Slashdot Log In
Reactions to AOL/Time-Warner Merger
from the biggest-media-company-in-the-entire-solar-system dept.
"There is absolutely nothing in Steve Case's background that suggests he is particularly well-equipped to lead a new kind of unimaginably complex media conglomerate into the 21st century, and Wall Street analysts who are so blinded by the hype surrounding this deal that they fail to consider it carefully are likely to be sorry. Along with some of the other arrogant lynchpins of the digital economy, AOL would rank tops among companies that have routinely exploited and mis-handled their dependent customer bases. Could there be anybody alive in America who hasn't personally experienced or known many people who have personally experienced the interminable cut-offs, waits and disconnections that have, from the first, been a staple of the way American Online has done business? How many times has Steve Case had to go on his own online service to apologize for delays and problems brought about by a company that prized growth well ahead of honesty and service?
"Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world? Is individualism, free expression, diverse opinion advanced when the information economy breaks down into two or three "old and new" media conglomerates that control virtually all of the archived news and entertainment information online, and increasingly, the means to deliver it?"
- Wayne A. Martin, News Manager, Amiga.org:
"Smaller niche websites could be pushed further into the shadows by mega-media companies like AOL/Time Warner that have almost unlimited Internet and television promotion resources they can use to boost their own websites. But on the good side, the merger between AOL and Time Warner seems to go hand-in-hand with AOLs recent deal with Gateway to use Gateway's new Information Appliances based on Amiga technology. This could open the doorway to Information Appliances in the market place a lot quicker than many might have expected. With Gateway, Amino [now Amiga Coporation] and probably others able to produce this type of machine, this could possibly be the fatal blow to MS that many have been waiting for."
Brock Meeks, MSNBC correspondent:
"The bottom line of this proposed deal is nothing more than crass commercialism. What a huge advertising coup this is for Bob Pittman of AOL, he must be drooling at the thought of how to put AOL's nefarious 'pop-up' ads on CNN and print via Time magazine. From a public policy perspective, this venture is D.O.A. as well: no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit. Despite the rosey promises from AOL's Steve Case that 'all comers' will be welcomed to compete on the new venture's cable Internet access system, it remains to be seen just how stalwart Case remains in backing up that promise. Remember, this is the same Steve Case that, under oath during his deposition in the Microsoft antitrust case, swore with a straight face that 'We are not a competitor to Microsoft.'"
David Cassel, Editor, AolWatch Newsletter:
"Here's a reason to fear AOL's control. AOL blocked delivery for the last edition of the AOL Watch newsletter. Did the newsletter's 25,000 AOL subscribers trigger an overzealous spam filter? Or was it that this edition was the first to remind users of the phone number for discontinuing service. (AOL had kicked the ACLU off the service after six years, and there was discussion about cancelling accounts en masse...) Either way, remember: Whoever controls the wires can control the content."
Marty Bass, Morning Edition co-host, WJZ TV (Baltimore):
"I can't imagine that this merger will in any way affect local news gathering or viewing. To duplicate the job we do would require setting up a newsroom. I mean, let's face it; with streaming audio and video you could do a 6 PM News, but this would require a ton of cash, and the local stations already have the major headstart, not only in style but in established viewing. This would be an expensive proposition that would not bear fruit for longer than the 'bean counters' could stand.
"Also lets just say that my station which is a CBS O&O, (CBS already provides news to AOL) put our newscast on-line. Would this change the way our competition does news? No, the primary audience is still watching over breakfast or dinner or in bed at 11. The smaller on-line audience would essentially be getting a big promo for the big shows."
Chris Johnson of airwindows.com:
"What with AOL consuming Time Warner and threatening the stability of the world and all, it seemed to me that it would be good and proper to seek the lighter side of the matter. Here is a short quiz. Identify the proper AOL Spokesmen for the following phrases...
'You've, I say, you've got mail, boy!'
'We are going to buy ICQ because it obstructs our view of Venus!'
'Nnnnyou've got mail, Doc!'
"These are of course restricted to classic WB cartoons. But the fun of it is, AOL now owns most of Western Media! :P - so the field of potential spokesmen is almost infinite!"
Alice Hill, Editor, CNET Online:
"We don't really view either company as a competitor. We did a major deal with AOL in 1999 to provide our content for the computing channels on AOL.com, netcenter.com, compuserve.com and the computing and Internet channels on the subscriber services AOL and CompuServe. Over the past year we have enjoyed the relationship, and the audience. At this point, the notion of adding Time Warner to the mix makes it even better."
