AOL Invests $100M In Amazon 94
jeffsenter writes "AOL is investing 100M USD in Amazon. CNET story. AOL and Amazon began partnering in 1997. AOL plans to integrate Amazon into its shopping channels further and Amazon will promote AOL as its exclusive ISP. The deal did not include purchases of advertising by Amazon from AOL as many such partnerships do." The money part I'm actually not that interested in - what I do think is interesting that given AOL's size and mass, the partnership of they and Amazon is going to be a pivotal one, complimenting each other very well.
Re:Content, Connection, and now Shopping... (Score:1)
>So do they wait until Amazon goes bankrupt or is on the verge of it to buy them outright, or do they just pay Amazon enough money not to associate with MSN thereby depriving Microsoft of an ally?
OH NO! THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IS A HOTBED OF MACHIAVELLIAN POLITICAL MANUVERING!
Re:Content, Connection, and now Shopping... (Score:1)
Turn and face the light!!! The Great Prophet Linus will save us from the enslavery of the Evil Microsoft and the AOL Heathens!!!
Bend your knee and worship the Glorious Penguin of Power!!!
Praise "Bob"!
The real initials of Time Warner AOL Turner (Score:1)
there will be so much bandwidth consumed by people mentioning the full name of the combined AOL empire, there won't be any left for the rest of us!
I still think they should have called it
T ime
W arner
A OL
T urner
Re:Loser + Loser = faster failure (Score:1)
AOL should distribute on CDRW and be ECO-FRIENDLY! (Score:1)
AOL: Why don't you want to help the environment?
Re:aol-time-warner-amazon (Score:2)
Cool (Score:1)
Excellent. Here's why. (Score:3)
Amazon is a very high profile e-commerce site. People pay attention to what Amazon is doing... both technology people and business people. Amazon is perceived as a leader. And now that they're hooked up with AOL, the 'leader' will most certainly not become a Passport/Hailstorm site.
I've seen signs of an AOL/Netscape equivalent to that, actually. I'd be happy to see Amazon be part of that family. Not because I'd use it (I wouldn't), but because it would establish that Passport isn't the only game in town. Web sites could end up offering their users a choice of centralized authentication/payment services, much like you can walk into any store and pay with your choice of major credit cards today. Imagine: "We accept Microsoft Passport, AOL [whatever], GNU [whatever], or self pay..."
That's where I want to go today.
--
Loser + Loser = faster failure (Score:2)
Perhaps AOL was concerned that they weren't losing money fast enough, and needed some help from the world's #1 dot-bomber: Jeff Bezos.
"complimenting each other very well", indeed.
I fail to be impressed by either company - it really doesn't take much hard work, or brainpower, to lose this much money, although it does take a certain... panache to convince the masses to fork it over. For all of those anxiously fearing the worldwide domination of AOL, don't you fret - just wait a year or two, and watch the demise.
"But there's potential!" people say. Um, didn't we hear all about this a year or so ago? Look what happened...
(nope, I'm not a bitter investor, just an old-fashioned engineer who thinks wealth should be created, and earned. I've never owned a stock in my life, just for the record.)
Re:The future... (Score:1)
Re:Why Slashdot are not journalists, just hacks. (Score:1)
Were you trying to say "what I do think is interesting is that given AOL's size and mass..."?
the partnership of they and Amazon
Try "them and Amazon". This might not seem like a big error, but Americans (at least in my region) typically get this one right. It's typically best to stick to standard grammar, but if you're going to be less formal, at least a substitute that's widely accepted in the vernacular...
To an extent, I agree with the AC. Hemos et al are the editors for a respected site with a large following. There's no reason why they shouldn't use correct grammar (or, like I said above, some reasonable substitute). Before I gripe too much about grammar, though, how about having the editors take more than just a glance at the articles before posting bogus headlines? (See "pager spam" [slashdot.org].)
---
Another victim of the analytical knife
Re:Even worse (Score:1)
Where's the monopoly? Or is this just one of those words that a lot of people around here throw out whenever something happens that they don't like?
