Case to Step Down from AOLTW 252
A user writes "Reuters is reporting that Steve Case, the CEO of AOL Time Warner, is resigning, to be effective in May. He'll still be part of AOLTW but as a director responsible for joint strategy. There have been various moves afoot to oust the man who masterminded AOL's takeover of the media giant: the Time Warner part of the partnership wants control whereas Case came from the loss making super-ISP. Case quitting could be bad news for technologists given the current battles between content providers like Time Warner and the Internet and computer industries."
correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:right (Score:2, Informative)
AGAIN TONIGHT: The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner (Score:3, Informative)
Tonight, Sunday, 9:00 PM Pacific standard time on CNBC (Dish Network and others, re-broadcast): The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner.
For those for whom English is not their native language, "heist" means "theft".
Steve Case? Was that you? (Score:2)
Can you believe it??? Someone moderated my post above as a "Troll", when it is a simple, on-topic fact.
Steve Case? Was that you?
leaving handshake (Score:5, Funny)
Stock price (Score:2, Funny)
hahah (Score:2)
In more shocking news (Score:5, Funny)
CNET mentions this too. (Score:4, Informative)
CNBC's "The Big Heist" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" (Score:5, Funny)
Next week, "Microsoft's Monopolistic Practices" on MSNBC...
Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CNBC's "The Big Heist" (Score:2, Funny)
Wasn't that the name of Andy Farmer's novel in that movie Funny Farm [imdb.com]?
AOL-TW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AOL-TW (Score:2, Interesting)
Blaming advertising for AOL is like blaming stock prices for Enron. The fall of Enron stock indirectly caused the bankruptcy. The actual cause was systematic malfeasance within the firm. I don't know that there was malfeasance in the AOL/TW deal, but I do know a lot of deals were made to benefit specific executives and not the companies they serve.
Re:AOL-TW (Score:2)
bring back Ted Turner... (Score:3, Troll)
Oh, yeh, and because he might inject some business sense into that unfathomable catastrophe of a company.
Re:bring back Ted Turner... (Score:2)
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/3874857.ht
He also has to come up with the 1,000,000,000 USD he promised the UN. So don't expect him to be much help...
Re:bring back Ted Turner... (Score:2)
That's probably because Steve Case sucked him dry by destroying the market value of the stocks he held.
Hrm... Maybe Ted should sue Steve...
"Hi Steve, you've got jail."
I just saw an AOL commercial (Score:5, Funny)
A round of applause is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
He's helped all of us programmers, system administrators, and consultants earn more by adding substantially to our customer base. More computer users means more of a market for computer experts like all of us.
I only wish they would keep him around a bit longer. Sure, they waste some CDs and packaging material, but all in all they've done us a great amount of good.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2, Insightful)
Millions of Americans USED AOL to connect to the Internet, therefore, these people would not have used the Internet otherwise.
Compare:
It's a damn good thing for the Albertson's on the corner; since I bought a lot of food from them, if they hadn't been there, I would have starved.
Without AOL those millions would have gone somewhere else. Case doesn't deserve credit for being the lucky one.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree. The whole notion that those millions of people would have been "somewhere else" is ludicrous.
The Internet has been around a long, long time. But, it was beyond even being unfriendly to the average Joe Enduser. It was the province of physicists and such.
AOL sucks, yes. But they had the genius to fill a niche that no one else even new existed. No -- sorry! They had the genius to create that niche.
They made it possible for a lot of technically challenged -- and even technically timid -- people to get online. That company fueled the Internet boom.
AOL and the Internet Boom (Score:2)
The Internet did exist for some time without general public knowledge. Getting access was not easy. And knowing how to make use of said access would be beyond most of today's general users. But there was a major change to that interface; the graphical browser. Mosaic which, in turn, spawned Netscape came on the scene. It made the World Wide Web click-easy. And it coupled in a few other useful protocols. Using the "Internet" now only required the ability to type in an address and click.
Meanwhile, the proprietary on-line services were doing their thing. AOL had long been on the scene, born from an on line gaming service for (among others) Commodore64 platforms. AOL's biggest concern at the time was the apparent launch of the Microsoft Network. MSN would compete directly with AOL... and had the advantage of putting an icon on 90% of the desktops out there (or at least, once Windows 95 shipped). Thus began the war between AOL and Microsoft.
