AllThingsD » assets

Liveblogging the New Yahoo CEO Call: You Might Want to Refrain From Cussing, Scott!

Kara Swisher — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:01:23 +0000

This morning, Yahoo said it had hired PayPal President Scott Thompson as its newest victim, oops, CEO.

(You can read my interview with him too, here.)

AllThingsD.com had reported the pending development last night — which is how we roll here.

Now we will roll into the conference call on the matter, and are hoping that the head of the lucrative eBay payments unit will make an appearance, given that he does not start until next week.

One piece of advice I will extend Thompson: I would refrain from cursing, as previous Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz did on her first outing. (She was fired in September, although not precisely for the cussing she so enjoyed partaking in.)

Here we go!

7:02 am: It’s on, with Thompson present.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock begins, and he is “very excited, very excited.”

I’d be very excited if Thompson talked and not Roy, who has been to this particular Yahoo CEO rodeo a few too many times before.

Bostock is making promises that this time it’s going to be different. Really!

He also notes that the company will continue its “strategic review” — but who knows what that means now.

And he thanks Tim Morse, the interim CEO who is moving back to the CFO job. (Agreed — nice work, Tim!)

7:06 am: Scott Thompson is on and is “just thrilled” to be the new Yahoo CEO.

I like his accent, which seems like he might be from Boston. He does look and sound like Cliff Clavin, the mailman guy at the Beantown bar from the television classic “Cheers.”

Except, given he has been the darkest of dark horses in this CEO race, nobody knew Thompson’s name.

Thompson is saying all the right stuff, about wanting to increase shareholder value and such.

He sounds so hopeful! Urgency! Thoughtfulness! A bright new morning at Yahoo!

I have been to this rodeo before too, but I am still hoping this time it’ll work.

Scott, if you let me down, I might cry, because you sound so nice.

7:09 am Q&A time already.

Congrats from the Wall Street analyst peanut gallery.

Then, it’s right into a question for Bostock, about the progress of the Asian assets deal.

Also, is Thompson too much of a technologist and not a media dude?

Bostock wants to talk about only Scott, but notes that there will be “no slowdown and no delay” in the Asian process. And Thompson will be all onboard when he comes on board, folks.

Bostock sounds tired, but starts to talk about how a “great customer experience” is the key to the advertising business. He notes that Thompson knows how to do this, hence he’ll be fantastic.

“I have every expectation he’ll be out there calling on advertisers,” says Bostock. I would hope so, given that is where Yahoo makes most of its lettuce.

Bostock is saying Yahoo has been “treading water” and now needs to swim fast. Treading water? I wonder who the top honcho at Yahoo has been while the company has been listlessly dangling its legs in the drink?

Roy — that’s who!

7:15 am: Another analyst asks about margins.

Thompson is not having any of it! He is polite when asking for time to get on the job to make proper statements.

But he does focus on the need to build “great, innovative” products. True, but Yahoo has been incredibly unable to do this of late.

Thompson gives no specifics, though. My big idea: I would steal the self-driving car from Google.

7:17 am: A question about what the core of Yahoo is, and about what lessons Thompson is bringing from his experience at PayPal.

Well, he has not met the team — literally. Yahoo’s board consulted almost no one in the top ranks of execs on this appointment.

But Thompson “suspects” there is talent there. Given the recent attrition, he’ll need a big Inspector Clouseau magnifying glass to find it!

From eBay’s PayPal, he says that the key was balancing the customer experience with network effect and, well, blah, blah, blah Internet-speak.

I am still thinking shoplifting the self-driving car is the bestest idea.

7:20 am: A question about Yahoo’s display business versus Google.

Thompson notes it is too early for him to say — though he had better say soon! — but notes that data is key. He is a well-known by-the-numbers guy, and that is clearly where we are going at Yahoo, now that he is the big dog.

Thus:

“The data these Internet businesses create, the ability to use analytical technology to build a better businesses for your customers … I feel certain that wealth of data is going to be exploitable for next generation products, next generation experiences … My instinct says down in that data we’re going to be able to find ways to compete and innovate that the world hasn’t seen yet.”

I am really liking this accent, which is almost lulling. And so polite! Sources tell me that being “collaborative” was a big goal in this hiring.

7:22 am: A question about the identity of Yahoo, and whether it should be public or private.

Thompson harps on the need for innovation, and hopes it will be the future.

“I would not be here if I didn’t think it was possible,” says Thompson.

Bostock takes the public/private question. Yahoo will be public, he declares! Mostly, because it would be too pricey to take private.

“It’s a moot point,” he says.

7:25 am: More questions about what Yahoo is.

Thompson declines to run off the rails on this dicey one, but he says he believes that Yahoo has great assets.

It does. It’s just that it has been crashed many times — by the people who just hired him — right into a wall.

Just sayin’ — a self-driving car would have done a better job.

7:27 am: A brain-drain question, and more on Asia and on mobile.

Bostock butts in again. He said that Thompson will not be distracted by that, and will concentrate on the core business. Hush up, Roy.

Thompson says that he looks forward to meeting the peeps of Yahoo. (’Cuz he has not, as yet!)

He also loves mobile — which Yahoo has largely borked.

7:32 am: A content strategy question. Early days, so Thompson is still keeping his yap shut.

In this, he’s like the anti-Bartz. Is this good? It’s certainly different.

He says again that, “I can’t wait to meet” everyone at Yahoo. Vice versa, because this dude came from left field.

Thompson promises that he will be a “sponge.”

He closes by noting that he is “genuinely excited,” and says he believes in Yahoo.

Indeed, when it comes to Yahoo, you definitely gotta have faith.

Cash Isn't King–Liquidity Is

Tricia Duryee — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:01:14 +0000

EMoney took a side trip this morning from the massive crowds gathering at Moscone in downtown San Francisco for the Game Developers Conference to Japantown, where there was an equally vibrant, albeit slightly smaller, conference called the Future of Money.

EMoney was given the task of moderating a panel called “Leveraging New Markets” in front of a packed room with two other competing panels.

The participants were Ted Sorom, the CEO of Rixty, Bruce Bower, the CEO of Plastic Jungle and Jeff Thomas, SVP of SecondMarket.

There’s no video, so you’ll have to endure a written recap from my perspective as chief interrogator.

First, if you aren’t familiar with these companies, the four of us can attest there’s only one thread in common: Liquidity, and creating marketplaces to make assets more fluid.