Cheers,
Re:What's a Monopoly? (Score:1)
I'm a stickler for accuracy, and it gets tiring seeing everybody running around and screaming monopoly every time they don't like something. I'm not blowing off your well-thought out reply with this post, I just don't have time to write anymore right now./p.
Cheers,
1 Click (Score:3)
Rather confused why Amazon would want AOL search technology too - it's search facilities are the best of the online book stores...
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:2)
-2 penalty for me I guess.. doh.
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:2)
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:3)
hey.. with fantasy football season just around the corner, this has got me thinking.. how about fantasy slashdot?
All grammatical errors: 3 points
All spelling errors: 2 points
Forgetting to close the italic tag: 5 points
Smart-ass comments from the author in the story: 5 points
Using the l key to symbolize the number 1: 5 points
Improper abbreviations: 2 points
Bonuses:
Jon Katz posts an article of less than 3 paragraphs: 20 points
Your author actually comments in a story: 10 points
I'll take CmdrTaco
More on finance metrics (Score:1)
100M means more than it used to (Score:3)
Now with the market cap under 6B, it means a whole lot more.
18 months ago, the same stake would have cost ~$700M!
My guess is... (Score:2)
--
Err, Q3? (Score:1)
Re:CDs in every box (Score:2)
The truth is that the CDs are the larval form of an alien species which inhabit AOL parasitically. When there is one in every home they will spontaneously mature and eliminate all humans. Fear the Day of The Great Hatching.
Re:Loser + Loser = faster failure (Score:2)
Re:1 Click (Score:1)
The more-interesting question is what effect (if any) this will/won't have on the one-click controversy, and I don't profess to know anything about that!
JMR
Coasters (Score:2)
--
Re:The future... (Score:1)
the partnership of they and Amazon (Score:2)
How about: "what I do think is interesting that, given AOL's size and mass, the partnership is going to be a pivotal one"
-1, dump it, bad grammar, edit and re-submit.
Sorry, I was just over at K5 [kuro5hin.org]
Why an exclusive ISP? (Score:2)
Why does Amazon need an exclusive ISP? What does that mean anyway? It seems hardly likely that Amazon would reject book orders that didn't come in over AOL.
'pivotal' (Score:1)
Re:The future... (Score:1)
Peachy.... (Score:2)
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
Oh well, I could use some AOL CDs now - shingle your house with them and you lower your air conditioning bill immensely!
That was insightful? (Score:3)
Three more months... (Score:2)
Shop Barnes and Noble (Score:1)
Contrary to popular belief there are other booksellers out there. Some of which may not have sold their soul to the devil.
Barnes and Noble also bought up Fatbrain.com [fatbrain.com] so their selection for
amazon and ISP (Score:1)
WTF? Amazon is not in the ISP business... how does this have anything to do with Amazon? How can Amazon have an exclusive ISP?
This just doesn't make sense.
-----
Re:The future... (Score:1)
I just remembered reading something vaguely relevant on The Register - EU to investigate anti-trust Internet music companies [theregister.co.uk] . "The future of Internet music delivery has basically been put in the hands of just two companies: MusicNet, run by AOL Time Warner, EMI and Bertlesmann; and Duet, run by Sony and Vivendi". But it's likely to end in a merge between the two, not war - the two have already admitted to being in talks with one another.
If you haven't read this article already, read it; it's worth the time.
Name something AOL doesn't have a stake in... (Score:4)
- Online music [theregister.co.uk]
and Internet radio
- Partner with Bertelsmann AG, EMI, and RealNetworks for MusicNet
- A bunch of other usual suspect movie studios like Universal Pictures, who basically have to pay AOL-Time Warner for advertising airtime (although of course they're associated with Vivendi which probably means they have power all to their own)
- Books- AOL have $100 million in Amazon...
- Advertising- they're the US's second-largest advertiser, apparently.
