Print - AOHell: Google Sells Soul to Stop Microsoft

For Microsoft, Google's last-minute deal with America Online (AOL) owner Time Warner was like a knife through the corporate heart, ending the software giant's bid to dramatically improve the standing of its embattled online search unit. But for Google, the recently revealed deal might have even deeper consequences. Ignoring its "don't be evil" corporate mantra, Google has forsaken its pledge never to let its search pages be subsumed by corporate interests. In striking out against a would-be competitor, Google has simply revealed itself to be as flawed as any other corporation.

Here's what happened. In recent months, Time Warner has sought suitors for its once-troubled AOL unit, hoping at first to find a company that would be interested in purchasing all or part of AOL. When that didn't pan out, Time Warner turned to AOL's ad-supported search service, which since 2002 has been powered by Google technology. Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Time Warner was set to finalize a deal with Microsoft that would replace Google Search on AOL with the software giant's MSN Search technology, with Microsoft and Time Warner splitting ad revenues.

Then Google swept in with a last-minute offer that scuttled Microsoft's plans. Google will pay Time Warner $1 billion for a 5 percent stake in AOL and will keep the AOL search business as a result. The deal, which was done solely to hurt Microsoft, will not financially benefit Google in any perceptible way. But as part of the deal, Google will do that one thing it's always promised not to do: It will present AOL-sponsored search results on its main search results page, complete with the AOL logo. That's right, folks. Google has sold out. And it did so to harm a competitor that has less than one third its market share.

There are two key lessons here, from what I can see. First, Google is not the trustworthy corporate giant that some people imagine, though the company's track record, including its close work with China's totalitarian government, should have already made that clear. Second, Google considers Microsoft a huge competitive threat, despite the fact that the Redmond company has yet to make any serious inroads into Internet search.

I'm glad to see it was Google and not Microsoft that is literaly throwing away a billion dollars on a useless ISP thats losing money and customers faster then, well, I dont know what else loses customers faster then AOHell

Nice to see you're still labeling your editorials as "Opinion". Oh, wait... Never mind.

Car dealers look out for your best interest. Google is a benevolent corporate entity on the Internet. Both statements are false. Remember, the happiest wolves are the ones that look best in sheeps' clothing.

"Google has simply revealed itself to be as flawed as any other money-making entity." Such as Microsoft-lackey-tech-authors posing as journalists? Hee hee. (Come on, it's a joke.)

Hey, Microsoft has made it very clear that they want to "f***ing kill" Google, and they rip them off left and right whenever a new Google service is announced. I don't blame them for doing as much as they can to avoid Microsoft's historically cutthroat tactics. However, I disagree with Paul's statement that Google is doing anything particularly evil or contrary to their promises. Google has been presenting sponsored search results for a long time on their search results page. Now they'll be showing AOL sponsored results in that sidebar box, too. Doesn't matter to me either way.

"Now they'll be showing AOL sponsored results in that sidebar box, too. Doesn't matter to me either way." Wrong. *In* the results list. Not the sidebar. Hence Paul was right to say "Google has forsaken its pledge never to let its search pages be subsumed by corporate interests".

Hey, "outofcoffee"...you say "Wrong. *In* the results list. Not the sidebar." Um... Reference, please? Paul doesn't say that. And from what I've read, the plans are to include them as "Sponsored Links". Red Herring says, "Several publications, including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, said AOL will sell advertising for Google’s search results on AOL’s sites. In return, Google will promote AOL’s sites in the sponsored links in its search results. Google also will add AOL’s collection of online videos to its search results." According to the Business Standard, "Under the proposed new deal, AOL will also be able to sell search ads alongside Google’s, plugging a gap in its offerings to advertisers. In addition, AOL will sell display ads on both the AOL and Google Internet properties. The deal also includes the promotion of AOL content through Google’s paid search and the two companies will jointly develop video search capabilities." Nothing about this compromises search results or "subsumes" those results to corporate interests. Ads are ads, and will remain so. And Paul is wrong (what a surprise) to say this doesn't financially benefit Google. According to CNET, "According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Google derives as much as 10 percent of its advertising revenue and traffic from its partnership with AOL through sponsored listings within its search engine. And although that percentage has dropped from 12 percent a year ago and will likely continue to fall, the estimated $400 million in revenue isn't likely easy for Google to give up." No kidding.

*Y*A*W*N* How does including the AOL logo mean that Google has "sold out"? If AOL's search includes AOL sponsired results, then anyone stupid enough to use AOL's search will probably be stupid enough to ignore the logo too. Where does the article say anything about Google doing it on its OWN search page? Paul, stop strying to turn a non-event into a story. The only "news" is that AOL still doesn't trust MS. Yawn.

B00ble is just showing their true corporate colors here and all is fair in business right (unless you whine to the DOJ of course). AOL still owns a huge stake in web traffic even though they are losing subscribers so they are gold for the search giants. Nobody really believed the mantra anyways – especially when they went public… Busted!

lotsamystuff, we'll just have to wait and see then. But I think everybody posting here would appreciate it if you didn't constantly troll most of the articles here, a simple flick back through some of your most recent "contributions" sees a pattern emerging of frequent '1 ratings' and galling comments. If you don't like things so much, then I would suggest you don't read, to save your poor little mind from becoming angered.