The discussion is well-timed as we push beyond e-commerce and Web 2.0 to a new reality, where reducing friction to payments is turning into a large opportunity.

One solution popping up everywhere is to create virtual currencies, which solves the problem of paying for many items at small price points because it doesn’t make economic sense to charge 50 cents to your credit card on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, there’s lots of clogs in the system, ranging from gift cards that are never redeemed, to a large population of people who don’t have credit cards, to the more extreme, like what will eventually happen to all of those unused Groupon and LivingSocial vouchers?

Here’s a look at how all three are trying to add liquidity to the system:

Rixty: The San Francisco company allows consumers to buy prepaid cards with cash to be redeemed for game credits online, such as Facebook Credits and Zynga’s CityVille.

On the panel, Sorom announced that Rixty’s distribution was increasing from 20,000 physical locations to 70,000 with the addition of Green Dot MoneyPak prepaid cards, which are sold at Walmart and 7-11. Greendot charges a $4.95 service fee, which Rixty will redeem as soon as soon as the card is spent online.

Plastic Jungle: The San Jose, Calif.-based company is a secondary market for unwanted and unused gift cards.

The company buys them for up to 92 percent of face value, and sells them at a discount. Bower says some of the highest value gift cards are for Target and Walmart because they are the closest to cash. The lowest value cards are from local retailers or seasonal items, like See’s Candy, which only sell well on Valentine’s Day and Christmas.

SecondMarket: The New York-based company is a secondary market for private stock in companies, such as Facebook and Twitter. It deals in getting liquidity to employees or shareholders, who can’t yet sell their stock on the public market.

The summary is that while cash may still be king, the trend is to enable liquidity.

Some of the high-level takeaways:

– Thomas of SecondMarket: The company is constantly in headlines for being associated with Facebook’s $70 billion-plus or minus-private valuation. He said private company stock sales have become the fastest growing part of its business with transactions increasing to $400 million in 2010, up from only $100 million in 2009.

He said an essential part to keeping the assets liquid is to keep the information flowing, which is inherently difficult with companies that aren’t required to disclose any financial information. The company will soon be partnering with researchers to produce independent reports that will be purchased by potential investors.

Sorom of Rixty: One of the big questions was how dominate Facebook will be able to become as a virtual currency platform.

Most panelists agreed that it was inevitable that it will become a powerhouse, but that it will face hurdles on two fronts. In order for it to win, it will have to appeal both to consumers and merchants. And, currently it charges a 30 percent fee, which is much too high for most physical and even some digital goods.

Sorom said regulations will also limit its activities. Just like at Rixty, they have avoided allowing users too much liquidity. The credits can only be used for pre-approved merchants and can not be swapped or traded among friends. Similarly, Sorom believes that Facebook would not have that have that ability, given current federal regulations.

Bower at Plastic Jungle: Bower saved the best for last. Whenever trying to come up for a good description of liquidity think back to your college days, especially if they were pre-Internet.

As a crafty collegiate, he learned to live off one square meal, turning in his other meal plan points for cash. He purchased brand new textbooks on his parent’s dime and then returned them for used books a day later. All of the cash allowed him to gain the most important liquid asset of all — beer.

Photo Credit: Rick Scully.

News Corp. Faces the Myspace Music With a Big Writedown [Updated]

Peter Kafka — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:17:52 +0000

Here’s the flip side to News Corp.’s digital optimism: The company has taken a $275 million charge on Myspace and its related Web businesses, it disclosed in today’s quarterly earnings report.

Here’s the formal language: “The Company recorded a $275 million pre-tax charge for the impairment of goodwill related to the Digital Media Group and an organizational restructuring at MySpace.”

Translation: Firing people en masse, as we did at Myspace last quarter, is expensive. Also, we’re writing down a lot of the social networking company’s remaining value.

I’ve asked News Corp. (which also owns this Web site) for more clarity on the charge: How much of it stems from layoffs? How much of it comes from a writedown on Myspace’s value? And were any other assets involved? At this point the company’s Digital Media Group is pretty much just Myspace, but it does have other stuff there, most notably its IGN site.

It’s worth noting that during today’s unveiling of the Daily, the company’s iPad newspaper, CEO Rupert Murdoch said that the company had already written down the first $30 million it had invested in the project. So it’s entirely possible that that figure is part of the $275 million.

More if I get it. And I”ll be back at 4:30 pm ET to cover News Corp.’s earnings call live.

UPDATE: For the record, News Corp.’s $275 million charge on its digital operations, announced today, breaks down this way: $107 million of that is for restructuring, and the remaining $168 million is a writedown, presumably focused on Myspace.

And for those who care–costs for the Daily are being assigned to News Corp.’s publishing group: $7 million of the $30 million it has spent so far were assigned to this quarter.

Condé Nast Gets Ready to Go Shopping, Adds $500 Million and an Ex-Yahoo

Peter Kafka — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:55:26 +0000

Anyone have anything they want to sell to Condé Nast? The publisher is officially in shopping mode: It has hired an M&A guy and raised $500 million in cash to get him started.

Condé Nast’s parent company, Advance Publications, announced this morning that it has brought on Andrew Siegel, who spent the past year trying to get deals done for Yahoo, to run strategy and corporate development.

And Advance has rounded up $500 million for Siegel, by selling a chunk of preferred stock it owns in cable network Discovery Communications.

When the deal is done, Advance will still own about 31 percent of Discovery, but says it wants the money to “diversify into new acquisitions and investments that will hopefully turn out to be as meaningful.”

Okay. Like what? The logical assumption is that Advance/Condé wants to put Siegel to work snapping up digital assets. And like most publishers, Condé has watched as upstarts like Gilt Groupe (private market sales) and Groupon (daily deals) have more or less created new markets it should have been in from the start. Time to catch up there?

Not necessarily, says Advance exec Steve Newhouse, whose family owns the publisher and who is helping to steer M&A efforts; he’s also head of Advance.net, the company’s digital arm. “Andrew will be looking at opportunities across the board,” he says. “We don’t have a short list.”

Still, he said, it would make sense for Siegel to be attuned to digital deals. “I think we see opportunities to take advantage of the audience we’ve created through our strong digital brands,” Newhouse says.

Newhouse also says that Siegel/Advance’s M&A efforts won’t be capped at $500 million. But if I had to guess, I’d wager that the company is most interested in acquiring or investing in companies in earlier stages of their lives, and not in megadeals.

