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!

Time-Warner Planning AOL Split

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the seems-like-every-year dept.

Businesses 69

Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."

cancel ×

69 comments

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

funny (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323318)

Back when AOL and Time Warner merged, everyone except techies said they didn't understand, Time Warner was a fading dinosaur while AOL was a superstar. The techies said they didn't understand, AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.

Re:funny (2, Interesting)

steelfood (895457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323768)

I once heard it being described as an old billionaire nabbing a young hot trophy wife, forgetting that the wife gets half the estate when there's a divorce, and gets progressively less hot as the years go on.

The only difference is that the billionaire will probably naturally die before the hot wife turns into an old hag, but a corporation will remain alive as long as it can.

Re:funny (2, Interesting)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323824)

I think this is a indicator of what will happen if Microsoft (Time Warner)buys Yahoo (AOL). I see now way Microsoft can gain anything from that deal.

Re:funny (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323894)

I agree, and I think them trying to buy Yahoo is telling that Microsoft isn't doing so well. Microsoft lacks focus, and they want to take shortcuts. They look at Yahoo, figure they can buy up all that content, buy out a search competitor, and everything will be great, but Yahoo itself is struggling to find meaning and purpose. I don't think Microsoft will look back at any such deal with too much enthusiasm.

Re:funny (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324310)

why do you think I want the Yahoo/MSFT deal to go through? MSFT wastes $45 billion dollars and another ~$5 billion trying to straighten out the mess. Even MSFT can't stand being crippled like that. It will take them a decade to recover.

GO MSFT!!!! Go Yahoo!!!!

Re:funny (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22326662)

That plus I really want to see Microsoft trying to recode all the PHP stuff. :D

It shows that they learnt from SCO.. (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22331608)

...how how gullible (desperate) the market is. They couldn't try SCO's stunts with their own stock but they will have noticed that simply making noise pumps stock price. There's good money in it, if you don't eventually have to pay legal fees ;-)
I find it hard to believe that nobody in MS would allow this purchase to go ahead without pointing out that it's crazy - and probably impossible, legally. Therefore I cannot believe they are sincere about this plan.

MS can now spend a year reminding desperate traders about their grand plan.
Cleverest thing MS did: say that they would borrow most of the money for the purchase. If MS are borrowing money, then a company has enough faith in them - in the medium-to-long term - to lend it: an implied vote of confidence from a third party.

Re:funny (4, Insightful)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324318)

branding and user base.

google had google video. youtube was crushing google video. google did not have a strong presence in video online and realized that internet inertia had hit - youtube was to video what google was to search. by buying youtube - they bought the branding and presence - a presence that is now lucrative because of the content deals, etc.

microsoft is not analogous to time warner. yahoo is not analogous to aol. yahoo has a strong web presence - this is undeniable. microsoft does not and cannot build a strong web presence (MSN gets good numbers but those are cheat numbers because of explorer defaults that most don't change) because it moves too slowly and it doesn't understand how to build a web BRAND. Unfortunately for Microsoft - recent evidence shows that younger execs - younger companies - have a better sense of building brands online. microsoft cannot do this - yahoo is not the answer. but this deal is not analogous to the AOL deal. At the time, it seemed sensible that the internet's premier portal get exclusive access to a huge library of content. Of course in retrospect it seems more sensible to strike deals with content companies so as to not cross-corrupt disparate corporate cultures - and i'm certain somewhere there are rules about the critical mass size of companies before they collapse under their own weight.

building a presence on the web requires core strength. google has search. not sure what yahoo's is, but they have stickiness. microsoft has NO online core strength. NONE. And it's 2008. their search is mediocre in most respects compared to google. they develop also/ran products long after internet phenomenons emerge - despite having the money to chase trends so aggressive so as to appear innovative even if they are not. Their online products do not differentiate on the basis of quality and/or branding. Finally, their inexorable ties to backward compatability - be it to old formats and or dying business models - it's like trying to sprint with a ball and chain. They have a problem.

they need to spin off a lightning quick young group - get the brightest young maverick engineers and call it microlabs or something. Let them build some crazy shit and see what pops up. this strategy here is for the fucking birds and IMO a waste of 40+ billion.

Re:funny (1)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324868)

You make some good points.
I see some similarities between MS and Time Warner: both depends on traditional products and have, as you pointed out, no real online generated revenue (MS: OS, Office, XBOX etc. Time Warner: Media), and also between AOL and Yahoo (online only, no real traditional revenue. Their biggest asset is a large user base.

