google instead.

Time Warner has been holding talks with both Microsoft and Google over AOL, sources familiar with the situation have told Reuters and other media.

And they wont win because.... (5, Insightful)

xmorg (718633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197822)

Their sites are WAY to cluttered!

Google is simple. There arent millions of distrations. You dont have to SEARCH for the search bar. you dont have to wait for the eyeblasters to load so that they can in turn obstruct your searching. GEEEZ people. it looks good the first time but after the 9999999th time you login just to do a simple search, and have to wait forever for the main page to connect to billions of addservers to serve you graphic adds, you end up back at google.

Re:And they wont win because.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198224)

Have you even been to search.msn.com ?

Re:And they wont win because.... (1)

phutureboy (70690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198711)

Google is simple. There arent millions of distrations. You dont have to SEARCH for the search bar. you dont have to wait for the eyeblasters to load so that they can in turn obstruct your searching. GEEEZ people. it looks good the first time but after the 9999999th time you login just to do a simple search, and have to wait forever for the main page to connect to billions of addservers to serve you graphic adds, you end up back at google.

BINGO. The Google home page loads instantaneously, almost faster than an HTML page from my local filesystem. It's always there, very transparent, and very fast. Ads are there too, but they're relevant, and don't get in the way or slow things down.

Re:And they wont win because.... (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198898)

Have you even bothered to look at, say, MSN Search?

It's around 12KB including the graphics (similar to Google, which is around 10KB). There are no more distractions than Google.

Moreover, I find that MSN Search often gives better results (excluding the Image Search, which is quite frankly garbage).

Start cutting off their air supply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197836)

This is the start of Microsoft's new strategy of cutting off revenue streams for Google. As an added bonus (they think) this might slow their momentum and (insert evil laugh) could maybe trigger a collapse in shares of Google.

naughty google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197865)

aha..so this explains why today i cant get into my gmail account from my roadrunner (timewarner) isp.

tsk, tsk.

..if MS wins the deal, it's the beginning of end (0, Troll)

managedcode (863136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197882)

for Google. Google is pissing a lot of DickHeads on Wall Street, especially the old media Barrons(I don't like those old networks, but they can join hands to KILL Google) Anyway, don't trust their gmail. It's down since this morning.

Re:..if MS wins the deal, it's the beginning of en (1)

boarsai (698361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198287)

Yeah i wouldnt trust those google people, i hear they're on the internets. Seriously tho' - if trust is dependant on uptime, they're more trust worthy then hotmail.com :P

Trust (4, Interesting)

SimonInOz (579741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197918)

Why is Google successful?

Trust.

Google appear to put the user first. Indeed, that's where they started, building a search engine to help people. Money came later (and haven't they done well?).

Microsoft and Time Warner started with wanting to make money. That comes - and, more to the point, feels as though it comes - way before the user.

And we don't trust them.

Google ads rely on advertisers (the person with the ad, and the person with the ad space) trusting them to put the right ads in the right place. Google does - and everyone makes money. Trust, trust trust - the foundation stone of trade.

But who would trust Microsoft and Time Warner to do that?

Re:Trust (1)

SuperFunFunFun (936608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198102)

Google ads rely on advertisers (the person with the ad, and the person with the ad space) trusting them to put the right ads in the right place. Google does - and everyone makes money. Trust, trust trust - the foundation stone of trade. But who would trust Microsoft and Time Warner to do that? All I see is MS making a land grab at someone else's success. Perhaps they could go back and do some real innovating and come out with an operating system or office software or other platform that really is revolutionary and worth paying big bucks for instead of trying to shave pennies?

No, no no.... (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14199000)

All I see is MS making a land grab at someone else's success.

No, Microsoft is providing a user base, and Time Warner is providing the advertisements... kinda like I bring the baseball bat, you bring the ball. Together we'll kick the other team's ass. And when you consider the numbers that AOL/TW and MSN have in their respective user bases, the revenue they can generate there alone could pose a viable threat to Google. I'm not a fanboy of either MS or Google, just saying...

-everphilski-

Re:Trust (3, Informative)

AnotherDaveB (912424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198189)

Dunno about about the search engine angle but as an advertiser I'd suggest that Google was successful because their Adwords program was

  1. Cheap
  2. Very, very, very easy to use
their nearest (small advertisers welcome) competitor Overture [overture.com] was
  1. Expensive
  2. A pig to use

The only way to go against Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197936)

The only way to go against Google is to create a better search engine than Google.
Not impossible probably, but it's quite unlikely that Microsoft or TW can do it.
Microsoft is prevented to do anything exciting on the Internet by it's very own corporate culture.
Any other attempt, like making to use Google more difficult is not only stupid, but suicidal.
If my ISP or browser does not let me use what I want, I drop them without hesitation.
 

Good! (4, Insightful)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14197939)

Crappy companies banning together...

Makes it even easier to avoid both of them!!

(Ya'll stand a little bit closer together now... I only got one shotgun shell left and I want to make it count.)

Different but similar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197946)

"Microsoft and Time Warner Team Up Against Google"

or perhaps similarly

"NBC and ABC team up against CBS"

And then you watch their nightly broadcasts which are almost exactly the same, sometimes even down to the order of the stories. Are these behemoths really against each other or are we being played as fools?