Going, Going: LimeWire Shutters Online Store, Too

Peter Kafka — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:38:05 +0000

LimeWire, the high-profile file-sharing company, more or less shut down in October, following a federal court ruling. But there are bits and pieces of the company still up and running.

Not for much longer, it seems. The company is also closing its online music store at the end of the year. And I’m told that it has essentially abandoned efforts to launch a new, legal music service that it had spent much of the past year building.

A sign on the Web retailer’s homepage tells customers that it’s no longer accepting new payments, and the company has told vendors via email that the store will shutter on Dec. 31. (You can see a copy of the note at the bottom of this post.)

LimeWire hasn’t responded to my request for comment. And it’s not clear why the company is closing up the shop, because in this case, LimeWire shouldn’t be dealing with any legal issues. LimeWire operated the store the same way that Apple’s iTunes does–it took product that music labels (not the big ones, but small independents) wanted to sell and delivered it to customers.

Meanwhile, people familiar with the company tell me that it has also stopped pursuing plans to launch a new, legal music service that had been building throughout 2010.

As recently as October, the company had been talking up the prospects of the new service, and had invited me to see a preview of it even after the court ruling that shuttered its illegal file-sharing service. But LimeWire later rescinded the invitation, and said that its lawyers had advised it not to discuss the new service.

My hunch is that LimeWire is stripping down all of its remaining assets in advance of January court proceedings. Those are going to determine how much the company owes the major music labels that successfully sued it for copyright violations.

LimeWire had already laid off at least 30 percent of its workforce following the October court ruling.

Apple's Ping Wants Rock 'n' Roll, but No Sex and Drugs

Peter Kafka — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:00:00 +0000

Ping may never move beyond the “interesting idea, executed poorly” stage. But it might! And in any case, it’s Apple, so if you’re a music act you ignore it at your own risk.

Which means those acts need to create a “profile” for Steve Jobs’s social network. An Apple (AAPL) document making the rounds (Apple has confirmed its authenticity to me) explains how. You can read the whole thing at the bottom of this post.

Most of it concerns technical specs about things you don’t care about, like video formats. Here’s one part you might be interested in–some of Apple’s edicts regarding the content of artists’ profiles:

Videos, photos, and text posts should not contain pornography, hate speech, racism, nudity, or any references to or depictions of drug use.
Posts should not include advertisements or links to sites outside of iTunes.
Posts should not contain links to other content providers.

The first item is sort of obvious, but still worth noting. Because theoretically, if the Beatles ever do make it to iTunes, they’re going to have a hard time promoting some of their songs. Like this one.

But that rule seems like the kind of thing that Apple can change or ignore at will–just like its “no porn except sometimes” ban in the iTunes app store. And anyway, artists have always found ways to put up with, or ignore, these kinds of restraints.

The rules about not posting to links outside of iTunes are more worrisome. Because it’s telling music acts to ignore the digital assets they’ve painstakingly built up on MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and anywhere else on the Web.

Makes sense for Apple, but not for anyone else.

artist_bestpractices_1.0-1

AOL's "Forget the Last Few Years Campaign" Continues With Buy.at Sale

Peter Kafka — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:17:21 +0000

Another marker in Tim Armstrong’s campaign to undo just about every part the old regime at AOL: The company has sold Buy.at, an affiliate marketing company it bought two years ago.

Digital Window Limited, a joint venture between Axel Springer AG and PubliGroupe, bought the U.K.-based unit. AOL (AOL) didn’t disclose a price, but it’s almost certainly much less than the $150 million Armstrong’s predecessors paid for the company back when parent company Time Warner (TWX) was funding an M&A binge.

To refresh your memory, that buying spree included the likes of Bebo, Quigo, Third Screen Media, AdTech, and Tacoda. And almost all of these purchases have been written down and/or disbanded.

A lot of that happened in the pre-Armstrong era, but the former Google (GOOG) executive is still busy remaking AOL to his own specifications. These include remaking the company’s sales team, as well as selling off other properties–“reviewing the list of AOL assets as they relate to the core strategy,” in AOL PR-speak–to raise cash and/or focus energy.

We’re still waiting to hear who walks off with ICQ, the instant-messaging service the company has owned for more than a decade.

But even while AOL is slimming down, it is looking to add bits and pieces when it can. It won’t spend a lot for them–AOL execs have told the M&A community that it won’t be plunking down more than the $36.5 million it spent on video platform StudioNow earlier this year.

Sellaband Selling Bands, Again

Peter Kafka — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:21:51 +0000

Sellaband, the Dutch company that lets fans “invest” in musician’s albums, is back, after a brief dip into bankruptcy.

A German investment group has purchased the company’s assets and has installed a new CEO, Michael Bogatzki. Here’s his introduction to Sellaband’s artists and users, who have pledged more than $3 million toward various projects to date. Check out the comments, though–some Sellaband fans/investors are awfully grumpy.

The One-Year Report Card of Yahoo's Carol Bartz–Deal-Making: Incomplete

Kara Swisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:24:13 +0000

Sorry for the break in grading Yahoo’s Carol Bartz on her one-year anniversary as CEO.

But BoomTown was swanning around the Sundance Film Festival in Utah this weekend, went partying with those boozy Hollywood types and ended up in Provo with the crazy gals from “The Runaways”!

I wish! Actually, running away from issuing any grade for deal-making for Bartz is a pretty good way to put it.

Because today, after much thought, I have to give the Yahoo leader an incomplete for deal-making.

That’s because the only deal that truly counts–the search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft (MSFT) struck in July–has still not been approved by regulators.

More to the point, no one will really know what it means for Yahoo (YHOO) until the company finally embarks on the biggest bet of its recent history.

And that answer is many, many quarters away.

I began handing out marks to Bartz recently, after she gave herself a B- for overall performance for the year since she took over the troubled Internet giant.

But I decided to be more specific, splitting the grades for Yahoo in 2009 into five categories: Management, financials, product innovation, deal-making and moxie.

I awarded Bartz an A- for management, a C+ for financials and a C- for product innovation so far.

And as much as I would like to give a definite grade for deal-making, she has made no other deals of major consequence on which to base a grade.

The deal to integrate Facebook Connect and Twitter? A catch-up long past due and not as impressive as similar ones by Google and Microsoft. The sale of Zimbra and other assets? Essentially, cleaning up. A few minor acquisitions? No needle-movers in the lot.

Thus, the only deal has been with Microsoft, which is indeed a very big deal.