Your last point, being that wasting 40+ billion is a bad move, was exactly my point. MS would probably fu.. up AOL, and drive users away.
And true - the MS/Yahoo - TW/AOL Deals are not truly analogous (for one, they are in the same market segment), my prediction was that the end result would probably be the same.

Re:funny (2, Informative)

hansonc (127888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324634)

How short people's memories are.

AOL bought Time Warner. The company name became AOL-Time Warner. Eventually the AOL portion was dropped but it doesn't change the fact that AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.

Re:funny (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22326470)

AOL bought Time Warner.

At that scale companies don't really "buy" each other in the traditional sense, it's usually some ridiculously convoluted stock trade arrangement that really is more akin to a merger. When one "buys out" another it just means one of the mergees is the dominant one.

Re:funny (1)

Strawser (22927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336834)

AOL bought TW, then about a year or two later, all the AOL execs were run out, Time Warner execs took over, the name was changed to Time Warner, and the stock symbol from AOL to TWC. Before the merge, AOL had a "poison pill" clause in their charter. I don't remember exactly how it worked, but essentially, if anyone tried to take over AOL, all outstanding options would be paid over-value, and a bunch of other stuff, so no one would want to try to take over AOL. Instead, AOL "took over" TWC. Or at least that's what they thought they were doing. It just didn't work out that way, in the end.

Re:funny (2, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324886)

The problem is that AOL (Yahoo) bought Time Warner (Microsoft), so that your thought that there is equivalence here is incorrect.

Re:funny (1)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325010)

I stand corrected. And thinking (in the correct line of thought) that at MS/Yahoo merger would lead to Yahoo selling MS off, if clearly wrong. Bummer on my part.

Re:funny (2, Insightful)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324002)

AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.

Really? Because when I read /. from that period (like here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] ), it's all about doom-and-gloom, and AOL-TimeWarner will take over the internet and stop people from access any content without being an AOL subscriber.

Haste makes waste (1)

s1d (1185389) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323340)

Hasty marriages are bound for divorce

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22323358)

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22324184)

and yet, here you are...

You've got .... (5, Funny)

bizitch (546406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323388)

...layoffs

Goodbye (1)

HABITcky (828521) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324570)

Goodbye

Merger not going well? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323436)

AOL to Time-Warner: "It must have been something you assimilated..."

Really with AOL's dial-up business quite rightly going down the tubes (heheh) it does make perfect business sense to at least spin it off to die on it's own or as a bonus have some sucker buy it.

Re:Merger not going well? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323532)

it does make perfect business sense to at least spin it off to die on it's own or as a bonus have some sucker buy it.
What? But, they told me dialup access was making a strong comeback!

Re:Merger not going well? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323996)

AOL's been spinning off their dial-up stuff for years. In Europe, they sold everything in 2006, and have been doing the same in the U.S.. They are putting all their eggs in a basket called "ad revenue", which while being a bad bet in the long run, in my book, is better than relying on selling something almost no one buys any more.

Re:Merger not going well? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324202)

AOL's been spinning off their dial-up stuff for years. In Europe, they sold everything in 2006, and have been doing the same in the U.S.. They are putting all their eggs in a basket called "ad revenue", which while being a bad bet in the long run, in my book, is better than relying on selling something almost no one buys any more.
--


Doesn't Google rely amlost exclusively on ad revenue? Or is the difference that Google is serving the ads and not just being a conduit for the ads?

Re:Merger not going well? (1)

asilentthing (786630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325126)

Probably more that Google has proven it can make money on it and that others have a hard time breaking into that scene.

Re:Merger not going well? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325484)

Perhaps, but Google doesn't suck. Also I think the "serving the ads" part is part of it. Plus, Google is smart enough to have ads that people like you and me don't instinctively block. I think the the GoogleSense text ads or whatever they're called are great. Even if they are irrelevant or spammy they aren't these ludicrous epilepsy-inducing intelligence-insulting concentration-breaking banners that most companies use. AOL is strictly lowest common denominator. You can't use their stuff without going into some kind of sensory overload fugue, which I suppose just mimics the intellectual capacity of their target audience. But that's just me. I'm about as opposite to an AOL customer as its possible to be while still actually being an Internet user.

I'm worried (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323440)

Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried..

Re:I'm worried (4, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323606)

me too.

Re:I'm worried (1)

Kahlua (157854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324208)

> On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said
> me too.


me too!

Re:I'm worried (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324264)

Time-Warner Planning AOL Split
Posted by Zonk on Wednesday February 06, @01:09PM
from the seems-like-every-year dept.
Businesses America Online The Internet
Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie [CC]. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."

