| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft takes 15.4 pct stake in USA Networks | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. on Thursday said it had acquired a 15.4 percent share of USA Networks Inc. after finalizing the sale of its stake in online travel firm Expedia Inc., according to a regulatory filing. In the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft said it had more than 53 million shares in USA Networks. USA Networks had postponed the Expedia purchase while it prepared to sell some entertainment assets to French media giant Vivendi Universal. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:47:57 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/15/2002 1:31:51 PM |
|
Uh, are you talking about that brilliant 2.3 billion dollar investment in interactive TV in Europe(the only place MS had a prayer) that they just dumped because the company that they probably owned half of chose Liberate instead in 2000?
(see http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=24162 ) When has MS ever been known for content? 98% of MSNBC is NBC. A decent relationship with Disney means nothing; Disney has nothing to lose, and they are never going to give up ground or sell anything to MS--they just needed help with their crappy Go network. A real competitor shaking up sleeping giants? Yeah, right! I thought USA, Vivendi, and Fox were doing the shaking up in the media biz; MS is just a giant who has bought another large piece of a large enterprise in order to sell out of a business they know nothing about in 2 or 3 years when they realize it doesn't give them any traction in media or content. Would you want to own 15% of USA if you think they're so crappy? Then why are you so excited, softies? Just like seeing money spent? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, February 15, 2002 at 14:12. |
| #2 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/15/2002 2:34:57 PM |
|
Sodajerk, I could make similar percentage claims about AOL-TW. 98% of AOL-TW is TW. About the only content AOL's internet service offers is that which comes from the Time-Warner aquisition. A few years before the merger, the majority of AOL's so-called exclusive content (the major thing AOL uses as a selling point, other than "it's so easy") came from third party websites that anyone with a net connection could visit. Their whole keyword concept is a joke because companies linked through keywords on AOL often pay for that option when all it does is take the user to their main URL on the web or some part of their website specially formatted for AOL. Why pay large sums of money to have keyword Coke, when users can just as easily go to www.coke.com? AOL gained content by buying a media company, and even now, the content offered on their service is not exclusive. It is the same stuff that can be accessed by anyone with web access.
The only thing exclusive to AOL is the proprietary network protocols and clients most people have to use to access the "service". |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/15/2002 2:49:48 PM |
|
Uh, enforcer, you're talking about two companies who MUTUALLY agreed to MERGE. They are ONE company now. So AOL-TW has 100% of AOL-TW content; I'm talking about MS's need (and Cringeley's prediction) that Microsoft will do whatever it can do to get 10%, 15%, or whatever it can out of any deal it can with a media giant.
Plus, I was just rebutting the first 2 posts that USA has crappy content and that MS will bring better content than AOL-TW--what a joke. As for indicting AOL, do you think I care? I don't give a crap abouut the canned internet for kids, grandmas, and idiots. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/15/2002 3:36:21 PM |
| Oh, I'm hurt. I think I'm up to something like 10 personal attacks in 2 days; meanwhile, I haven't gotten a single substantive rebuttal yet. |
| #5 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/15/2002 4:11:05 PM |
|
I, too, doubt Microsoft will have much influence on USA's content, but I do welcome their attempts to build their iTV and ehome initiatives. Like you, I also "don't give a crap abouut the canned internet for kids, grandmas, and idiots." But I welcome any competition MS can give AOL in the media industry, and more importantly, in broadband. Even if MS doesn't go the AOL way and merge with a media conglomerate to compete, they have done well by keeping assetts (like ATT cable) out of AOL's reach. AOL always claims to want things to benefit all -- until they own those things. AOL demanded that cable lines be open until they owned them. Then they wanted to keep out all others, and even tried to keep some small, local ISPs from advertising on their newly acquired networks.
My main point with the previous post was that AOL gets content by buying (merging with) a content provider. MS, instead, partners with several providers to get content. No different, really, except that MS doesn't incur the extra overhead that AOL has. It's probably more efficient and more flexible that way because if the content you get is no longer desired, you can drop the provider and divert the money towards other things. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/15/2002 4:43:14 PM |
|
My main point:
"My main point with the previous post was that AOL gets content by buying (merging with) a content provider. MS, instead, partners with several providers to get content. No different, really..." except MS doesn't have content, iTV, or infrastructure whereas AOL-TW has some of the best content in the entire world and the infrastructure (which I too am opposed to; damn Telecom Act of 97!). Like I said, MS failed in Europe losing their sure fire contract (after all they invested 2.3 Billion Euros in the company selecting the tehcnology), and now they are dumping that investment and getting out. |
| #7 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/15/2002 8:20:12 PM |
|
There is always Comcast and satellite as possibilities, and with the OpenCable standard, they could sell retail and provide services in addition to your existing cable service. Or they could integrate the technology into televisions like they are doing with freestyle. Besides, AOL may have good content, but currently their content can be accessed freely. By freely, I mean you don't have to have their cable (or web) service to receive their content.