I knew this was comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14197973)

AOL + MS = A better Internet.

Re:I knew this was comming (1)

LSanchez (928788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198020)

AOL + MS = A better Internet.
Right. And George Bush didn't win the election.

The first thing I thought when I saw was... (2, Funny)

VegeBrain (135543) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198154)

somebody's trying to mate elephants with hippopotamus.

Re:The first thing I thought when I saw was... (1)

blankypoo (935059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198264)

hippopotami?

doomsday. (1, Insightful)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198434)

AOL got 120 million visitors, yahoo 115 millions, MSN 110million, google 70million this past September. MS just became top dog by almost triple google and about double yahoo as far as online advertising markets reach goes. There are companies that are dying to get their hands on a way to get in front of 200million people, that's allot more appealing then 70million. Google might have slightly better tech for the time being, but MS will catch up, and they will steal google's thunder. Google hasn't been able to create much of a profit in any way other then click ads and that is in pretty big jeopardy.

With the largest repository of media content in the world, combine that with the most users, ground breaking IPTV tech, and the two largest telcos in the country, Microsoft is looking really good right now. Google better do some sole searching, because they are in some trouble.

My recommendation is to sell sell sell (google's stock that is).

Re:doomsday. (5, Informative)

colonslash (544210) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198721)

It is easy to pull numbers out of your ass. In fact, I'll pull them out of onestat's ass: The 4 largest search engines on the web [onestat.com] are:
  1. Google 56.9%
  2. Yahoo 21.2%
  3. MSN Search 8.9%
  4. AOL Search 3.2%

If your numbers are from TFA, I can't see it because the link is giving me a Yahoo! error page, so I went to Google to find some info.
Are your numbers for unique visitors to any page owned by the companies in your list? Do those numbers even matter- aren't we talking about ads in search results?

Re:doomsday. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198903)

Well my ankle grabbing fan-boy friend you are a fool. I will concede his numbers weren't 100%, but his point was. And realistically his numbers were close enough. Google is still dwarfed by the big boys, as you will see when I post the numbers below.

For the record he didn't say "search" he said "visitors". Advertisers don't just care about search cowboy. We are talking about revenue streams and market sizes. AOL may be 3% of the search market (according to your numbers) but they are 12% of Google's revenue (according to the links below). Looks like search isn't the end all and be all is it cowboy?

I'm just so sick of you cocky little troll like fan boys thinking you know something, but all you really know is how to download porn in your mom's basement.

Here are the numbers:
Yahoo = 123 million
AOL = 119 million
Microsoft = 114 million
Google = 87.6 million

Here is the math for ya:
AOL + MSN = 237 million
Yahoo = 123 million
Google 87.6 million

My sources are abundant from New York Times, Associated Press, to international papers. Here are 4 for you to check out, but there are PLENTY more.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/business/ao l.php [iht.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/technology/07aol .html?hp&ex=1131426000&en=ca8853d306a6b3e5&ei=5094 &partner=homepage [nytimes.com]

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20051113-11344 1-2245r.htm [washingtontimes.com]

http://www.smartmoney.com/stockwatch/index.cfm?sto ry=20051115 [smartmoney.com]

Re:doomsday. (5, Insightful)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198955)

AOL's search page gets hits because it's (last time i checked, which admittadly wasn't recently) the default serch page for AOL.


Yahoo gets hits because they were giving away free email when AOL execs were still wondering why someone who has an ISP would need a free email account. Their search engine, while not as powerfull as Google's, does have its merits.... better geographical searches (nice for when i can't find any pizza menus to order from), and a higher likelyhood of search results I was looking for rather than 50,000 pages of exactly what i asked for.


MSN getting 110 (10 million less than AOL) is nothing short of abject failure. Its the default homepage on 90% of the computers IN THE WORLD.


In short, AOL's niche market (internet training wheels) is soon to be obsolete, and MSN.com can't get more hits than AOL.com even when its the default search page on most of the computers in the world.


My prediction-- Google will outlive the PC platform (im assuming that the world wide web will outlive the PC). MSN and AOL will not. Yahoo..... who knows.

trust? (2, Insightful)

dotdevin (936747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198576)

The bottom line is that people use Google because it works and they can trust them. Do you trust MS or AOL/TW?

Neither should win (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198639)

It seems that most people are in favor of Google "winning". I don't want either to win. Why? It's bad for us. It's bad to have one complacent company in complete control of a market. Here's what happens, as history shows over and over and over.

1. Company 1 becomes a rising star.
2. Everyone loves company 1 because they have good products, service, blah
3. Company 1 beats out company 2, 3, 4, and 5 to become master of it's universe
4. Company 1 has no competition, so they have no motivation to innovate, progress, explore
5. Company 1 easily assasinates any small company that attempts to gain any foothold in the market, instead of competing fairly.
6. The market stagnates while company 1 does everything in it's power to maintain it's stranglehold.

It's bad for competition, period. There's nothing good about ANY company, even the beloved "we will do no evil, blindly trust us" google, to be a monopoly. If they do ultimately win, take my word for it, eventually you WILL see a decrease in the quality of their service until they become the evil they claim they never will.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've just made a deal... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14198717)

that will keep the empire out of here forever.

Two thrown chairs..... (1, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14198870)

....Are better than one.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?