Whispers about this "Internet" thing picked up. Microsoft acknowledged them - but considered it a niche technology (though didn't completely ignore it). AOL included less-than-well-defined access to Internet services as a kind of portal service. AOL users began showing up in Usenet discussions, in some cases becoming overnight annoyances with "me too" posts and threats to turn other users in to AOL's moderators (despite the fact that neither the forums nore the other users in question had anything to do with AOL).
The Internet gained more and more buzz and soon threatened to overcome the very space that proprietary online services now held. AOL pushed the Internet as a major selling point. It was now their business. Meanwhile, MSN reinvented itself. It wasn't just another AOL. It was an ISP. The Internet became Microsoft's business too.
Would millions of people have gone "somewhere else" without AOL? No. They would have gone to their local ISP. They were going to the Internet with or without AOL. AOL was simply wise enough to become part of this change rather than be swept away by it.
Did AOL make it possible for non-techies to access the Internet? Sure. But then, the technology was going that way already. Mosiac. Netscape. And then finally Microsoft with not only IE, but with integrated dial-up networking capability (previously only available through third party apps).
AOL did not create a niche market. They survived a slow but inevitable change. A major shift in technology. A shift that became an incremental landslide. An event that could have made them a footnote in history (much as it did other long-standing industry icons such as Compuserve).
Sure - AOL did their best to be user friendly (although just how much impact they had there is up to debate). They marketed. And they pushed in to new markets (though I do know some areas where local ISPs were available before AOL POPs). One could make a case that AOL's relationship with the Internet has been largely symbiotic.
But AOL did not create the Internet boom. They survived it.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2)
Nonsense. A reasonable dialer/tcp stack and netscape >=3 was more than adequate - gives you email, web and usenet.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2)
I believe the original poster's point was that setting up "a reasonable dialer/tcp stack" back in the day was beyond the skills of the average user.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2)
Nice revisionist history, I'm amazed how few people actually remember more than 5 years into the past.
1. AOL was not an internet company until long after the internet became a sensation. They spent a lot of time playing catch-up.
2. Prodigy? Compuserve? GEnie? Fidonet? Thousands of amateur BBSes? Have you never heard of these? AOL was not the innovator -- they were the big fish that swallowed everything that swam into their gaping maw.
3. The internet was not the domain of physicists because they were the only people capable of grasping the concept of text (yeah what a grand mystery; how did we ever learn it?). It's because until 1991 the NSF forbade commercial traffic on the internet backbone. Hence only the military, scientists, and educational institutions were allowed to use it.
4. 1991 was also the year the WWW was developed, the original internet GUI, 4 years before AOL even provided any semblance of internet access.
Not everyone slept through the internet revolution, you should do some reading... (Pssst! Al Gore didn't invent the internet! Pass it on...)
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2)
AOL was certainly the first major "easy to use" ISP that I saw. I signed up for my first dial access account (on a local ISP) in 1992, and I still remember when AOL users started flooding online.
Prodigy? Compuserve? GEnie? Fidonet? Thousands of amateur BBSes?
None of these provided a friendly, graphical UI for internet use.
I'm not a fan of AOL, but I can certainly see why they were able to sign so many people up. When they came online, pretty much everything else was text UI-based. AOL users had a GUI several years before I did.
Please... (Score:3)
Besides, AOL isn't even the same thing as 'the internet'. And it wasn't even connected for a long time. Even today they still use propritaty protocols crap.
Re:A round of applause is in order (Score:2)
That's like saying that $5 a gallon generic Burgundy introduced the masses to the appreciation of fine wines. What it really did was funnel an enormous number of proudly technophobic newbies onto the Internet.
You'll excuse me if I withhold my applause.
Looks like... (Score:5, Funny)
... and in chat-room after chat-room (Score:3, Funny)
Said shavedbi_86, a dude who pretends to be a chick in various online forums, as he dropped trou in an internet cafe in downtown Bangor, Maine: "Man, [Steve Case]... damn. I dunno where else I'd be able to indulge my recurring fantasies of having a minor female cross state lines to have lesbian intercourse with me, if it weren't for AOL. Under [Steve Case's] guidance, AOL has grown from a small, regional communication system for perverts in Virginia, to an international hub for child pornography. God bless you Mr. Case!"
Law enforcement officials were also quick to comment. "Although some are quick to judge AOL for its congregation of sexual predators, we'd like to applaud Mr. Case for the family-friendly nature of his service. I myself enjoy the occasional meeting in an AOL chat room, knowing that I can trade porno in peace and security, guarded by the AOL Terms of Service from any foul-mouthed, anti-social behavior in its chat rooms", said Mr. A------t, a justice department official, on condition of anonymity.