I'm woried (Score:5, Funny)
by 4D6963 (933028) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:27PM (#22323440) Homepage Journal

Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried..
--
The ARSE 0.2d2 [sourceforge.net]. Sound -> Image -> New Sound.
[ Hide Replies | Reply to This ]

        *

        *
            Re:I'm worried (Score:1, Funny)
            by SoupGuru (723634) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:41PM (#22323606)
            me too.
            --
            **What doesn't kill you only prolongs the inevitable
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]

Me too.
> On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said
> me too.

me too!
me too!

Re:I'm worried (2, Funny)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323672)

Oh, the good ol' days of AOL dial-up:

One sunny day, arrived in the mail,
500 free hours from AOL!
Twas looking for fun
But then for my gun
When the line busy and thus it failed.

Re:I'm worried (1)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323766)

You can't that much malicious software on one CD anymore...

Re:I'm worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22324354)

Missed a word fucktard!

Re:I'm worried (1)

gotzero (1177159) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324454)

I stopped looking out for them after I insulated my first bunker with only AOL mailings...

shrinking pie split in two (2, Insightful)

prevajanje (1228134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323460)

shrinking pie split in two, so that's even harder to sell, smart,...

Missing Tag (3, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323528)

Where's the "whattooksolong" tag?

related storIE: mynuts won, the king IS a fink (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22323552)

looks like more than a handful of felonious corepirate nazi stock markup FraUDs & their hired goons are going DOWn. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Uneblievable (3, Interesting)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323576)

All the corporate hullabaloo, layoffs of low-level employees, rebranding and marketing that only lasted, what, a few years, and they plan to just hit Ctrl + Z on the whole thing?

Re:Uneblievable (1)

jb1z (1099055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323852)

Not really. AOL is an asset owned by Time Warner Inc. (http://www.timewarner.com/corp/businesses/index.html [timewarner.com] ). This is taking that subsidiary asset and splitting it into two separate assets. At least, that's what I make of this.

Re:Uneblievable (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324200)

Not really. AOL is an asset owned by Time Warner Inc
I thought AOL was the one who purchased Time Warner, not the other way around.

Re:Uneblievable (1)

jb1z (1099055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324294)

They did, technically. But the company now operates as Time Warner, Inc. with AOL being one of the subsidiaries. Their wiki page is pretty thorough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner [wikipedia.org]

Is it too soon... (1)

Nyktos (198946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323620)

... to hope for a Microsoft Yahoo! post-merger demerger? Only with Yahoo pocketing all the cash?

Split (2, Insightful)

Teflon_Jeff (1221290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323632)

So, they're going to make two departments, one that's profitable and growing, and one that can be cut and eliminated in one year? Makes business sense to me. They call it "cutbacks"

Re:Split (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323866)

Dang, I thought it was a promotion when they told me I would run my own business unit.

Re:Split (1)

Teflon_Jeff (1221290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325736)

So, that Corporate Headhunter was the OTHER type of headhunter? That explains the dress code.

AOL does NOT own Time Warner Cable (2, Informative)

steelfood (895457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22323690)

Time Warner does.

And yes, it's Time Warner, not AOL Time Warner.

AOL has long been merely a division within Time Warner.

cue google (1)

ihatethetv (935399) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324136)

Hopefully google will sweep in and buy AOL and get a good price for it. I think that'd be an easy way to pick up a bunch of users who aren't so tech saavy while upping its marketshare in email and IM.

I hope they kill off the aol portal and AIM and replace them with something decent.

I know google's getting too big for its britches, but I also want to see them keep beating up MSFT. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now at least.

-G

Re:cue google (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324674)

I would only appreciate such a move if they upgraded the service to something better than dial-up. Something from the spectrum auction, perhaps?

Party time... (3, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324170)

It's wonderful! 2008 may be a great year! Both Yahoo and AOL may soon be no more.

Now if we can just find a way to rid ourselves of eBay, Real, Symantec and a few others...

Bolt your mailboxes ... (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324210)

... it's time to mail out some free dial-up CDs to increase market share. No wait, this is 2008: free Blu-Ray discs!

Re:Bolt your mailboxes ... (1)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22326868)

You're talking about AOL. They'll send out HD-DVDs.

DNS hijacking (1)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324342)

I wonder if this has anything to do with why DNS "not found" queries suddenly started directing me to a search/advert server run by RoadRunner.

That's some evil shit. If I were a phishing enterprise I'd be watching this closely. When your own ISP is pharming you, it's just a matter of time before something evil crawls out from under a rock and takes notice.

