<?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; stake</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/tag/stake/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>Hey Google &#8212; You&#8217;ve got AOL!</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/16/google-to-take-stake-in-aol/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/16/google-to-take-stake-in-aol/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[takeover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TimeWarner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/16/google-to-take-stake-in-aol/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a blizzard of reports, starting with the Wall Street Journal and now including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Reuters, Google is close to a deal to take a five-per-cent stake in America Online for $1-billion (U.S.). This, of course, is only the latest in a series of rumours about what&#8217;s [...]]]></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%2F16%2Fgoogle-to-take-stake-in-aol%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathewingram.com%2Fwork%2F2005%2F12%2F16%2Fgoogle-to-take-stake-in-aol%2F&amp;source=mathewi&amp;style=normal&amp;b=2" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>According to a blizzard of reports, starting with the Wall Street Journal and now including the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/technology/16cnd-aol.html">New York Times</a>, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601057.html">Washington Post</a>, and <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&#038;storyID=2005-12-16T185425Z_01_ROB667161_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-TIMEWARNER-AOL.xml">Reuters</a>, Google is close to a deal to take a five-per-cent stake in America Online for $1-billion (U.S.). This, of course, is only the latest in a series of rumours about what&#8217;s going to happen to AOL &#8211; first Microsoft was close to a deal to buy the whole enchilada, then Google&#8217;s's name was brought up, then Microsoft was <a href="http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/12/12/microsoft-google-aol-1212markets03.html">seen as being back on top</a>.</p>
<p>At one point, the speculation was that Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons was trying to get the takeover rumours going so that he could <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_hi_te/aol_microsoft_google">cut a better deal with Google</a>, which AOL uses to power its search results. Then AOL founder Steve Case came out with his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000099.html">impassioned plea</a> to split up the company &#8211; the same thing Carl Icahn seems to want to do &#8211; in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, which I <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/10/does-steve-case-want-aol-back/">wrote about</a>, and which was hilariously satirized in a commentary piece <a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&#038;art_aid=37451">here</a>.</p>
<p>Most analysts seem to think that Google taking a piece of AOL &#8211; if only so that Microsoft or Yahoo don&#8217;t get it &#8211; makes sense. The former walled wasteland&#8230; er, garden is estimated to account for <a href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft,+Google+still+vying+for+AOL/2100-1030_3-5985418.html">about 11 per cent</a> of Google&#8217;s annual search revenue, and that wouldn&#8217;t be a good thing to give up. And it&#8217;s only a billion, right? Pocket change for a company with a market value of almost <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG">$130-billion</a>.</p>
<p><b>Update:</b></p>
<p>Several people, including <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/">O&#8217;Reilly Radar</a> and John Battelle, have noticed a potentially ominous sentence in the New York Times piece: &#8220;Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before.&#8221; Don&#8217;t <a href="http://battellemedia.com/archives/002135.php">jump the shark</a>, says Battelle. Henry Blodget says it&#8217;s a good deal for Google, and <a href="http://www.internetoutsider.com/2005/12/time_warner_aol.html">a bad one for Microsoft</a>. And Rafat over at <a href="http://paidcontent.org" title="http://paidcontent.org" target="_blank">paidcontent.org</a> has a nice roundup of the <a href="http://www.paidcontent.org/pc/arch/2005_12_17.shtml#052855">various twists and turns</a> this story has taken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/16/google-to-take-stake-in-aol/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