Said president George Bush, upon hearing of the resignation: "Whad'ya mean it's pronounced New-CLEE-er?"
Other famous Americans, including Bugs Bunny and Superman, also expressed regret at Mr. Case's resignation.
Mr. Case, who now prefers to be called simply "Heather", could not be reached for comment.
Re:... and in chat-room... (WITH PIC!) (Score:2)
--girls [slashdot.org]
huh (Score:2)
As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. (Score:5, Insightful)
Under Steve Case, AOL was a company that took advantage of its customer's ignorance. Under Steve Case, pushed its customers in every way possible to get money from them.
Someone said, "AOL was founded on the idea that users of the Internet need training wheels to get started." Using AOL says, "I don't have any friends who understand computers." As users get smarter, they realize they don't need AOL.
Swallowing Time-Warner was a way of bailing out from a company on the way down, at the last moment possible.
People who are motivated by nothing but money reduce the quality of our lives, and, unfortunately, we don't have sophisticated social responses against this kind of abuse.
Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. (Score:5, Insightful)
TONIGHT, 9 PM: Show about Time Warner and AOL (Score:2)
"once-in-a-lifetime bubble that came to an end." (Score:3, Interesting)
The show on CNBC, "The Big Heist: AOL Took Time Warner" was excellent. Best quote: "AOL was a beneficiary of a once-in-a-lifetime bubble that soon came to an end".
I was surprised at how many top executives were interviewed for the show. Sumner Redstone of Viacom and Michael Eisner of Disney are just two.
The show came to no conclusions, however.
What could have stopped Time Warner from making such a self-destructive merger? Ethics. If the TW executives cared about people and what AOL was doing to its customers, if they had cared about other people and not just money, they would have been protected from making the mistake.
Re:As users get smarter, they get some other ISP. (Score:2)
Actually, that was in large part due to Bob Pittman. He was the crass commercializer - and that's what he was brought in to be. (As Jim Kimsey put it, AOL needed "adult supervision.") In the old days, at least, Steve was always all about the member experience, community, doing the Right Thing. Unfortunately, he rarely seemed to hire executives who shared that vision - Pittman, Brandt, Schuler, all had Bugs Bunny dollar signs in their eyes.
It's sad that, just as Ted Leonsis is back on top, giving new life to the old values, Steve had to step aside. This is a big blow to AOL's chances.
Steve's a good man (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Steve's a good man (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymous Coward? Or should I call you MR. ANONYMOUS STEVE CASE?
no he's not (Score:2)
Also, autopr0n.com 'helps' thousands of people a day
Re:no he's not (Score:2)
Screw up a merger and get rich (Score:4, Insightful)
-Teckla
Re:Screw up a merger and get rich (Score:5, Insightful)
+38 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, one of a handful of sensible comments so far. Yes, this is the point - whilst the rest of telecoms and the .com bubble imploded with nothing, Case made sure his shareholders actually had something with value left at the end of it.
There was a time when some net company (I forget - Amazon?) was approaching the market cap. of General Motors and had surpassed that of Boeing. That's ludicrous. Even if those companies shut up shop tomorrow there'd still be a mountain of tangible assets to fall back on. I remember the office I was in at the time saying that if the market was behaving that stupidly, then this net company take advantage and immediately buy something with tangible assets to cement its position.
And then Case did it. He actually stopped just talking about media convergence and actually did something about it. He went with a media firm which, had things panned out as everyone expected then, would have given him the convergence and content control he needed. He also bought a argefirm with a genuine, non-bubble based market cap. thus backing up AOL's share price with a healthy dose of reality.
I usually stay out of discussions like this because it's a sad day when geeks care more about the market than they do technology. However, I did feel that about 90% of the posters in this topic were missing the point completely.
Cheers,
Ian
Another tech stock bites the dust... (Score:5, Insightful)
The origninal Time Warner shareholders got the shaft, as they now have to absorb AOL's downfall, while the AOL shareholders got the nice liferaft ending up with shares of Time Warner instead of another useless tech stock. Time Warner's shareholders are not happy, and they want their company back now...
blame does no good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Time Warner was good for AOL like having a former ATT exec on the board of @Home was good for @Home - it resulted in total ruin. The death of AOL is NOT going to convince anyone to buy a dead tree Time magazine any more than the death of @Home has slowed the move away from long distance telephone calls. Time Warner is sitting on a lot of old models and people who invest in it deserve to be pummeled. They failed entirely to take advantage of the world's largest ISP to promote themselves and change their marketing model. There's a reason no one here ever quotes Time [time.com] here, they are clueless. I hope you own lots of TW stock Mr. Cluster, you deserve it.