Carl Steadman, columnist, The Industry Standard:
"The lesson is clear: send out enough pieces of direct mail and you, too, can own the world."
For links to many more opinions on the AOL/Time-Warner merger, please see this excellent page put together by long-time online writer amd media critic Steve Rhodes.
AOL + Time Warner = BubbleGum Media (Score:5)
Chances are, AOL is going to "modify" the internet division of Time Warner (Road Runner). What I'M worried about is if they're going to turn RoadRunner into a fast AOL. Think about it....AOL has been plagued by their reputation of having really slow service. Now, if they take RoadRunner, they can truthfully advertise this as "The fastest AOL EVER!", then my interface turns to crap, and I get baby-faced content shoved down my throat.
Not only that, what happens if the rr.com domain is absorbed by AOL.com? That would mean my new E-mail address would end in aol.com opening up the floodgates for spam. This is not what I want.
I am perfectly happy with my current Time Warner RoadRunner service, and I will be very upset if this changes. It may even be enough to force me back to dialup access, as that's the only thing in this price range. And I hate dialup.
Dial-Up is better than AOL, however.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
AOL's competition should be ecstatic (Score:3)
There's a point where it doesn't make sense to make a corporation any bigger folks. AOL has created a dinosaur. Their competition should find it fairly easy to outflank them now.
Yes and no (Score:3)
On the other hand, the mere fact that AOL and Time-Warner are major international corporations is grounds enough to examine whether this deal is a good thing or not.
Personally, I wouldn't say AOL are significantly better or worse than any other ISP. I've had no more disconnects the times I've used them than when I've used any number of local ISPs running Windows-based systems.
That's not to say I think AOL should be excused - if Windows doesn't cut it, don't use it! - but rather, they shouldn't be villified as if they were the only ones out there. Plenty of other people pull the same stunts, and deserve to be reprimanded for them.
As for the impact this'll have, honestly I don't see it having any. ISPs will still refuse to support multicasting, IPSec, IPv6 or any other technology that might eat at their profits, through customers getting a better deal. As the current setups are already maxed out, for the most part, precicely because of this attitude, there's not a whole lot AOL or Time-Warner can do to change things.
The most I can really see happening is AOL offering Warner Brother skins for their software, and/or more AOL adverts on the Cartoon Channel. Other than that, there's nothing more that can really be changed.
Concerned.... (Score:5)
This merger may have benefits, but it puts way too much power into one entity.
the worst part of this merger... (Score:4)
--t
God its sad what passes for reasoning these days.. (Score:3)
The Katz entry: Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world?
Well, John, hasn't one company or another always been #1?
From Brock Meeks: no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit
Hmmm... guess that puts an end to home delivery of newspapers. And those damn local TV stations better quit doing local newscasts as well.
Chris Johnsons bit: Yeah, real deep and funny..
Why doesn't anyone address the real nice outcome from this merger... open access to cable infrastructure is almost guaranteed thanks to this.
Journalism rears its ugly head, of course. (Score:3)
Take a good look at these:
"With Gateway, Amino [now Amiga Coporation] and probably others able to produce this type of machine, this could possibly be the fatal blow to MS that many have been waiting for." -- Wayne A. Martin, News Manager, Amiga.org
"The bottom line of this proposed deal is nothing more than crass commercialism. What a huge advertising coup this is for Bob Pittman of AOL, he must be drooling at the thought of how to put AOL's nefarious 'pop-up' ads on CNN and print via Time magazine."
(and...)
"...no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit." -- Brock Meeks, MSNBC correspondent
"Here's a reason to fear AOL's control. AOL blocked delivery for the last edition of the AOL Watch newsletter." -- David Cassel, Editor, AolWatch Newsletter
"There is absolutely nothing in Steve Case's background that suggests he is particularly well-equipped to lead a new kind of unimaginably complex media conglomerate into the 21st century, and Wall Street analysts who are so blinded by the hype surrounding this deal that they fail to consider it carefully are likely to be sorry."
(and...)
"Is individualism, free expression, diverse opinion advanced when the information economy breaks down into two or three "old and new" media conglomerates that control virtually all of the archived news and entertainment information online, and increasingly, the means to deliver it?" -- Jon Katz, Slashdot Columnist
So in other words, the Amiga guy sees this as a blow to MS in favour of Amiga. The MS-NBC (check those letters closely!) guy figures this is a dangerous and crass example of overcommercialisation. The AOLWatch guy is worried about AOL threatening AOLWatch more effectively. And then there's JonKatz, who rants against any and all big business and asks rhetorical questions in stunningly long, convoluted sentences.
