<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>mathewingram.com/work &#187; comeback</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/tag/comeback/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:34:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Does Steve Case want AOL back?</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/10/does-steve-case-want-aol-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/10/does-steve-case-want-aol-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:32:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Web2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bubble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comeback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SteveCase]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TimeWarner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/10/does-steve-case-want-aol-back/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cynthia Brumfield over at IPDemocracy.com points to a fascinating opinion piece by AOL founder Steve Case that appears in Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post (which obviously appears on the website Saturday night). In the piece, Case argues that the merger between America Online and Time Warner &#8212; which was actually a $165-billion acquisition of Time Warner &#8212; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathewingram.com%2Fwork%2F2005%2F12%2F10%2Fdoes-steve-case-want-aol-back%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathewingram.com%2Fwork%2F2005%2F12%2F10%2Fdoes-steve-case-want-aol-back%2F&amp;source=mathewi&amp;style=normal&amp;b=2" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>Cynthia Brumfield over at <a href="http://IPDemocracy.com" title="http://IPDemocracy.com" target="_blank">IPDemocracy.com</a> points to a fascinating opinion piece by AOL founder Steve Case that appears in Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post (which obviously appears on the website Saturday night). In the piece, Case argues that the merger between America Online and Time Warner &#8212; which was actually a $165-billion acquisition of Time Warner &#8212; hasn&#8217;t worked, and therefore <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000099.html">the two companies should be split apart again</a>.</p>
<p>Cynthia notes that complaining about a lack of integration between Time Warner and AOL is a little disingenuous, considering AOL was the one in the driver&#8217;s seat after the deal closed, and Case himself became chairman (although <a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/ecommerce/2002/05/17/0517levin.html">Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin</a> was CEO). In fact, there were reports at the time that Time Warner executives were more than a little peeved at being sidelined by their counterparts at the online company. As the dot-com bubble deflated, of course, it became harder and harder to justify that, and Time Warner reasserted control.</p>
<p>In any case &#8212; no pun intended &#8212; the AOL founder says that by last July he had come to the conclusion that the company should be split not just in two, but into four: Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Entertainment, Time and <a href="http://www.aol.com">AOL</a>. The board disagreed, and Case left. At the end of his piece, it&#8217;s clear that he would like to draw a comparison between AOL&#8217;s somewhat tattered reputation and another company that was once dismissed as a has-been: <a href="http://www.apple.com">Apple</a>. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s unlikely AOL would ever be able to pull off a similar rejuvenation, however, since it would likely be bought by Microsoft or Google first.</p>
<p><b>Update:</b></p>
<p>Mark Evans says the piece is part of Steve Case&#8217;s ongoing attempts at <a href="http://evans.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/11/1445382.html">&#8220;reputation rehab.&#8221;</a> And Om Malik writes a post in which he appears to be comparing Case to <a href="http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/">Brutus in Julius Caesar</a>. As I mentioned in a comment on Om&#8217;s blog, I think he&#8217;s being a little hard on Case. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a candidate for sainthood, and much of what he did at AOL made things worse instead of better. But he didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t manufacture the market value that allowed AOL to take over Time Warner, nor did he slip something into Gerald LevinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s coffee that made him or the board accept the deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/10/does-steve-case-want-aol-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