Oh please (Score:2)
Lesser of two evils (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine the RIAA and TimeWarner controlling AOL (to some extent, at least), thus controlling the internet experience and online-purchasing abilities of a significant fraction of internet surfers.
Granted 'we' dislike AOLers
So, what's the solution?
VOTE RMS for AOL/TimeWarner CEO!!!
Re:Lesser of two evils (Score:2, Informative)
Give the guy a break (Score:3, Funny)
Case Out - Turner In - YAY! (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve Case did no one any favors, except maybe himself, and neither did the guy with the six-foot rat icon.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! (Score:2)
Wrong, and FUD. Granted, Kellner isn't exactly up on the current evolving digital market but he did not say PVR owners are thiefs. He said PVRs allow Advert skipping, and people who skip adverts are thiefs. He explains this in detail saying, "The programming is ad supported, when you skip those ads you are stealing programming."
What you (and Slashdot) are saying as a typical
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! (Score:2)
No, he never said that. Go back to the original 2400 article. Follow the link from the original
Again, if we're talking of "over-the-top reaction" I'm pretty sure that saying that someone says something that they did not say is much worse than someone correcting you. But that's fine, you're just a slashbot. If the company is in this month/years badlist, than anything that someone says must be taken out of context, summarized incorrectly, and show that person is an enemy of free speech and they kick small puppies.
So is saying things that aren't true. Then saying they are true.
PVRs are bad for the industry in the current business model. Why? Because they allow people to skip advertisements. Why is this bad? Because the commercials are funded by advertisements. What is it when someone receives something without coming through with the payment of that? Thievery.
Now, the point comes to show that if you just watch a show you didn't agree to watch the commercials, that's fine. It's a valid point. But, it is implied that you agree to watch the commercials in exchange for free programming. What he said was absolutely valid.
Now, you were going to say something else to discredit yourself?
No (Score:2)
Thievery is when someone deprives someone else of something that belongs to them.
Re:No (Score:2)
You are depriving them of something that belongs to them. Advertising dollars. I don't buy into the music piracy shit, but you are stealing free programming when you strip out all the adverts from every show you watch.
If you try to justify getting something for nothing, by subverting the required payment, than I feel bad for you and your neighbors. You obviously fail to understand communal ethics.
No you're not (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:2)
No, your logic is flawed. The viewer who declines to view the advertising is not a thief as there is no commitment by the viewer to watch the commercial, just as there is no requirement that your read your junk mail--even though junk mail may subsidize our mail system. The advertizer isn't guaranteed by the distributor that you'll watch their ads...they cannot legitimately make such a representation. They are selling the OPPORTUNITY to present their ad to you. What you do when the ad is presented is up to you. It is a matter of personal choice. There is no obligation to watch. If you don't watch, then the opportunity for marketing goes away and the distributor has nothing of value to sell to the advertizer.
Of course, if ads no longer have value to the advertizer then in the long run the current advertising model will become outmoded. But this will not be subversion or anything illegal or immoral...it will simply be the public exercising their right of choice. It is then up to the advertizer to figure out that his chosen marketing methodology had become ineffective and that a different technique must be employed.
Re:Case Out - Turner In - YAY! (Score:2)
Uhm, you did say that he said that.
Jeez. If you're going to come up with some ludicrously over the top attack on someone, at least try to figure out what they said.
You attempted to label Kellner as an anti-freedom enemy-of-slashdot because he said that if you deliberately skip all adverts than you are a thief, and you turned it around and said, and I quote verbatim:
So, exactly which part of this am I not understanding that you said? The part where you lie about him, or the part where you say you never said it?
If you're going to use "FUD" to describe something that has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft's strategies to undermine competitors by making potential customers believe there are risks associated with purchasing those competitor's products, you could at least do me the favour of adding the usual Usenet insults to boot.
Sorry, but lying about something falls under that category. You are trying to undermine him by spreading things that aren't true. So... again, what am I doing here that is wrong?
Damned Slashbot.
