Live data from Hacker News

Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

wsj.com

191–200 of 239 posts

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#191
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. They failed to do all of the above, and are now in the dustbin of history (and to me, are solely remembered for their acquisition of nullsoft who then created Gnutella - predecessor of P2P file sharing services).

>> They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. None of the big ISP's from the 90's "made it". Earthlink, Netcom, Prodigy... They were all either acquired, went bankrupt, or became DSL resellers. They didn't have any content so they were worthless as broadband took over. There's only a handful of dot-com's still around from those…

Prodigy. That was built between CBS, IBM, and Sears. They wanted an Amazon in 1988 ... Didn't happen.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#192
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. They failed to do all of the above, and are now in the dustbin of history (and to me, are solely remembered for their acquisition of nullsoft who then created Gnutella - predecessor of P2P file sharing services).

I think they are a great Innovator's Dilemma example. Quarter to quarter and manager by manager they could always do better denying the coming reality. I'd bet there were plenty of people within AOL who knew they were fucked in the long term, and I'm sure some of those actually tried to change things. But it's extremely hard to do anything that threatens existing revenue streams. Eventually the innovative people leav…

I read a perfect parallel: real networks employees knew their product was shit. But making it not shit would wreck the company:

   As employees, we weren’t proud of our business tactics, and we griped about 
   them frequently. The topic came up at company meetings, round table 
   conversations with executives, and through a lot of water cooler 
   conversation over email, during lunch, and across the foosball table.
   
   One day my manager showed me a horrible graph. It was pretty simple: the 
   graph was steady, then it dropped straight down, then after a short period, 
   the line shot straight back up and stayed level again:
   
   “That’s what happens when we do the right thing”, he said while pointing at 
   the drop, “and that’s how much money we lose. We tried it just to see how 
   bad it was for our bottom line. And this is what the data tells us.”
   
   “Wow,” I said, taken aback. My employer clearly had two options: “do the 
   right thing” or “be profitable”. That was the position they had maneuvered 
   themselves into through a series of bad management decisions.
   
   My manager then said, “More than half the company would have to lose their 
   job in order for us to stop these tactics ... so are you volunteering to be 
   one of them?”



https://medium.com/launching-ux-launchpad/the-graph-that-cha...

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#193

I wonder if that makes Ariana Huffington richer than her ex-husband. Mike H.: scion of wealthy Texas oil family. Former California representative, failed run for Senate using family money. Came out as gay man after loss and now is an indie film producer. Ariana H.: colorful journalist and political analyst retaining native Greek accent. While married she was a conservative, but became flaming liberal after divorce. S…

Maybe she'll actually get around to paying all her bills in Santa Barbara this time.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. None of the big ISP's from the 90's "made it". Earthlink, Netcom, Prodigy... They were all either acquired, went bankrupt, or became DSL resellers. They didn't have any content so they were worthless as broadband took over. There's only a handful of dot-com's still around from those…

Hmm .. May be they could have bought sbc/att/Comcast/twc? Given their valuation at that time, they could have bought pretty much anybody.

> Hmm .. May be they could have bought sbc/att/Comcast/twc?

They bought Time-Warner in 2001 for $164 billion to create AOL Time-Warner. The expected synergies of the acquisition largely failed to materialize, the AOL name was dropped from the combined entity in 2003, and AOL was spun back out of Time-Warner in 2009.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#195
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. They failed to do all of the above, and are now in the dustbin of history (and to me, are solely remembered for their acquisition of nullsoft who then created Gnutella - predecessor of P2P file sharing services).

>> They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. None of the big ISP's from the 90's "made it". Earthlink, Netcom, Prodigy... They were all either acquired, went bankrupt, or became DSL resellers. They didn't have any content so they were worthless as broadband took over. There's only a handful of dot-com's still around from those…

> None of the big ISP's from the 90's "made it".

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are still chugging along, among others. Some of them aren't household names like Level 3 or CenturyLink.

> There truly was nothing they could have done.

It's 1996, sales are terrible, stock price is in the toilet, the newest product line isn't selling as well, and it was very expensive to develop as it moved to a different CPU architecture. Moreover, the operating system isn't getting better, despite numerous attempts to improve it.

There are numerous newspaper articles saying the company should just fold, and return all the money to the shareholders.

There was nothing they could have done to save the company either.

Except, of course, to bring back Steve Jobs; the company was Apple, and the rest is history.

It's easy to decry the obscene amounts CEOs receive in compensation, but the right one would have been able to right the sinking ship that was AOL. Of course we'll never know if it could have been saved, but it's interesting to think about the position AOL was in, back in the 90's.

The big one was the switch to DSL, which AOL didn't keep pace with. I don't even recall if they did start offering DSL. My internet experience in the 90's was interrupted dial-up and busy signals.

DSL changed all that, but AOL didn't want DSL, so they got left behind. Suddenly, instead of AOL being the cool new thing, it didn't just become staid, it become dysfunctional. Instead of wanting to be on AOL and putting up with busy signals, you kept AOL because you were trapped by the @aol.com email they gave you. The rise of Hotmail took away that last excuse.