And it is, as I said, incomplete, although not to everyone.

Some thought the deal, which Bartz said she should have made sooner, was the best that Yahoo could pull off after the disastrous attempt by Microsoft to buy Yahoo for upward of $40 billion collapsed and left egg on everyone’s face.

With Google (GOOG) and Microsoft gearing up for a costly search war and no chance of Yahoo ever regaining any kind of tech advantage, the argument in favor goes, Bartz opted to get some kind of leverage while she still had some.

On many levels, that makes a lot of sense. And if it works, the deal will surely help improve Yahoo’s bottom line, cutting expenses in the search technology arena drastically and, the company hopes, giving it the ability to compete better in the marketplace by combining Yahoo and Microsoft search against the Google behemoth.

Presumably, if Yahoo can innovate in search experience and add to share, all is not lost.

But a lot of people certainly don’t like the deal, citing a variety of problems, especially the fact that Yahoo has essentially turned over all search monetization to Microsoft and traded away a big part of its business with no financial guarantees.

In fact, Bartz said in an interview with me at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference–months before she struck it–that she would want “boatloads of money” in any deal with Microsoft (see that video below).

[ See post to watch video ]

At the time, most people thought she meant a gigantic upfront guaranteed payment for handing over search to Microsoft, which she did not get in the final deal.

Wrote one Internet exec in a long email to me, expressing a typical sentiment I have heard time and again:

She would have been much better off to simply have sold the current Yahoo search biz to Microsoft along the lines of the deal Carl Icahn tried to broker the summer after the acquisition bid was pulled. The cut over could have happened much faster (just start running Bing results on Yahoo) and Microsoft would probably have given a revenue guarantee that would keep Yahoo whole on revenue per search for the traffic they generated. That would also have eliminated the sales overhead immediately, providing greater cost savings…She chose a middle-ground (classic Yahoo) and will end up with lower returns for the declining search business than she could otherwise have had.

Only reason she doesn’t get the F that [former Yahoo CEO and Co-founder] Jerry Yang obviously earned on this topic is that she did actually make a deal.

And, indeed, Bartz had to play the cards she was handed by her predecessors, and they were not good ones.

Still, Yahoo is now depending on Microsoft to innovate in search technology. If it does not or cannot, look out below in that category, even if Yahoo recovers in its stronger display advertising arena.

So, with Yahoo’s search share declining of late, even as that of Microsoft’s Bing grows, it is right to start worrying and be nervous.

Nonetheless, as much as I like to dole out grades and as much as Bartz’s detractors would like to say it is over, it’s probably fairer to wait and see what happens.

One thing is certain: Bartz has shown either amazing guts or an astonishing lack of foresight here.

But let’s save that particular grade–moxie–for tomorrow, on the day Yahoo’s fourth-quarter earnings come out and Bartz is front and center in the earnings call.

Speaking of moxie–a.k.a. ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-cherry bomb!–here’s the trailer for “The Runaways,” which just opened at Sundance:

EU Approves Oracle-Sun Deal

John Paczkowski — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:10:54 +0000

The European Commission this morning unconditionally approved Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems, removing one of the last hurdles to the $7.4 billion deal. Digital Daily reported Monday that people close to the companies expected the EC to clear the deal by today.

“I am now satisfied that competition and innovation will be preserved on all the markets concerned,” European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement. “Oracle’s acquisition of Sun has the potential to revitalize important assets and create new and innovative products.”

All that remains in the planned merger’s way now is approval from Chinese and Russian antitrust authorities, and Oracle (ORCL) expects them both to clear it unconditionally. That being the case, the company has scheduled an event to discuss its strategy for absorbing Sun (JAVA) for the morning of Jan. 27. CEO Larry Ellison will host the event, which will be Webcast live from 9 am to 2 pm Pacific Time.

The EC’s full statement, below.

Mergers: Commission clears Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems

The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the proposed acquisition of US hardware and software vendor Sun Microsystems Inc. by Oracle Corporation, a US enterprise software company. After an in-depth examination, launched in September 2009 (see IP/09/1271 ), the Commission concluded that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it.

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said: “I am now satisfied that competition and innovation will be preserved on all the markets concerned. Oracle’s acquisition of Sun has the potential to revitalise important assets and create new and innovative products.”

Oracle is a supplier of business software, including middleware (i.e. software that connects software components applications), database software, enterprise application software and related services.

Sun provides network computing infrastructure solutions that include computer systems, software, storage and services. In 2008, Sun acquired the open source database, MySQL.

The Commission’s in-depth investigation, opened on 3 September 2009 assessed whether the acquisition of the world’s leading open source database MySQL by Oracle, the leading proprietary database vendor, would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition within the EEA. The database market is highly concentrated with the three main proprietary database vendors – Oracle, IBM and Microsoft – accounting for approximately 85% of the market in terms of revenue.

Although Sun’s share of the database market in terms of revenue is low, as users of MySQL can download and use the database for free, given its open source nature, the Commission’s investigation confirmed MySQL’s position as the leading open source database. The Commission’s investigation therefore focussed on the nature and extent of the competitive constraint that MySQL currently exerts on Oracle and whether this would be affected by the proposed transaction.

The Commission’s in-depth investigation showed that although MySQL and Oracle compete in certain parts of the database market, they are not close competitors in others, such as the high-end segment.

Given the open source nature of MySQL, the Commission also assessed Oracle’s ability and incentive to remove the constraint exerted by MySQL after the merger and the extent to which this constraint could, if necessary, be replaced by other actors on the database market.

The Commission’s investigation showed that another open source database, PostgreSQL, is considered by many database users to be a credible alternative to MySQL and could be expected to replace to some extent the competitive force currently exerted by MySQL on the database market. In addition, the Commission found that ‘forks’ (branches of the MySQL code base), which are legally possible given MySQL’s open source nature, might also develop in future to exercise a competitive constraint on Oracle in a sufficient and timely manner. Given the specificities of the open source software industry, the Commission also took into account Oracle’s public announcement of 14 December 2009 of a series of pledges to customers, users and developers of MySQL concerning issues such as the continued release of future versions of MySQL under the GPL (General Public Licence) open source licence. Oracle has already taken action to implement some of its pledges by making binding offers to third parties who currently have a licensing contract for MySQL with Sun to amend contracts. This is likely to allow third parties to continue to develop storage engines to be integrated with MySQL and to extend the functionality of MySQL.