- Truly awful television (Popstars 2 out this fall)
- Cisco, Swatch and Oxygen (marketing alliances)
- Magazine publishing (UK publisher IPC acquired for 1.1 billion UKP)
- EarthLink high-speed cable, Juno and High Speed Access on their broadband systems...
- The subscription video-on-demand market in Columbia, SC (with HBO)
- Grab the set-top box market with AOLTV/TiVo(TM)
- Oh, and a bunch of US magazines, obviously
- Your local supermarket (over 12,000 retail outlets have apparently signed distribution agreements to promote AOL... including Wal-Mart...)
- There's even an AOL mobile service...
- A strategic alliance with Sony for the PlayStation 2 (so you can use Instant Messenger, if it ever actually works)
- Chinese top computer maker Legend (joint venture)
- and a whole bunch of other stuff, including sponsoring Madonna's latest world tour...
But then, their financial report [aoltimewarner.com] for the second quarter of '01 claims that they're intending to "expand agressively", and see themselves as "The world's first internet-powered media and communications company, whose industry-leading businesses include interactive services, cable systems, publishing, music, networks and filmed entertainment".Oh, apparently AOL 7.0 will offer a new level of convenience, ease of use and other marketdroid speak that will make the service "central to members' lives". Can't wait.
What, no Linux version? Darn. Looks like I'll have to after all.
Re:The future... (Score:2)
noamazon (Score:1)
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
Re:noamazon (Score:1)
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
my compliments to the author! (Score:2)
Bezos: Why, thank you, AOL.
Case: Oh, thank you, Amazon.
Bezos: No, no, thank you, AOL.
Case: Oh I insist, thank you, Amazon.
Bezos: Please please, thank you AOL.
Case: Look, we gave you the money, so we get to give the thanks. thank you, Amazon.
Background:
Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO.
Steve Case, AOL CEO.
Compliment: An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation.
Complement: Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.
-f
No they didn't... (Score:2)
Exxon Mobil(largest company in the world, revenues of over $210 billion last year) has not bought BP(7th largest company in the world, revenues of almost $150 billion last year.
Perhaps you were thinking of BP's takeover of Amoco a few years ago (ok then, merger *cough*).
Re:The future... (Score:2)
Anyway, it's only a joke, intended to be amusing before accurate. Also, it seemed a lot funnier at 4 AM when I posted it. ^_^
--
The future... (Score:4)
Just what America needs. Zibatsu.
--
Truly awful television ???? (Score:2)
Added to which, on HBO I get the bonus of actually getting nearly an hour of programming per hour of viewing, as there are no commercial breaks. I am definitely willing to pay for this.
This is bad analysis (Score:3)
Secondly, there was never any expectation that AOL would not show a loss within one year after one of the largest mergers in history.
TW ad revenues are up (when most other ad supported businesses are sucking), AOL has sewn up the consumer ISP market, and through partnerships continues to acquire vast swaths of the consumer landscape.
It doens't take a rocket scientist to figure out that over time this will translate into an incredible amount of control and obscene profit margins.
As for you "never owning a stock" - don't brag about that too much, even in days like this, stocks are still your best way to make money (yes kids, Priceline is up 400% in the last couple of months). Take on some risk man, you could get hit by a cement truck tomorrow.
Re:Marketing Systems (Score:1)
Marketing Systems (as opposed to Operating Systems)
Marketing Systems are systems designed purely for marketing purposes, with operations being hardly even secondary considerations.
Where the have you been sticking your head? This is exactly what all the Personalization [personalization.com] hype is about.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:1)
Yes, I know this topic has come up a hundred times before, but why in the name of all that is holy is it that if someone isn't a friggin computer geek that admins at least 5 computers in their own bedroom is dumb?
I think it is highly ignorant that if someone isn't as well versed in what YOU consider the ultimate in intelligence, they are labeled "dumb". Do people in other fields call everyone else ignorant and stupid if they don't devote their lives to that profession?
If there were a slashdot for neurosurgeons, would they say things like "Those dumb, steaming masses who just go to Rite Aid and get aspirin for their headaches instead of cutting their skull open and actually fixing the damn problem...they will always be clueless." If that were the case, I think the universe might just collapse on top of itself due to its own arrogance.