Yes, I'm the Slashbot because I'm defending the CEO of TW. Sure... I didn't actually think you would discredit yourselv further, thanks.
wow (Score:5, Interesting)
No one is being hypocritical here (Score:2)
Though good may have come from AOL's existence, this does not compell us to admire the company's practices. Neither does it compell us to like Case as an individual.
That being said, I don't know enough about Case to despise him as a person, though I know enough about AOL not to like it. But the point is that we can disparage the service while still acknowledging it's important place in the Internet's history. There is nothing hypocritical about such a view.
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesnt help that he helped reduce many Time Warner execs, pensions, and people stocks at Time Warner from something in the 50's per share to its current 14 per share. Including helping Ted Turner turn his fortune from $8 billion to $2, sure its still a crap load of money but single handedly making $6 billion disappear is no small feat.
making nothing from something. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes this is true. You then blame Case for the decline of stock value and say,
This is also true though the blame might fall elswhere before it's all over. Was there some reason that Time content did not make it onto AOL's networks? Hmmmm, they had the world's biggest ISP and this is what they do with it? Good work boys! How much do you think Napster, MP3.com and Internet radio was worth combined? Kinda makes $6 billion look small, but the entertainment industry folks destroyed them too. They think they have something special that they can dribble out one dead tree copy after another and profit like the internet does not exist. It's not going to work but those responsible will retire very wealthy anyway.
Steve Case Will Best Be Remembered For... (Score:3, Funny)
huh... (Score:2)
All together now..... (Score:5, Funny)
-RickTheWizKid
I used to use AOL... then I grew up
Well, it started out as AOL taking over TW... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, it started out as AOL taking over TW... (Score:2)
Too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Long Overdue! (Score:2, Interesting)
on AOL stock (my fault, I didn't sell early enough),
I am glad to see this announcement.
Steve, if Barry Schuler is still there, tell him to
take a hike. His arrogance and incompetence
played a major part in the current woes of AOL.
What will be the effects of this? (Score:4, Interesting)
On a simpler note, maybe someone can answer this question: is this good or bad for the geek community here at Slashdot?
Re:What will be the effects of this? (Score:2)
What a bunch of Pretenious Jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone here is bitching about how much AOL sucks, and it does, but I have to admit, it got my mom, my dad, and my granparents online. They can't figure out Windows, let alone Linux, or installing software, or getting themselves on Earthlink. They don't really understand IE, the concept of a browser or email program outside of AOL, or search engines.
Sure, you could argue that AOL handicapped them and that is WHY they don't get it, but I maintain, living hundreds of miles away, that AOL GOT them online.
So, as much as it r^H shapes your knowledge of the internet, it still does a lot for many millions of people. All of this blossomed under Mr. Case. I have to give Steve's effort an A.
Re:What a bunch of Pretenious Jerks (Score:2)
What provokes my ire is that they also helped herald the age of spam, popup ads, and rampant commercialism without ethics. Spammers are well-known to use AOL addresses...they're easy to steal. AOL pioneered the practice of constantly marketing things to you via annoying popup ads while you're working/surfing. Ever seen an AOL session? It's a constant barrage of "Try this!" and "special deal for you!" ads. And the very large market of "dumb" users attracted spammers and porn mavens, like a pack of wolves zeroing in on a herd of cattle.
AOL served a purpose, but I won't mourn it's passing.
We need AOL. (Score:5, Insightful)
What would the Internet look like if those 35 million were MSN subscribers? Do you honestly expect the Internet would be nearly as open as it is today? We might have that closed-loop that Gates envisioned in the original version of The Road Ahead.
Although I'm not an AOL subscriber myself, I for one am glad it's there, and I hope they continue to retain their sizable lead in the ISP market. We need that balance.
And let's not forget that AOL funds the bulk of Mozilla development. I show my thankfulness for that by using the branded Netscape browser and patronizing the branded Netscape portal. You should, too.
Re:We need AOL. (Score:2)
Have you ever actually used AOL?
Do you even know what open means?
hint: open is not AOL
Not necessarily good. (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes up for one heck of a lot in the way of crappy customer service, if you ask me. Mozilla is as good as it is largely because there is an actual paid development team that works on it professionally. So don't be too quick to shout "Hurrah!" if AOL melts down.
Dispute (Score:4, Interesting)
Broadband.
AOL is a dial-up beast. From beginning to end, it was designed as a one-stop-shopping place to get internet access, web surfing, email, and chat services. The user didn't have to configure much of anything. Just run the setup, and you're on. Everything in one, neat, tidy, and USEFULL package. To so many people, it WAS the internet.