The Commission also examined the potential impact of Oracle’s acquisition of the intellectual property (IP) rights connected to the Java development platform in the context of the proposed transaction.

It found that Oracle’s ability to deny its competitors access to important IP rights would be limited by the functioning of the Java Community Process (JCP) which is a participative process for developing and revising Java technology specifications involving numerous other important players in the IT industry, including Oracle’s competitors.

The Commission also found that Oracle would not have the incentives to restrict its competitors’ access to the Java IP rights as this would jeopardise the gains derived from broad adoption of the Java platform and therefore the proposed transaction would raise no competition concerns in respect of the licensing of IP rights connected with Java.

The Commission also examined the potential effects arising from the proposed transaction on the market for middleware and in the ‘IT stack’, where the merger would strengthen Oracle’s presence. It concluded that no competition concerns would arise in these areas in the light of the merged entity’s market shares and prevailing competition in the markets.

First M&A of 2010: Flixster + Rotten Tomatoes

Peter Kafka — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:08:15 +0000

Here’s the Flixster/MySpace deal Kara Swisher sussed out on Christmas Eve: News Corp. is handing over its Rotten Tomatoes movie review site, previously owned by its IGN unit, to the movie-centric social network and will get an equity stake in the combined company.

MySpace COO Michael Jones approves, which is good, since the Flixster/Rotten Tomatoes combo is supposed to link directly into MySpace.

This is part of News Corp.’s (NWS) turnaround/shape-up strategy for MySpace and the rest of its digital portfolio, which looked very valuable just a few years ago and is now in need of an overhaul. The media company is shedding noncore assets while trying to turn MySpace into a hub for entertainment that you share with your pals. Expect to see more announcements and product rollouts in the coming weeks.

From Swisher’s 12/24 story:

Several sources noted that this deal being contemplated is typical of the overall strategy at News Corp., which has been targeting digital units that are not an obvious fit inside the company any longer for sale or other disposition.

In fact, the deal is not unlike one News Corp. did recently, flipping photo-sharing Photobucket into mobile photo service Ontela, with the media giant holding a large equity position in the the new entity.

The possibility of linking MySpace and the combined social movie site is interesting and yet another signal of one of the new strategies of MySpace: “Playing on other platforms,” as one source described it.

For example, MySpace recently announced it was adding its data stream to real-time search results on Google (GOOG).

And, it seems dead obvious that MySpace is likely to adopt Facebook Connect sooner than later, perhaps beginning with a smaller implementation early next year.

Disclosure: News Corp. owns this Web site.

Here’s the official press release:

Flixster Inc. Acquires Rotten Tomatoes
From IGN Entertainment

Combination of Top Brands Creates a Leader in the? Online Movie Space, Reaching 30 Million Monthly Moviegoers; IGN to Receive Equity Stake in Flixster

SAN FRANCISCO (January 4, 2010)–Flixster Inc., producer of the world’s largest online movie community at www.Flixster.com, today announced that it has acquired Rotten Tomatoes from IGN Entertainment. IGN, a division of News Corporation, will receive a minority equity stake in Flixster as part of the acquisition. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The combination of Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes reaches a huge global movie audience of an estimated 30 million monthly visitors worldwide across multiple platforms: on the Internet, through web-based social networks, and via mobile apps for the iPhone, Blackberry and Android devices.

Both Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes will continue to be available to movie fans as individual properties. Together, Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes give movie audiences an unprecedented total picture of movie trends and opinions, combining half a million reviews from leading critics with 2.3 billion user ratings and reviews.

“To use movie terminology, we think this is a blockbuster double-bill,” said Joe Greenstein, co-founder and CEO of Flixster. “It’s a huge step forward in our goal of connecting users to their own personalized world of movies on any platform they choose. We can’t think of a better pairing for movie fans and our technology partners.”

Flixster’s president and COO Steve Polsky added, “Rotten Tomatoes has built a fantastically well-known brand that moviegoers trust when making their decisions. Combined with Flixster’s social networking and word-of-mouth, we’re creating the leading movie destination on the Internet.”

“Joining Rotten Tomatoes with Flixster creates a company that can dominate the online movie category,” said Roy Bahat, president of IGN Entertainment, who will join Flixster’s board of directors as an observer. “This also enables IGN to focus on serving the male 18-to-34 audience–especially videogamers–and the advertisers looking to reach them.”

Flixster already operates the leading embedded movie applications on Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, iGoogle, and for the iPhone, Android devices, Blackberry and Palm Pre. Together, Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes will be the most comprehensive, one-stop movie-information provider for both end users and technology partners, including: a database of more than 250,000 movies; 2.3 billion user reviews; 500,000 critic reviews; more than 20,000 trailers and videos; the well-known Tomatometer™ and Flixster Scores; unique movie news and editorial content; category-leading social-networking features; localized movie showtime information; theater maps; and online ticketing.

Prior to the acquisition, Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes partnered in several areas, including a recent deal that syndicates critic reviews from Rotten Tomatoes to Flixster’s online movie community, both on the Web and via Flixster’s mobile apps.

Since its inception in early 2006, Flixster has rapidly become the Web’s largest community for movie fans, with more than 20 million monthly users.

As the web’s leading aggregator of reviews from top movie critics, Rotten Tomatoes offers the most comprehensive guide to movies, and its Tomatometer™ rating-based on the published opinions of hundreds of film critics–is a trusted measurement of movie quality for millions of moviegoers. The site has also seen tremendous year-over year growth, with its monthly unique user base rising on average nearly 40 percent in each of the past five months compared to the same months in 2008.

The deal follows a series of moves by IGN Entertainment to refocus its efforts on building out its suite of game-related and men’s-lifestyle offerings. The company recently launched Game On, a videogames-dedicated portal on MSN, and its network of sites currently reaches the most concentrated audience of males 18 to 34 and technology influencers on the Web today.

Tim Armstrong Makes One Last Pitch for AOL: "No More Hail Marys"

Peter Kafka — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:15:56 +0000

AOL is about to cut ties to Time Warner (TWX), and CEO Tim Armstrong has been making his case to current and potential investors. Here’s one last pitch, delivered to the crowd at the annual UBS (UBS AG) Media and Communications Conference in New York.

Note to readers and/or Engadget editors: This liveblog is not an official transcript. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one. Cool? Cool.

Q: Why leave Google, which is awesome, for AOL, which is not?

