And Now, My Thoughts On the AOL-Huffington Post Thing
Posted on February 7, 2011 Posted by John Scalzi 29 Comments
Looks like AOL is still spending too much to replace me.
(Context, for those of you who lack it: For two years in the mid-90s I was AOL’s in-house writer/editor and did all sorts of various writing and editing gig for them. Then I was laid off and shortly thereafter AOL bought Time Warner. I liked to joke that AOL realized it still needed content, so Time Warner was what they got to replace me.)
(And for the record: I totally would have been willing to let AOL buy out Whatever for only $250 million. Think of the savings! Well, maybe next time.)
(No, I don’t know why I’m still using parenthesis at this point. Just go with it, please. Thanks.)
with your experience and background with the company, do you think the purchase is going to achieve the desired goals?
When I heard the story yesterday the first person I thought of was you, lol
Here’s some extra parenthesis for ya – ()
Hey, I like parenthesis (even when used gratuitously).
Gratuitous parentheses? Oh yeah – now that’s what three years of creative writing will do for you…
I thought TW bought AOL?
Steve Davidson:
I stopped having much to do with the company at the end of 2008 and it’s been pretty seriously revamped in the interim, so I can’t say that I have any real insight into its long-term goals at this point other than what I read. That said, I suspect hiring Ms. Huffington to run their editorial is no worse than what their previous recent plan was, which read as: 1. Create content somehow! 2. ?????? 3. Profit!!!
MattMarovich:
No, technically AOL bought TW. Then the TW remnant eventually got the upper hand in the internal power struggle and eventually spit out what remained of AOL.
When I moved out to this area, I was warned to stay away from AOL. They have employed just about everyone in Northern VA, MD and eastern WV in the last 10 years. Their churning of employees is the stuff of legend.
Parentheses are what gives a programmer his power. They’re like a force field that bends the compiler to his will. They surround arguments and simplify expressions.
Elegant weapons, for a more civilized age.
#5 John – So, you’re saying that the Underpants Gnomes took over AOL?
;-)
(Keeping with the parentheses theme…)
Gratuitous Parentheses would be a great name for a band.
(But that’s just my opinion.)
I’m surprised that AOL bought Time Warner too. I always figured the latter was much bigger and richer than the former.
#10 Jason – you forget the timing of the purchase. It was during the Dot.Com Boom, during which companies like AOL(.com) had such high stock valuations that they could buy out basically anyone by just offering them a gob of stock.
John: When I heard that Arianna had managed to get so much out of AOL, I just laughed and laughed. Good luck to them and all that…. Heh.
Where is AOL getting all this cash? There can’t be that many elderly people who can’t figure out how to cancel, can there?
(Maybe (should (LISP (I learn)))
Remember when AOL bought Bookmark? (I can’t recall exactly, but it was called something like that) back in ’94 or so? They paid $44 million for a browser. Two weeks later my software company bought a C library that allowed us to create our own browser in a month. Our total cost for the software and salary was about $7,500. AOL has a long history of making great aquisitions.
@MVS: Booklinks, which was actually a decent browser for the era.
Clearly, you’re using scare parentheses and I’m offended.
@Michael Kirkland: Yeah, there really are that many. Or people who can’t get broadband and want simple dialup. That’s most of AOL’s income these days, that and VCs. And that’s why they desperately need something. I guess HuffPo sounded better than underpants gnomes. (The flip side of what John said is that while hiring Ms. H may be no worse than their previous plan, I don’t see that it’s much better either.)
And Scalzi: I suspect with all the parentheses, you’d have have to knock at least $50 mil off the price. For only $200 million, is it really worth your time?
Not to mention that, as part of the deal, Ms. Huffington has been named Editor-in-Chief of all AOL content.
If she farks up TechCrunch (another recent AOL acquisition), I will be…displeased.
If the theme du jour is “next band names”, dibs on The UNBALANCED PARENTHESES !!!)))11!!
Of all the reactions to this I read, yours is the only one that made me laugh out loud.
And this is why AOL is failing. They need moar Scalzis!!111!! If/When they offer you a buyout, as a thank you to them, please serve them Schadenfreude Pie, and serve it cold.
#22 by ryber:
Sure, they’re failing. But at least so far they’re doing so profitably.
(OK. Let off because it is sunny in the UK).
Booklinks! Thanks Liz. Won’t argue about it being a good browser… it was. But $44 million? And was it ever used in any subsequent AOL products?
MVS: It was definitely part of the GNN software suite. I can’t remember if it was the original embedded browser in AOL 3.0 or not, or if that was after the devil’s bargain with Microsoft (i.e., we’ll use IE as our browser in exchange for desktop placement on all Windows installs). 1995 was a long time ago. ;)
Hey, they can have Edged in Blue for a cool $20 million. I only get a fraction of the traffic, but just think of the potential.
Might help if I started posting semi-regularly again.
Maybe when I get my new laptop.
I Worked for Netscape in the mid 90s and got laid off when AOL bought us.
Eff those guys.
(Don’t go overboard in using parentheses. Once you’re in that habit, it’s difficult to bracket.)