Bottom line, their biases are showing. Painfully.
While it's true that there's no such thing as an unbiased story, it's pretty sad when the so called "journalists" can't even pretend to look at the other side of an issue, let alone attempt to report on it fairly.
Of course, my biases are showing too; I hate bad journalism. Just ask yourself, whenever you read or watch a news story, does the article say more about the story itself or the journalist reporting it?
Amiga comments (Score:5)
While I always enjoy any news related to the Amiga (even with the sad state that it is in), I did find the mention a little bit interesting.
Basically, the Amiga technology has been getting pawned off over the years as "technology which is great, might not be quite what you want for a computer anymore, but would do wonders for set top boxes". I've thought that the set top box is perfect for it. If AOL does have some sort of deal that dribbles down to Amiga Corporation, then this could be a significant opportunity to at least keep the Amiga technology alive.
I've used the digital cable system of Comcast in the northern New Jersey area. It consists of a large pizza box for a tuner with a large (and poorly designed) remote control to drive this thing. There are up to 999 channels (and about 400-500 are actually used), and it has built in television listings and primitive programming capabilities (timers, reminders, etc). Essentially, you're getting some sort of MPEG stream from the cable company, and this box is the decoder (you can see the digital artifacts in the signal; similar to what you see on DVDs). While the idea of the technology is great, I think that the actual "computer" behind the box is rather poor; it seems that most of the computing power is dedicated to the MPEG stream rather than to the controls. This would be an excellent job for the Amiga. I won't say that it couldn't be handled by another technology, but the architecture behind the Amiga is quite well suited for this, and if the "Digital Content Behemoth" (AOL/TW) has some sort of relation to the Amiga technology, then why not use it.
My two cents; no refunds.
--
Invalid point... (Score:3)
For instance, newspapers (like Time) usually own and control their own presses. Even when they outsource the actual printing, they still control the content. TV stations, radio stations, and the ilk all operate similarly.
And empires in media is not a new trend either. While this takes it to new heights, the media had already essentially completed its transistion to megacorp long ago. And while most sell their souls, their perspectives, and their opinions, the actual reporters are still people and occasionally do stand up for their beliefs.
The fact of the matter is, if they become too useless people just drop out. Look at newspaper readership in GenXers. Almost none of read the old pulp. I think television news listenership will eventually decline also. Radio may be sustained by commuters, desiring some local info, but as our society globalizes via the Internet, we're losing our local focus.
Why? Because locally we can't find enough similarity of interests. There is not slashdotesque TV station in St. Louis, so I hit the news. Its what I care about, not local schools (I probably should, but I'm single, so I don't).
Things morph, but we're still people. Even megacorps have people (like us) that, in the words of Paul (in the Bible), "fight the good fight".
--Jason
Nobody seems to get it. (Score:5)
While it's easy to see that Company A has such and such a share of some market and Company B has such and such a share of some other related market that company C (=A+B) will have both shares and will be bigger, etc., so company C is "more powerful" (translated "probably going to make more money") companies generally (especially big companies like these) don't undertake these sorts of mergers unless there is a specific reason.
Such reasons are usually of the form "If we do not buy that company then their new product will erode our dominance in market X", "our other competitor is beating us by using their Y technology, we'll buy this third company and get the same technology", "we need to sell product Z to strengthen our core business, and their customer base is the perfect market," etc.
Consider this: Time Warner owns immense amounts of copyrighted content -- music, movies, literature, etc. They are one of the big players in this "lock down the MP3's/mpegs/online distribution"-shove-SDMI-down-your-throat "piracy" (bootlegging?) battle. Nobody in their right mind is going to use SDMI over a free mp3 (or mp3-like) format. Why allow the robber-barons of the content kingdom to extend their outmoded royalty/distribution monopoly? Time/Warner realizes this, and they realize that the only way to keep those $ flowing is to get SDMI (or something very similar) into the hands of the mass consumer. How does one do that? Find a large body of mass consumers and shove it in their faces. Make it easier than the alternative.