A: The Internet is still at an early stage. AOL is a global brand, and that’s hard to build. We have a unique set of assets. AOL can be core and central to where the next $50, $100 billion are going. And we have unique talent to make a run at it.

Q: Please explain your strategy.

A: “Content, ads and communication.”

Q: Why is this turnaround different than other AOL turnarounds?

A: I can tell you whatever, but you need to see metrics move to believe me. But we have a good strategy. “You have to maniacal about the piping,” and in the past AOL wasn’t. We had terrible integration of acquisitions, systems. You want to be able to take $25, $40 million ad deals and run them through the piping and we haven’t been able to do that.

Q: Please explain AOL’s content strategy.

A: We launched our content platform last night. A single platform. It uses data, helps scale to content producers and will work with thousands of partners. It differs from Demand Media et al in that we already have scale for production and scale for advertising. We can snap those two platforms together. [Note: No mention of robots yet.]

Q: Is AOL interested in video or other self-produced stuff?

A: Sure. Video’s important to us. We’re also interested in what we would call “niche at scale.” As a collective whole, we have 70 or 80 properties and will go up to 100. We want to aggregate uniques that will be attractive to advertisers. We want to own the equivalent of the top 80 or 90 cable channels on the Internet. We’re also very interested in local, via Patch [which Armstrong invested in before AOL bought it].

Q: How do you market all this content?

A: By the way, everyone thinks our traffic comes from the access business. That’s not true. It’s a minority of our traffic. Also, when you produce your own content, you can distribute it and get traffic back. You also need to make this stuff shareable on the Web. We’re getting mass scale distribution from platforms like Twitter and, of course, search.

Q: There’s a big gap between your monetization and Yahoo’s (YHOO). How do you change that?

A: I can’t tell you! It’s how I got my job. Ho ho ho. Okay: AOL went to a network-based strategy a couple of years ago, which cut into the pricing yield, and that is now changing. We addressed this in the summer and fall. Also, AOL, shockingly, had under 1,000 customers on ad platforms when I showed up–700, actually. At Google (GOOG), we had millions. So we had a clear dialogue about what had happened. Also, the salesforce needed to be restructured, different tiers of the salesforce. And we also needed a self-service option you can use with a credit card. “Look, this is why they hired me….If we can’t make that business work, I think we have big issues.”

Q: What’s up with search?

A: We like Google and are still talking to them. We’re also talking to “other partners.” Last time, the deal was done “purely for money,” and that had benefits and some downside. This time, the pricing may be different, but it’s not the only thing that determines value.

Q: Please be more specific.

A: Okay. We’re really big on music. But if you go to AOL search for music, you get a subpar version of Google’s search for music. There are too many ads on the page. So why don’t we set up a onebox-like search box and send people to AOL music? For example, let’s think about trading search dollars for display dollars. We want to make money on ads in a much more natural and healthy way.

Q: What about investments in content?

A: Sure. We’re making nominal investments in content and a putting a lot of money in technology and infrastructure. In terms of M&A, we will sell off stuff that doesn’t make sense and do tuck-in buys.

Q: How does your local strategy differ from others?

A: We do real local, not quasi-local. We put editors in communities to actually get the stuff and monitor and update platforms. “It’s a risk, it’s a bet,” but early results are promising.

Q: Your ad business is much less profitable than that of your peers. What up?

A: Our hamburger stand says “really cheap burgers at really cheap prices,” but we’re actually serving sea bass, and we should be charging for that. We told customers, via Platform A, etc., that they could buy us really cheap. Also, cost structure: We’re taking out a third of the business. Access was making money, and things “kind of got loose” at the rest of company. But advertising can be nicely profitable with content and we can do that.

Q: Okay, but when do ad biz profits become self-sustaining?

A: Not in 2010, but sooner than five years. I own two percent of the company, and I want it to work. Morale is already better than when I got here.

Q: Are you removing all premium inventory from Ad.com?

A: Don’t believe what you read! Internet! Bad! An analyst said we might do it. What we’re going to do is “sell Superbowl product at Superbowl pricing.” [i.e., a nonanswer]

Q: What’s up with the access business and the traffic it generates?

A: We have 100 million users. Five million people get “paid services” from us. Half of those are dial-up users. But people think that 70, 80, 90 percent of traffic comes from access. That’s not the case.

Q: What’s up with mobile?

A: We want to increase consumer mobile traffic. We have lots of Apple Store downloads. We’ll do more consumer downloads/traffic. And we’ll build our mobile ad business after that, probably in 2011.

Q: What do Federal broadband access plans mean for your business?

A: All of us believe that there will be some “tail” of dial-up access for some time. But it’s not going away, and the decline is actually moderating [which makes sense--if you're still on dial-up now, what are you waiting for?]

Q: Please reiterate profitability plans for display/content/ads.

A: In reality, we’re “marginally” profitable now, but that’s not good enough.

Q: If you reprice ad business profitability, what does that mean for you?

A: I don’t want to set goals, but we’re not off by single digits. It’s significant.

Q: Talk about your communications business, please.

A: We have AIM, ICQ, email–all big opportunities. We need to clean up current products and services. Communications products “were recipient of problems” in the past. AOL tried to jam Bebo and AIM together, which didn’t work. We also slammed our stuff with way too many emails. I tried AOL email when I started and got 15 to 20 ads. Not a great user experience. It’s “project hygiene.” We also believe people want a unified platform across devices and we’re working on that.

Q: Talk about compensation.

A: I had the money options at Google, which got moved into AOL options at market value. Plus salary blah blah. I didn’t take a bonus this year “because I don’t think I should have gotten paid for laying off a third of our employees.” [All of this is discussed in the proxy, no?]

Q: Here’s a softball about your management team. How awesome is it?

A: Totally awesome. We’ll add more over time. On the engineering side, I was surprised that we weren’t chasing good engineers when we got here. “We have spent a lot of time and energy on the subject matter.” Culturally, our “internal mojo turned around,” and now the engineering community gets that we “have a big-hair problem” but that we have tons of use so things they do here have a big impact.

Q: Brand strategy: How do you extract brands people don’t know about while promoting the main site and vice versa?

A: We think about this like Disney (DIS), I think. By the way, there are two brands. The financial media brand is battered–worst merger in history, etc. But consumers like the AOL brand. Tomorrow, we’re giving AOL users a a 50 percent promotion via Target (TGT) on “very good toys.” So in the Disney way, there’s the brand people like, and we have other brands people like, just as Disney has ESPN. So we’ll have non-AOL brands launching, and we’ll refurbish the AOL brand itself.