Just a rant, nothing more. Everyone continue saying people who aren't Linux admins must be stupid.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:1)
I think you're confusing me with the same people who had a big problem with the questions on the Census last year, decrying that it was an invasion of privacy by the government. Of course, at the same time, the same people were filing their income taxes, giving the government far more information that what was on the census forms.
I'm not being hypocritical--as far as Amazon goes (which was what my post was about), they can use what CDs I buy or what type of RAM i use for whatever they want. THAT information isn't really sensitive.
delete the traces they have innocently left in the early years on public forums without thinking much about the consequences.
You know what, if someone posts a message to a PUBLIC forum, why should everyone who now has a copy of that have to delete it, just because the author now decides he doesn't want that to be public? It reminds me of a friend who posted pictures of him and his girlfriend doing the nasty on the internet, and then didn't want anyone to know about it. You know what? If you want something to be private, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:1)
When you go buy a car, do you really buy it for the fuel injection system, or is it mostly based on the way it looks and what amenities it has?
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:1)
Of course, most people reallyy think that a cdrom tray is analogous to a cup holder, and use it that way.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:1)
You and me and everyone else may not like this, but the fact of the matter is that when you post on Slashdot, or buy something on Amazon, you are bound by some agreement (explicit or implicit), that the information you are providing can be used in certain ways. Slashdot and Amazon are private entities, and can do certain things with the information, granted they inform you of it. If you don't like it, basically, you can post on your private message board or go to your local bookstore to purchase a book with cash.
Saying that you want the right to VOTE to what happens in a private organization/corporation is just never going to happen, hence the term "private". Beyond that, you are represented in this wacky government of ours through the normal congress/president channels. If you want to have a more active role, run for an office! Please, someone with your views should be heard and *should* be making these types of laws.
Unfortunately, in our not-so-perfect world, we have Strom Thurmond making laws about technology that he has probably never had any interaction with. But, so goes the world.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:2)
Personally, I have no problem with this, it's not as if they are using your bank account balances, prescriptions, or any other actual sensitive information. Amazon's use of what I buy and shop for really makes their site so much more useful. When I go to the front page, there are actually items there I would like to have.
I just wonder if Amazon actually deleted my information when I cancelled my account with them.
And really, what privacy-trouncing action could they take with your information if they didn't delete it all with your account. So what, so AOL now knows you bought the 2nd Spice Girls CD. Well, I guess I see your point about that one.
Marketing Systems (Score:3)
Marketing Systems (as opposed to Operating Systems)
Marketing Systems are systems designed purely for marketing purposes, with operations being hardly even secondary considerations.
We have seen the gradual development of this type of thing with Microsoft. AOL and Amazon have the capabilities to really bring it to maturity.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Shnarf (Score:2)
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:1)
Re:Why Slashdot are not journalists, just hacks. (Score:1)
well, amazon and AOL might praise each other all day long, but i don't think that's what was meant in the original article. i agree with mr. anonymous, above: the slashdot contributors should learn to spell.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:1)
Early dejanews.com at least offered nuke options for users to delete the traces they have innocently left in the early years on public forums without thinking much about the consequences. Since it was bought by Google, a same option has not been implemented. Just wait til Google sells its stuff to AOL. How much more blinded do you want to get ?
The info lands in the hand of corporations. That is what is wrong with it.
Strangely enough, if someone suggest that the people in the U.S. should register their place of residence (as it is done in other European countries), you hear an outcry of Americans protesting that their privacy and freedom would be restricted.
But when corporation thrive on any information they can get about you, then it's ok.
What kind of hypocritical thinking is that ?
Quite frankly, corporations which don't delete the accounts of their customers, because they are just too plain lazy to do it, can go to hell. It should be mandatory.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:1)
If the issue were that lame, I and, I assume, also you, would not fight over it.
The meaning of PUBLIC forum goes much deeper than that.