Building infrastructure is getting easier everyday. MS could launch their own satellite service (or possibly acquire EchoStar). Or, with further advancement in technology, build their own wireless service. I think that whatever form their MSTV initiative takes, if the product is good, people will be interested in it. Imagine if they offered a wireless television service that allowed you to get the content you subscribe to on your tv, desktop computer, PocketPC, laptop, TabletPC, etc. by using something like the sattellite access cards, but with a more hack-proof implementation. Through this one service, they could offer tv, broadband internet, and phone services at a fraction of the cost of cable/staellite/dsl/etc. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/15/2002 8:30:39 PM |
|
Imagine, imagine, imagine....
For freestyle or any of this ehome crap to work, MS has got to get cable comanies, DV providers, content providers to give up their control of the subscibing service, the guides, the advertigin, so that it gets controlled thru an MS UI instead of a cable one. Not going to happen. Infrastructure is getting easier? Have you heard of Global Crossing, Qwest, PSINet, Covad, Exodus, Northpoint, Ricochet? Please! At a fraction of the cost of cable/satellite/dsl/etc? Crack's not going out of style in your neighbohood is it enforcer? Everybody I know of is raising their rates; access is becoming less accessible; rollout plans are getting projected further into the future... Meanwhile, the big infrastructure goes unused. How many Grandmas do you know who need a PDA, a tablet, a PC, DV cable, and satellite streams and knows how to network them and wants to buy that many devices? Know any businesses that need all this crap too? No. Stay optimistic buddy--MS has been acting up the tablet PC for two years now and hasn't delivered while IBM and others are killing tablet devices. Who needs a less functional laptop with less power where the input is slower than typing? Like I said, stay optimistic. |
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/15/2002 11:28:01 PM |
|
How is the TabletPC a less functional laptop. They come in different form factors, but one of the main ones is a fully powered laptop (possibly replacing standard laptops) that has a screen which rotates to convert from laptop form to tablet form. It's not a less functional laptop. It's a fully functional laptop with the addition of handwriting recognition and digital inking functionality. The speed in comparison to using a keyboard is debatable. If you aren't that good of a typist or are in a situation where writing is more convenient than typing, the TabletPC has an advantage. If you prefer typing as opposed to writing, most TabletPCs will also have keyboards.
For freestyle/mira, MS already has a number of electronics manufactures. They can get third-party content providers, create their own content, or offer their services on top of existing providers. They have ready capital to do this. Covad, Northpoint, etc. had to contend with local phone companies that didn't want them encroaching on their territories. Covad, in particular, also suffered from companies that ordered services from them but did not or couldn't pay for the services rendered. Ricochet saw limited success, but was generally too pricey and offered (in speed) only a fraction of what other broadband providers offered. In the scenario I gave, MS would not have to go through the phone companies or cable companies to get their services going. The setup would be similar to either satellite providers or the cell phone industry. Launch some satellites or put up some antennas. It depends on the delivery mechanism of the wirless service. When I say, "a fraction of the cost...," I mean that on this one wireless network, MS could offer TV, broadband, and cell phone service at a cost less than the current average cost of these combined services. There would only be one stream providing TV, broadband, and cell phone service. The stream would essentially be a high-speed data line that can offer multiple services through the same pipe, like cable providers currently offer TV and internet access over the same pipe. The bonus is that since it is wireless, cell phone service can also be offered. At its core, the network would be a fat broadband pipe. The other services (TV, phone) would just be offered on top of that, like how you currently stream video over a net connection and use VoIP. This would save money because all the services use the same network. Server applications would drive the different technologies, and offer the abillity to implement upgrades in functionality or efficiency simply with a software upgrade. Grandmas may only want the TV service, but since it's a digital packet network, the other services can be added at any time for little cost in comparison to the alternatives. Grandma would have an installer come to her house and setup the service for her as she currently does with cable/satellite. This may not even be required. Businesses and enthusiasts/ctudents/younger adults would probably take advantage of all the services. Devices other than the usual set-top box and smartphone could interface seamlessly with the network via a client software upgrade (.NET could make offering it on different platforms easier). Businesses already use desktop PCs, laptops, and PocketPCs. They also have a need for portable broadband services and cell phone services. This would provide a way for them to streamline and integrate what they already use. I'm not saying MS will implement things the way I see them. The more I think about it, the more I wish I could implement it. I am, however, optimistic because MS has shown many times that they can succeed where others have failed or where they, themselves, have previously faultered. They have the cash and talent to do it, and they usually handle things more efficiently than others. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:47:57 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