Q: Whither MapQuest?

A: MapQuest is still Top 20 search term. It has a large market share. The technology has not been focused on in a number of years. We’re changing that. Partners are inquiring about MapQuest, and I think what we’ll do is an operational partnership with them. We feel like its a “very, very valuable property.”

Q: What are best metrics to evaluate AOL’s turnaround/growth?

A: Unique visitors [which is what everyone says now]. We need a turnaround in domestic display, which you should see in 2010. And then we need to generate cash, because that’s what healthy companies do. In terms of that cash: No more “hail Marys” where we take cash from access and make big bets on things that we don’t know about [i.e., Bebo]. We will want to fund the Web services business with cash from the Web services business.

What Will Comcast Give Up to Get the NBC Deal Through Washington? Place Your Bets…

Peter Kafka — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:48:26 +0000

Comcast’s deal to buy half of NBC Universal from GE, first reported in late September, is now official, and the two companies are holding three conference calls this morning to talk about it. But there isn’t much either company can say that hasn’t already made it into the press at this point.

Most important to remember here is that regulators will be hemming and hawing over this combination for many many months, so the actual transaction won’t take place until late 2010 or beyond. And by that time, it’s certainly possible that some of the terms announced today will have changed, as Comcast seeks to mollify politicians who are worried–are at least say they’re worried–about the company’s clout.

Comcast (CMCSA) has already announced (via this Bloomberg story) that it doesn’t intend to shed any assets to please Washington. But what else would it say? One likely scenario, according to cable executives I talked to this week, is that the company will end up selling some of its cable systems to the handful of small cable operators that are still around.

In any case, completists can find the press release at the bottom of this post, but if you’re in a hurry I’d suggest this overview of the overviews from PaidContent, which includes nuggets like the following:

Comcast started the year by mulling deals to buy Facebook or Viacom (VIA).
GE (GE) and Comcast first broached the deal in Sun Valley media schmooze in July, and agreed on the deal points by the end of that month.
News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch, who kept insisting that he wasn’t interested in inserting himself into the deal, kept at it through late October.

COMCAST AND GE TO CREATE LEADING ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY
Positions Comcast and NBCU to Lead the Next Phase of Media Industry’s Evolution
Builds on Diverse Cable Portfolio, Accelerates Digital Offerings and Expands Customer Choice
Entity Will Deliver Strong Cash Flow With Conservative Capital Structure
NBCU Businesses Valued at $30 Billion, Comcast to Contribute Businesses Valued at $7.25 Billion
Comcast To Own 51%, GE 49% Interest in NBCU
Jeff Zucker to Lead New York-based Venture

PHILADELPHIA, PA and FAIRFIELD, CT — Dec. 3, 2009 — Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA, CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) announced today that they have signed a definitive agreement to form a joint venture that will be 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE and managed by Comcast. The joint venture, which will consist of the NBC Universal (NBCU) businesses and Comcast’s cable networks, regional sports networks and certain digital properties and certain unconsolidated investments, will be well positioned to compete in an increasingly dynamic and competitive media and digital environment.

The combination of assets creates a leading media and entertainment company with the proven capability to provide some of the world’s most popular entertainment, news and sports content, movies and film libraries to consumers anytime, anywhere. The joint venture will provide consumers the broadest possible access to content, and support high-quality, award-winning content development across all platforms including film, television, and online. It will be anchored by an outstanding portfolio of cable networks and regional sports networks that will account for about 80 percent of its cash flow, including USA, Bravo, Syfy, E!, Versus, CNBC and MSNBC. The joint venture will be financially strong with a robust cash-flow-generation capability.

Under the terms of the transaction, GE will contribute to the joint venture NBCU’s businesses valued at $30 billion, including its cable networks, filmed entertainment, televised entertainment, theme parks, and unconsolidated investments, subject to $9.1 billion in debt to third party lenders. Comcast will contribute its cable networks including E!, Versus and the Golf Channel, its ten regional sports networks, and certain digital media properties, collectively valued at $7.25 billion, and make a payment to GE of approximately $6.5 billion of cash subject to certain adjustments based on various events between signing and closing.

Comcast Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts said, “This deal is a perfect fit for Comcast and will allow us to become a leader in the development and distribution of multiplatform ‘anytime, anywhere’ media that American consumers are demanding. In particular, NBCU’s fast-growing, highly profitable cable networks are a great complement to our industry-leading distribution business. Today’s announced transaction will increase our capabilities in content and cable networks. At the same time, it will enhance consumer choice and accelerate the development of new digital products and services. GE has provided NBCU with a great home and has dramatically and positively transformed the business. We are honored that under this agreement Comcast would take over the stewardship of this important collection of assets and are absolutely committed to investing in NBCU and ensuring that it is a vibrant, financially strong company able to thrive in a rapidly evolving marketplace by delivering innovative programming. We are particularly pleased to be creating this new joint venture with GE and Jeff Immelt and to have their continued involvement.

“For Comcast, this transaction is strategically compelling and will generate attractive financial returns and build shareholder value,” continued Roberts. “It is also expected to be immediately accretive and will also allow us to maintain our strong commitment to returning capital to shareholders– all while increasing the scale, capabilities and value of our cable distribution, content and digital assets. Significantly, it is entirely consistent with our intense focus on value creation and our disciplined strategy of pursuing profitable growth in areas complementary to our distribution business.”

GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt said, “The combination of Comcast’s cable and regional sports networks and digital media properties and NBCU will deliver strong returns for GE shareholders and business partners. NBCU has been a great business for GE over the past two decades. We have generated an average annual return of 11 percent, while expanding into cable, movies, parks and international media. We are reducing our ownership stake from 80 percent to 49 percent of a more valuable entity. By doing so, GE gets a good value for NBCU. This transaction will generate approximately $8 billion of cash at closing with an expected small after-tax gain. We have many opportunities to invest in our high-technology infrastructure businesses at attractive returns. I believe that the new NBCU will deliver value for both Comcast and GE in the future. We will give consumers and advertisers more choice and our cable and digital assets will be second to none. I am confident Brian Roberts and his team at Comcast will be great partners.”

Comcast also announced the creation of Comcast Entertainment Group (CEG), which will house Comcast’s interest in the joint venture and will stand alongside Comcast Cable, which operates the company’s traditional cable business.