The whole idea that, what used to be defined loosely as PUBLIC forum in the pre-internet days, when most of our privacy laws were created, can be nilly-willy extended over to a world-wide accessible, indexable, searchable and storable medium of the internet, is just short-sighted.
In pre-internet age content, generated for public usage on a publicly accessible medium, like a published book, a newspaper, a radio broadcast, in a wire transcript of a town meeting etc, was limited to your town, your newspaper-, film-, or library archives and bookstores. The distribution of archived material was limited to certain physical locations and their storage limited timewise. Before something was decided to be kept in public libraries (paid for by your government and my tax dollars) for good, librarians filtered it and made decisions about its relevance. Books have natural lifetime and go through an editorial process, as well as newspaper articles.
There was not ONE medium in the pre-internet time, where material stored was not limited, compressed, managed, edited and filtered by some human brain. And if it was not done by a human brain, it was done by time. Sources fade away. Grass grows over things. The world goes on, repeating itself. People could count on that.
All those pre-internet time archives had a clearly defined ownership. Either it was the government or a private entity or a corporation. For each of those entities, there was a legal framework of what they were allowed to collect and archive AGAINST the will of the people, who provide the things or content they collected. There was also a legal framework to regulate distribution, access and broadcasting of that content. In addition there were clear regulations about who was allowed to access this information and that people, who had the right to access the information, had to identify themselves.
Nothing of that is regulated on the internet medium. Nowhere has it been decided upon BY THE PEOPLE, which represents the PUBLIC, who owns the archives generated on the "Public" forum of the web. I am member of the public. I don't own the archives, I even don't own my own comments. Right now, someone (VALinux) owns this comment. What is public about it ? It's private property of the VALinux corporation. The only thing public about it, is the fact that VALinux has decided to leave access to this comment on their servers open for world wide reading and searching for a yet undetermined length of time. It's their decicison, which they could make, because they own the archives, and NOT the PUBLIC. The fact that, as soon as VALinux to provide a world-wide readable web forum, it can't control the content anymore from being archived, logged, mirrored once it is out by someone else, does not mean by default that WE, the people, agree to give up that control of the content as well.
It's not the government, who decides, which rights the government has to archive information they gather. It's the people who make the laws, which govern the government. The people decide that WE, the people, have the right to access all information, WE allowed the government to gather about US.
If corporations (or the government) are gathering information about us, they find on the internet, and archive them, WE, the people, have NOT decided, that THEY are allowed to do that, nor have WE (yet) decided, that WE have a right to access all information, which was generated on the internet by US.
Re:Peachy.... (Score:1)
Well then, if they are private, they are private and they should be allowed to do on their *private network* whatever they want with content provided by its users. But they should not be allowed to do whatever they want with the user provided content on the complete network of the internet, which they only own partly.
Instead of demanding from me to use a private network, if I don't like their way of providing too little control over the content I provide to them, they should be asked to use their private network, where they then can have rightfully complete control user provided content.
What do you deduct from the fact that they are private entities, but use the worldwide network publicly, as if the complete internet were owned by them in its entirety ? Neither VALinux, AOL/Amazon or the government own the internet alone, therefore neither should be allowed to decide about the distribution of content on the internet in a manner, as if the complete network were owned by just one of them.
Let's say if the total of all existing servers on the internet were x million and the total of all available bandwidth were y million and VALinux would own 1/100 000 of the total number of servers and 2/100 000 of the total existing bandwidth, why should they have total units of control over the content distribution and not just 1/100 000 units of control, which would be their weighted shares of ownership on the total network ?
Why is public usage and public ownership of the internet understood as if it actually would exist?
I don't see any public ownership and almost no laws, which would govern that public property's usage by the people. I see only public usage without public control. Even if they own the content, they don't own the complete network on which they are distributing and allow uncontrolled third party usage of that content to happen.
This is BTW not at all VALinux or Amazon bashing. It's just one example to make a point.
So, what is the logic in supporting on the one hand the transparency and openess of the source code for the public, but at the same token accepting that publicly provided content is not free and not under public control ?