I don't know about better search technology, but if AOL had gotten into the online catalog business, Amazon may not even have gotten off the ground. AOL had the brand name recognition, and a warchest to fund something that was clearly going to happen, it was just the small matter of who was going to win. Grocery delivery was unproven, but books? Literally any book in print (and even some out of print) is available in a few days, shipped to your house. Sign me up!

Meanwhile, AOL was content to collect money from their dial-up business.

I actually think buying up ISPs to jump start their entry into the DSL market would have worked out well, or at least slowed the downward spiral. It gets them off the shrinking dial-up as into the nascent high-speed broadband market. The purchase of a backbone internet provider, combined with their purchase of Time Warner in 2000 may have prevented Netflix from getting off the ground, and could have jump started the online video streaming business five years faster.

Finally, buying an equipment manufacture like Sun may not seem like it would have made sense, but with the racks and racks of computers they already owned, a vertically integrated and merged AOL and Sun could started the popularization of cloud services, helped along by their online catalog and online video services.

The benefit of writing this two decades years past AOL's heyday is that hindsight is always 20/20. But saying AOL was doomed, and there was no choice in the matter ignores any possible move they could have done along the way.

Compared to $166 billion, the purchase price of $4.4 billion is not very much at all, but that's still approximately $4.4 billion more money than I have.

AOL may not be the household name it once was, but it did manage to pivot away from the dial-up business, and over to the content business. It's just that the content business, even a $4.4 billion one, is a different market than everyone in America paying you a monthly fee to get on the Internet.

We're in the middle of a similar story with Yahoo, and time will tell if Marissa Mayer is be able to right that ship.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#196
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They owned a closed "Walled Garden" version of the internet. Once the open internet took off, AOL was doomed.

They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. They failed to do all of the above, and are now in the dustbin of history (and to me, are solely remembered for their acquisition of nullsoft who then created Gnutella - predecessor of P2P file sharing services).

They did all of the above - you could connect to the open Internet from AOL starting around 1996, they started marketing themselves explicitly as an "ISP + proprietary content" around 1998, they bought Netscape and Mirabilis and several other leading Internet companies. They aggressively dropped their pricing structures to compete with flat-rate ISPs, while their other proprietary competition (Prodigy, GENie) went out of business. In 1997 half of all families on the Internet got it through AOL. [1]

They just didn't do all of the above better than the competition.

A major factor that killed AOL was the shift to broadband in the late 90s. AOL had a huge infrastructure and competitive advantage in providing dial-up access to consumers. As the Internet grew, though, consumers got hungrier for bandwidth, they got hungrier for content, and the relative share of both of these resources that was not owned by AOL increased. It was easy to justify subscribing to AOL when they were $10/month for 56.6K access, your local ISP was $10/month for 56.6K access, but AOL gave you all this extra content. It was a lot harder when you could pay $30/month for 500K/sec ADSL or Cable access that unlocked a whole world of multimedia content. AOL owned none of the infrastructure that made the broadband net possible.

GFiber, Loon, and cell phones risk doing the same thing to Comcast, TWC, and Verizon FIOS now.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#1990s:_a_new_Internet_age

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#198
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a person in the US actually use WhatsApp to talk to another person in the US. I used to occasionally see someone use it to talk to friends who were traveling abroad, but that's mostly been replaced by iMessage or Hangouts at this point.

I've paid for WhatsApp and am in the US. Yes, I originally joined to chat with people overseas, but now it's also the sole messaging service I use with multiple US-based contacts. AMA I guess, since apparently fellow Americans don't understand WhatsApp.

Replace "understand" with "care about" and it's a double win - you're closer to the truth, and you aren't condescending in service of defending your favored corporation.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#199
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had years to invest in the open internet, buy out a successful internet venture, or adopt internet features into their offering. They failed to do all of the above, and are now in the dustbin of history (and to me, are solely remembered for their acquisition of nullsoft who then created Gnutella - predecessor of P2P file sharing services).

I think they are a great Innovator's Dilemma example. Quarter to quarter and manager by manager they could always do better denying the coming reality. I'd bet there were plenty of people within AOL who knew they were fucked in the long term, and I'm sure some of those actually tried to change things. But it's extremely hard to do anything that threatens existing revenue streams. Eventually the innovative people leav…

There's a similar story about the search engine game. Yahoo had a chance to buy better search engine technology, the only problem was it was too good.

If people quickly found what they wanted, they wouldn't spend any time on your page. Time-spent-on-page is how Yahoo measured engagement, and thus ad-revenue. Improving Yahoo's search engine would have threatened existing revenue streams, and Google would be a terrible investment for them, given the metrics in use at the time.

Re: Verizon to Buy AOL for $4.4B

#200
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much do they pay WhatsApp each month?

How much does your average TV viewer pay NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox per month?

That is an unfair analogy. Those networks make money from advertising. WhatsApp refuses to show ads.
Post reply on HN