http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:17:12 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37791 earl Sat, 06 May 2006 23:22:52 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37791 <p>Computers and journalism don't mix, remember that.</p> Computers and journalism don’t mix, remember that.

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37790 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Links from Digg (Podcast) Digg is cool. It’s a site that Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:47:45 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37790 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37789 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Evo Morales Elected President of Bolivia This is an amazing (Mp3) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:33:32 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37789 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37788 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Mp3 - Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, 2005 = Never Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:18:24 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37788 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37787 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Links from Digg Digg is cool. It’s a site that (Radio) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:10:34 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37787 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37786 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, 2005 (Podcast) = Never Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:07:53 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37786 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37785 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, (Codecs) 2005 = Never Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:19:57 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37785 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37784 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Audio - Chapel Hill Free Public WiFi Petition In an effort to Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:19:35 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37784 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37783 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Confessions of a Podcast Listener Bill R.: I don’t remember (Podcast) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:00:32 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37783 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37782 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Keep Those Cards & Letters Coming (Thanks Hank!) Bill R.: (Mp3) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:59:06 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37782 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37781 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, 2005 = Never (Audio) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:53:52 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37781 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37780 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Radio - Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, 2005 = Never Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:37:33 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37780 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37779 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » PodcasterCon Updates PodcasterCon is getting closer! [Jan. 7, 2006] Here (Codecs) Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:37:13 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37779 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37778 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Mp3 - Keep Those Cards & Letters Coming (Thanks Hank!) Bill R.: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:02:59 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37778 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37777 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Don?t Bomb Us - A blog by Al Jazeera (Codecs) Staffers Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:22:32 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37777 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37776 Audio Pings » Blog Archive » Mp3 - Steve Case: 2000 = AOL & TWE, 2005 = Never Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:08:03 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/12/10/et-tu-steve-case/#comment-37776 <p>[...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]</p> [...] Bill R.: I’ll admit, I read the article in The Washington Post because of the author. Steve Case opining on possible AOL-Time Warner breakup? Interesting. But it just struck me as a weak article. Mr. Case does NOT (IMHO) make a very compelling case for why the merger made sense in 2000, but no longer. Looks to me like there are two primary factors at work here. First, the original merger had to make sense from several perspectives: financial, vision, culture, product, customer. Second, if it was to work, the merger had to have follow-through within the new conglomerate. Seems neither of these were in place or came to pass. And maybe it’s just me, but without a compelling argument today, I have a hard time believing someone who was the catalyst and vocal proponent of the merger in 2000, then left the company, now telling us ‘Never mind’. I think Om M. does a better job of dissecting the current situation. Et Tu Steve Case?. [...]

]]>