Equally important. (Score:1)
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:1)
Engilsh is it's own rweard.
~
AOL USERS!!! (Score:2)
FREE BOOKS ONLINE! NO credit card required! No obligation!
RIGHT HERE!!1 [infomotions.com] Just click on a link on the left and be taken to the uncensored full texts!!!
Hurry! THey're going fast@ REmember: NO credit card required, it's FREE, no obligation!!1
Here's an excerpt!! (direct from link to full text!!1 [ulib.org] http://www.ulib.org/webRoot/Books/_Gutenberg_Etex
Adventure VI
The Reigate Puzzle
It was some time before the health of my friend Mr.
Sherlock Holmes recovered from the strain caused by
his immense exertions in the spring of '87. The whole
question of the Netherland-Sumatra Company and of the
colossal schemes of Baron Maupertuis are too recent in
the minds of the public, and are too intimately
concerned with politics and finance to be fitting
subjects for this series of sketches. They led,
however, in an indirect fashion to a singular and
complex problem which gave my friend an opportunity of
demonstrating the value of a fresh weapon among the
many with which he waged his life-long battle against
crime.
On referring to my notes I see that it was upon the
14th of April that I received a telegram from Lyons
which informed me that Holmes was lying ill in the
Hotel Dulong. Within twenty-four hours I was in his
sick-room, and was relieved to find that there was
nothing formidable in his symptoms. Even his iron
constitution, however, had broken down under the
strain of an investigation which had extended over two
months, during which period he had never worked less
than fifteen hours a day, and had more than once, as
he assured me, kept to his task for five days at a
stretch. Even the triumphant issue of his labors
could not save him from reaction after so terrible an
exertion, and at a time when Europe was ringing with
his name and when his room was literally ankle-deep
with congratulatory telegrams I found him a prey to
the blackest depression. Even the knowledge that he
had succeeded where the police of three countries had
failed, and that he had outmanoeuvred at every point
the most accomplished swindler in Europe, was
insufficient to rouse him from his nervous
prostration.
Three days later we were back in Baker Street
together; but it was evident that my friend would be
much the better for a change, and the thought of a
week of spring time in the country was full of
attractions to me also. My old friend, Colonel
Hayter, who had come under my professional care in
Afghanistan, had now taken a house near Reigate in
Surrey, and had frequently asked me to come down to
him upon a visit. On the last occasion he had
remarked that if my friend would only come with me he
would be glad to extend his hospitality to him also.
A little diplomacy was needed, but when Holmes
understood that the establishment was a bachelor one,
and that he would be allowed the fullest freedom, he
fell in with my plans and a week after our return from
Lyons we were under the Colonel's roof. Hayter was a
fine old soldier who had seen much of the world, and
he soon found, as I had expected, that Holmes and he
had much in common.
On the evening of our arrival we were sitting in the
Colonel's gun-room after dinner, Holmes stretched upon
the sofa, while Hayter and I looked over his little
armory of Eastern weapons.
"By the way," said he suddenly, "I think I'll take one
of these pistols upstairs with me in case we have an
alarm."
"An alarm!" said I.
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:1)
Thank you, drive through.
Re:Why Slashdot are not journalists, just hacks. (Score:1)
Of course, I probably just did the same without realizing it :)
Long story short... (Score:2)
--
$100M = 2 months of losses (Score:3)
.net (Score:1)
Re:$100M = 2 months of losses (Score:1)
Re:my compliments to the author! (Score:2)
wht's wrng w/ imprpr abbr's?
How about an obfuscated english contest?
Content, Connection, and now Shopping... (Score:2)
It does seem that they want to lock down our connection, our content, and soon where we can shop.
So do they wait until Amazon goes bankrupt or is on the verge of it to buy them outright, or do they just pay Amazon enough money not to associate with MSN thereby depriving Microsoft of an ally?
I really wonder just how big the Feds are going to allow AOL/TW to get, and how many "special" contracts they will be permitted.
