Read more.Quote:
Gains 2.1 million dial-up subscribers and sites such as Engadget and TechCrunch.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Gains 2.1 million dial-up subscribers and sites such as Engadget and TechCrunch.
Wow, AOHell are still going?...and getting sold for £2.8b......a feather just knocked me over.....
Thank god. For some reason I immediately assumed Verizon were moving into the UK market and I clenched so hard.
Still needs to be approved by the FCC and DoJ here in the US, and then the stockholders still need to be willing to sell.
I know more than a few people that use AOL for an e-mail address (it's been free for years now), but I can't say I know anyone that still uses it for an ISP. Couldn't happen to a couple of nicer companies...
I think AOL is LOLing all the way to the bank.
Actually it was the other way around. AOL bought Time Warner for $164bn. I was working at AOL/Netscape then an nobody I was working with could quite believe it.
No it is the other way around. "the scale of decline of AOL's worth over the years - it was """"bought by Time Warner"""" in 2000 for $160 billion" So Time Warner got hosed on the deal not AOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
I have no idea what that sentence is suppose to mean. Let me try to interpret it. You worked for AOL and nobody would believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
Eh? Time Warner got hosed on the deal. The reason they got hosed on the deal was that AOL had an enormous market cap and managed to wangle a deal where they effectively bought Time Warner via a stock deal.
I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but to be clear, I was working at AOL/Netscape at the time the AOL/Time Warner merger happened, and no one could quite believe that AOL had come out as effectively the buyer, given that Time Warner was a huge multinational with oodles of intellectual property, and AOL was only an (albeit quite large) ISP.
He wasn't being facetious, he's trying to reply to you're broken English which even I had an issue interpreting without his reply. Anyway moving on, AOL's value at the time of the Time Warner merger was valued (Incorrectly in many peoples view) as greater than Time Warner's as the merger saw AOL take on Times $17 billion in dept creating a combined $350 billion company which face palmed its way to one of the worst mergers ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
They already are operating in the UK market, or they were several years ago as I had to deal with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowsey
No, he is correct - technically, AOL bought Time Warner.Quote:
Originally Posted by HavoCnMe
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Decad...ory?id=9279138
It also opened the door to some other really bad (for the consumer) mega-mergers, but that is a topic for another day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HavoCnMe
Ah the irony. If you're going to quibble about me missing the 'd' from 'and' due to a typo, perhaps check your own house is in order first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Defiant