The biggest body of captive mass consumers sheepish/idiotic enough to accept that SDMI is an easy way to get their music online is the body of AOL subscribers. While partnering with AOL may do the job, buying them out ensures control over distribution in their medium, and will ensure that no non-SDMI system will appear as an alternative to an AOL subscriber. When the base of 20 million (?) AOLers is locked into SDMI then SDMI becomes a de facto standard. A few years down the road and ideally (for T/W) this will be the case for video content as well. And, the perfect target audience has already been recruited by AOL. Hell, now that they own Netscape, and M$ will play ball they can just put SDMI in the browsers too. "Boss, it's a win-win".
It's Too late.. Domains already taken (Score:3)
Kowai.
A hedge, not a revolution (Score:5)
The most insightful commentary I've seen on the merger so far isn't anything in this article -- it's Robert X. Cringely's [pbs.org] take. Cringely proposes that, rather than seeing the merger as a sign of AOL optimism about its future, it should be seen as a sign of AOL's pessimism, especially regarding the market fortunes of Net companies.
It makes sense when you think about it. AOL stock has gone through the stratosphere based largely on the idea that AOL is a 'pure Internet play'. Buying a big old media company will end this perception and put a drag on the growth of the stock value. So why should AOL buy Time Warner outright, when they could get the same access to TW content through a less formal partnership, while preserving their hyper-performing stock value?
Cringely argues that AOL is betting that being a 'pure Internet play' isn't going to be a huge benefit for much longer -- in fact, it may become a liability if and when the market bubble bursts. If that happens, suddenly the Amazons of the world look like awful investments as their valuations are "corrected". But AOL doesn't look as bad, because it's got real-world value based on its ownership of Time Warner's many established brands, as opposed to the purely theoretical value that many Net companies have. In other words, AOL knows that it's had a terrific run at the tables, and it's cashing out its chips and socking the money into the bank before its streak turns sour. It's buying insurance while it can still afford to. It's turning its virtual wealth, represented by stock valuation (which could disappear overnight if the public mentality changed) into real wealth, in the form of Time Warner's media properties (which will hold value no matter how the winds blow).
Is this the complete rationale behind the merger? Well, probably not. But viewed in this light it sure does look like a vote of no confidence in the Internet Economy on the part of Steve Case & Co.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
AOLOSAUR (Score:3)
In the long haul, shareholder managed mediocracies like these will implode. Their urge to command and control the market will win fewer and fewer hearts. More cooperative competitors will route around the sword of the central censor. Wake up and smell the tsunami.
Metcalfe's Law describes exponentially increasing returns as more nodes connect to a network. Hence, AOL MSN etc clobber one another to acquire customers, to aggregate eyeballs, with one simple aim: sell them. Customers defect, exploiting titanic price wars. The price for customer acquisition skyrockets. Investors hoping to cash in on tomorrow's loyal customer might just have their bubble popped one of these days..
Long term loyalty can't be bought. And King Customer grows more powerful by the day. This will profoundly change all business relationships in the free trade of meaningful ideas.
Does a customer's capacity to store information quadruple every three years? Gilder's Law says there will be 27 times more pipe to share information every three years. So in ten years, TiVo nodes might store 75 times more info, but have 60,000 times the capacity to exchange it, and do so transnationally. Try to regulate it. Go ahead, hire more lawyers.
What is the technology telling us? Decentralization is bad news for vertically integrated cash registers. It's good news for reintermediators, and creators who avoid selling ownership out to ubercorps. Great news for chaorganized traders.
Shared ownership in client/server transaction is where it's at. ImagineRadio kinda got it, until they sold out to Viacom. Aolosaurus doesn't get it at all.
Re:Journalism rears its ugly head, of course. (Score:3)
Perhaps their biases are showing because I asked all these people to give their *personal opinions" on possible effects of the AOL/TW merger - from their *personal* perspectives.
The AOLWatch guy (surprise!) talks about how AOL censors content. The Amiga.org guy (another big surprise, eh?) talks from the perspective of an Amiga advocate. Alice Hill @ C|Net (gasp!) speaks from the perspective of an editorial honcho for a mainstream online/cable TV news source that already has close ties to AOL. Local TV news guy Marty Bass (I'm going to faint...) discusses how AOL+TW might/might not affect local TV news. And Jon Katz speaks from the viewpoint of (hard to believe)
I hate bad journalism myself. But I also remember that in most people's eyes, "good" journalism is journalism that agrees with their personal biases 100%. And Glub forbid a journalist should have an opinion of his or her own and share it freely with Slashdot readers without getting it cleared and blanded down by a corporate PR department!
Do I sound biased here? Damn right!!!
And proud of it.
- Robin