While some users wised up and moved on, most AOLers were quite happy to stay put. Then broadband came along. And those same users discoverd that for just a few dollars more than their AOL bill, they could get blazingly fast internet access. Access from a familiar and trusted source (their phone company or cable tv provider). Yes, other means of access were availabe in the dial-up sphere, but users were happy with what they had.
Cable and Phone companies beat AOL to the broadband game, and the jig was up. Even to the AOL faithful, it was apparent that they were no longer the primary means of access to the web. And a giant mental perception in this country came crumbling down. The internet now means Charter, or Verizon, or Bellsouth, or Knology. It doesn't mean AOL in the age of broadband. The perception has now changed. That perception was AOL's most powerful marketing tool. Broadband, since it's on all the time, is pretty much as easy to use as AOL. You don't have to turn it on. Just click an icon for what you need, and bam!, you're there. It's better than the old days for most users, actually.
Yes, those users were told they could still get AOL for an EXTRA ten bucks or so, but by then, why bother? That mental block has been destroyed. AOL is no longer synonymous with access. It was the gateway in. No longer.
Cousin (Score:2, Informative)
Poetic justice (Score:2)
now Steve is chopped
Without a doubt,
Time's run out
For all he built,
a crazy quilt
that got too big,
became a pig
now Case is gone,
(I think I'll yawn)
*sorry*
*hey! I've got spell checking in Safari in the comment box!! Woo hoo!*
Re:A little late in the game (Score:2, Informative)
Whether you want to admit it or not, AOL has helped make the Internet a mainstream thing, which in itself is a social revolution simply because of the implications. I'm sure it would have become this way eventually even without AOL, but it would have taken considerably longer and maybe not be as collossal as it is today.
Another thing: without bringing in mainstream users to the Internet (including this group of 'assholes' you speak of), online businesses like eBay, Amazon.com, etc. would most likely not flourish because, uhm, they wouldn't have anyone to sell stuff to (or for).
Re:A little late in the game (Score:5, Funny)
Me too!
Re:A little late in the game (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A little late in the game (Score:3, Funny)
'USENET used to be smart people in front of dumb-terminals, now it's dumb people in front of smart-terminals.'
BIFF: " HOW DO I LOOK AT THE PICTURES ON MY HARD DRIVE?"
Re:A little late in the game (Score:2, Funny)
Let me guess. You brought all the bad spellers.
Re:A little late in the game (Score:2)
Re:A little late in the game (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most impressive knee-jerk reactions I've seen in a while. Quite frankly you almost sound like one of them...
First, how is it his fault? Is it Ford's fault for bringing bad drivers onto the road because of mass production of automobiles? If so wouldn't this be an effect of mass production and marketing rather than from a single man?
Second, your view sounds rather elitest. If there hadn't been AOL the Internet would only be populated with geeks that just talk about computers and Sci-Fi.. How fun would that be and what would the results be? No chicks on web cams, no online news sites due to small demand and no online stores due to no demand. And again, no chicks with webcams.
Perhaps you just choose the wrong word, but I generally find snobby "holier than thou" geeks to be larger assholes than the everyone else.
Come on back down to Earth my friend.
Re:A little late in the game (Score:2)
Re:A little late in the game (Score:2)
how's that for a knee-jerk reaction.
Re:Dot dot dot... (Score:3, Informative)
The CEO is Richard D. Parsons [aoltimewarner.com].
HAHAHAHAHA (Score:2, Funny)
If Warner has its way (Score:5, Interesting)
This will be bad for consumers. Currently, AOL has control over TW. But if the TW side grows more powerful, and Warner gains control over the Internet access of 30 Million Worldwide Members(tm), then Warner can use them as pawns in the battle for DMCA II [digitalconsumer.org] and Bono Act II [baen.com] in the USA and EU legislatures.
Local ISPs a dying breed around here. (Score:2)
Re:How can this be bad for computers? (Score:2)
already huge and it will pick up a lot of those
AOLers. I can see how pretty soon MS will have
the majority of users get internet from MSN.
MS Internet may happen pretty soon.
Re:Bout damn time (Score:2)
Re:On AOL (Score:3, Funny)
For a 1337 h^xx0r ready to pound on Windows you sure can't format an HTML message to save your life.
Re:AOL Chronology (Score:2)