The common theorey is, let them get entrenched so we
So how much more can they get away with before some state or the Feds come a knocking?
Hmmm.. (Score:3)
But such is life. Same goes for CNN, I think it has changed drastically and not for the better. It used to be a hefty site with lots of goodies and tons of links on teh main page. The 'new look' feels to AOLacized - simpler, lots of flashy color backgrounds, and MUCH fewer links to choose from. That and it seems like the news quality and quantity of news reports has decreased. Again - a shame.
So while this investment isn't AOL buying Amazon, if they ever do, I shudder to think what will happen as AOL 'simplifies' the look and feel of Amazon, reducing its usability that so many have come to enjoy
Re:Peachy.... (Score:2)
Even if you can pull a post, you can't pull the 20 or 30 posts that quote you and point out that you're an imbecile. If it teaches people to think before they speak then its a valuable lesson.
People embarass themselves on slashdot all the time. Slashdot is archived and indexed by google. Should google provide opt-out on a per post basis? Should slashdot allow you to delete your old posts or articles?
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:1)
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:1)
Even worse (Score:2)
Yeah, "pivotal..." So you've got Time Warner on content, AOL on internet, Time-Warner/Roadrunner on broadband, Amazon on sales. No monopolies here, no sir, just a little friendly synergy.
What's a Monopoly? (Score:2)
Still, as long as we're on the topic, I'm one of those who wasn't too happy to see one of the tiny handful of huge content providers (from books to blockbusters) merging with THE huge ISP, and having the FCC ask a copule questiones about whether Time Warner would still sell cable access through other ISPs and what AOL was up to with instant messenger servicing (suing the phoneme IM into submission, among other things) and then saying, hey, go for it guys.
Once upon a time there was a theory that too much media power concentrated in the hands of a few was a BAD THING because the truth would take a back seat to the private interests of that small group of people. Some of the remedies for this were to limit how many media outlets a single entity can own and to separate the PRODUCTION of content from the DISTRIBUTION of content. Maybe "monopoly" is not the best word to throw around in this context but SOMETHING should be said when the single clearest example of the violation of this principle starts throwing money at (arguably) the most recognized vendor on the web.
One may justifiably ask, are these concerns legitimate? Is there evidence that the media is exercising undue influence? You tell me - I couldn't help but notice that when Congress passed the abhorent 1996 Telecommunications act, there was vanishingly little media converage of the widespread dissent to this legislation. The massive free giveaway of the digital television spectrum barely registered a blip on commercial TV news - although those of us who chose to watch that bad ol' liberal-bias public television got the scoop. One of those mealy-mouthed liberal politicians did take note of the situation, and gravely (and as it turned out, correctly) predicted that the mainstream news would fail to cover the issue. What was that guy's name again? Oh yeah - Bob Dole.
So what exactly is your beef, Zico? Just a stickler for terminology, or do you actually this kind of business is a GOOD thing?
The web is here, so... (Score:1)
complimenting each other very well. (Score:3)
-CrackElf
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
Re:The future... (Score:1)
Re:The future... (Score:1)
first sport franchines, now bookstores (Score:1)
Re:CDs in every box (Score:1)
Re:Why an exclusive ISP? (Score:1)
I wonder how many busy signals Amazon will put up with before they go get a real ISP?
Re:Why an exclusive ISP? (Score:1)
Re:1 Click (Score:1)
A long run.... (Score:1)
So, the multinationals just keep growing. Big surprise, eh?
Like my economics profs always said..."In the long run, we're all dead." But I'm not quite sure that's what they meant....
Re:CDs in every box (Score:1)
Recyling instead of wasting.
And the big gets bigger (Score:1)
"Are traditional advertisers going to spend money there?" Styponias asked rhetorically. "That's what keeps me up at night watching AOL. That and their subscriber growth."
huh...
If it's wet, Drink it! [spitzy.net]
Spread The Wealth, AOL (Score:1)
aol-time-warner-amazon (Score:1)
Re:The future... (Score:1)
Does this mean... (Score:1)