Maybe it was me calling up "www.fuckroadrunnerdnshijackingisevil.com" and a few dozen alternatives, or maybe it was portscanning their server, or maybe they just used caller ID to call up my account, but while I was on the phone complaining to them (I refused to give them my phone number or name), they suddenly turned off the service.

I think I'll be switching to DSL soon.

Re:DNS hijacking (1)

ZerMongo (1129583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324990)

Bad news: Verizon does the same thing on their DSL.

Re:DNS hijacking (1)

NullSolaris (1068138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22326286)

There is a way to turn this off according to Verizon, I can't remember where the directions are though.

Re:DNS hijacking (1)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22327754)

Well then I'm out of choices. So much for the fucking market taking care of things.

Fuck those fucking motherfuckers, all of them.

And fuck the FCC. Burn it to the ground. The role of government is not to line their citizens up to be ass-raped by business. If I wanted to live in that kind of society I'd move to fucking mainland China.

The Founding Fathers would tar and feather Kevin Martin. He's a traitor to America.

Re:DNS hijacking (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22331404)

The role of government is not to line their citizens up to be ass-raped by business.
Someone should have told them that a long time ago - that's what businesses think government is for ;-)

There was a (brief) time when government regarded big business as a way of providing stable employment for citizens; those days are long gone. Corporations' function is once again maximum profit, disguised by the fact that this profit is promised to citizens in the form of pensions.
Corporations are now pretty much obliged to seek the cheapest staff in order to maximise profit, thus providing justification for oursourcing and short- or no-term employment contracts for citizens.
So the citizens are working longer hours with less job security and for less money.
Where's all the profit going? Pension funds - for the elite minority who have a pensionable job or can afford to keep up pension contributions out of their own pocket.

Products may not be a shareholder's best source of income, short-term (think SCO as an extreme example, Internet Explorer as a lesser one): in fact, customers are inconvenient because "free will" can allow them to purchase alternative products if they have the choice. Bulk orders and contracts are preferable.

Another example: Intellectual Property - very hard to keep in the hands of citizens, thanks to laws government currently supports.

Re:DNS hijacking (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22328480)

Insight does the same thing. That is, until you manually change your DNS servers.

er... news? (1)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324396)

And what, exactly is news about this?

This split has already happened in Europe. My company, for example, bought the access part of AOL Germany, and that was a year ago. It was always just a matter of time until the same thing would happen in the US.

And yes, there were layoffs. Mostly in the audience part, which fired about 75% of its people in two waves (one right after the split, one about three quarters later). The access part went well here, but I'm not sure about other countries. Some of the bidders, like us, were interested in the whole company, while other bidders quite openly stated that they only cared for the customers, and would've probably layed off everyone.

Re:er... news? (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324756)

And what, exactly is news about this?
It's news in the same sense that any article talking about SCO's demise is news.

Three words (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22324960)

Army of Lamers

What's with this spinoff-to-shutdown thing. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325174)

If they know the ISP business is going down the tubes, and the advertising/search part is fine, why are they spinning off one knowing it's going to die off. Why don't they just exit the business. Seems like a lot of extra corporate footwork for the same result.

Re:What's with this spinoff-to-shutdown thing. (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325354)

Because there's a good chance there's a sucker out there who doesn't know AOL's dial-up business is going down the tubes. Said sucker will pay good money for the spun-off property. Why throw something in the trash when you can get some cash for it and make winding it down somebody else's problem?

The AOL brand itself must be worth a fortune! (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22328876)

Oh, sorry - this isn't the 90's ;-)

AOL was doing well two years ago? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22325244)

I don't think AOL was a successful company in 2006... Or even 2003. Seemed to me like they were over about five or six years ago, when home DSL/cable connections became ubiquitous.

If they were even half smart... (1)

jeillah (147690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22325400)

they'd move the access business to TWC's Roadrunner group which does the same thing more or less but over faster wires. They could consolidate call centers and support and save $$$. Then when they sell the rest of TWC shares to the public TWX can wash their hands of all the tech stuff and stick to selling crap to the unwitting public...

Trying to boost revenue w/ Hometown member ads (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22326598)

Even for paying customers who haven't signed up for them (signing up for them used to increase the web space allocation from 2 to 20 MB).

William
(who will have to install an ad-blocking script if AOL customer service won't reverse it for his account)

saw this coming (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22328916)

I knew they'd hate each other from the beginning. AOL is the scum of the earth and Time Warner's just greedy. Actually that goes together great but remember that story about how all the other scum of the internet doing illegal stuff hates each other and they all doublecross each other and all that. This is kinda the same thing lol. Now as soon as G4 lets what's left of TechTV go, all will be right with the world.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>