Comcast Chief Operating Officer Steve Burke said, “Both Comcast and NBCU have excellent track records of integrating and growing multi-billion dollar businesses, including significant content acquisitions. In addition, we have both developed some of the country’s most popular programming and built many of the most watched and valued networks in the industry. We are confident that we’ll be even stronger together, and look forward to working with Jeff Zucker and the NBCU team to deliver the best consumer experience.”

Jeff Zucker, current president and CEO of NBCU, will be CEO of the new joint venture and will report to Burke. Zucker said, “Combining the assets of NBCU, ranging from our suite of cable properties and two broadcast networks to a legendary film studio and global theme park business, with the content assets and resources of Comcast, will enable us to continue to thrive in an ever-changing media landscape. Consumers of all of our products–on screens large and small–will have the benefit of enhanced content and experiences, delivered to them in new and better ways as a result of this transaction. This marks the start of a new era for NBCU, and I’m genuinely excited that I will be leading this wonderful organization, along with the Comcast team, at this important time in our history.”

Headquarters for the business will remain in New York. The joint venture board will have three directors nominated by Comcast and two nominated by GE.

Key Elements Of The Transaction:

·         NBCU will borrow approximately $9.1 billion from third-party lenders and distribute the cash to GE.

·         NBCU, valued at $30 billion, will be contributed to the newly formed joint venture. Comcast will contribute its programming businesses and certain other properties valued at $7.25 billion.

·         GE will acquire Vivendi’s 20% interest in NBCU for $5.8 billion. GE will purchase approximately 38% of Vivendi’s interest (or approximately 7.66% of all outstanding NBCU shares) from Vivendi for $2 billion in September 2010, if the Comcast transaction is not closed by then. GE will acquire the remaining 62% of Vivendi’s interest (or approximately 12.34% of all outstanding NBCU shares) for $3.8 billion when the transaction closes.

·         Comcast will make a payment to GE of approximately $6.5 billion in cash subject to certain adjustments based on various events between signing and closing.

·         The new venture will be 51% owned by Comcast and 49% owned by GE.

·         GE expects to realize $9.8 billion pre-tax in cash before debt reduction and transaction fees and after buyout of the Vivendi stake. GE expects to realize approximately $8 billion in cash after paying down the existing NBCU debt and transaction fees.

·         GE will be entitled to elect to cause the joint venture to redeem one-half of its interest at year 3 ½ and its remaining interest at year 7. The joint venture’s obligations to complete those purchases will be subject to the venture’s leverage ratio not exceeding 2.75X EBITDA and the venture continuing to hold investment-grade ratings. Comcast also has certain rights to purchase GE’s interest in the venture at specified times. All such transactions would be done at a 20% premium to public market value with 50% sharing of upside above the closing valuation.

·         To the extent the joint venture is not required to meet GE’s redemption requests, Comcast will provide a backstop up to a maximum of $2.875 billion for the first redemption and a total backstop of $5.750 billion.

The transaction has been approved by the Board of Directors of GE and Comcast. It is subject to receipt of various regulatory approvals, including clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, and approvals of the Federal Communications Commission and certain international agencies. The transaction is also subject to other customary closing conditions. NBCU has obtained $9.85 billion of committed financing through a consortium of banks led by J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch and Citi. This financing is expected to receive solid investment-grade ratings from S&P and Moody’s.

Comcast and GE intend to submit regulatory applications supporting the pro-competitive and strong public interest benefits of the transaction, including how the joint venture will better meet the entertainment, communications and information needs of the American public.

“We are prepared to make affirmative commitments to ensure that the pro-consumer and public interest benefits of the transaction are realized,” Roberts said. “Today, we have announced a number of initial commitments that expand on the capabilities that Comcast and NBCU have built over the years, and the new opportunities that this combination makes possible. These commitments address the needs of various audiences and stakeholders, and we will provide additional details on these and other commitments in our public interest filing with the Federal Communications Commission.”

Advisors
Morgan Stanley is lead financial advisor to Comcast with UBS and BofA Merrill Lynch acting as co-advisors. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is Comcast’s legal advisor. J.P. Morgan is lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is GE’s and NBCU’s legal advisor.

Teleconference and Webcast
Comcast will host a conference call with the financial community today, December 3, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) to discuss this morning’s announcement with Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts, Comcast Chief Operating Officer Stephen B. Burke and Comcast Chief Financial Officer, Michael J. Angelakis. The conference call will be broadcast live via the Company’s Investor Relations website at www.cmcsa.com or www.cmcsk.com. Those parties interested in participating via telephone should dial (800) 263- 8495 with the conference ID number 44380493. A telephone replay of the call will be available on the Investor Relations website starting at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time on December 3, 2009 and will be available until December 8, 2009 at midnight Eastern Time. To access the rebroadcast, please dial (800) 642-1687 conference ID 44380493.

GE will also host a webcast with the financial community today, December 3, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time / 7:30 a.m. Central Time to discuss this morning’s announcement with GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt, GE Chief Financial Officer Keith Sherin and NBCU President and CEO Jeff Zucker. The webcast will be available at www.ge.com/investors. A replay will be available later in the day on the site.

Additional media materials are available at www.ge.com/newnbcu, www.comcast.com/nbcutransaction and https://www.nbcumv.com/mv/.

The description of this transaction included in this press release is qualified in its entirety by, and is subject to, the terms of the definitive documentation for the transaction to be filed by Comcast with the Securities and Exchange Commission on a Current Report on Form 8-K.

About GE
GE (NYSE: GE) is a diversified infrastructure, finance and media company taking on the world’s toughest challenges. From aircraft engines and power generation to financial services, medical imaging, and television programming, GE operates in more than 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people worldwide. For more information, visit the company’s Web site at www.ge.com.

About Comcast Corporation
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) (www.comcast.com) is one of the nation’s leading providers of entertainment, information and communication products and services. With 23.8 million cable customers, 15.7 million high-speed Internet customers, and 7.4 million Comcast Digital Voice customers, Comcast is principally involved in the development, management and operation of cable systems and in the delivery of programming content.

Comcast’s content networks and investments include E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One, ten sports networks operated by Comcast Sports Group and Comcast Interactive Media, which develops and operates Comcast’s Internet businesses, including Comcast.net (www.comcast.net). Comcast also has a majority ownership in Comcast-Spectacor, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in Philadelphia.

About NBC Universal:
NBC Universal is one of the world’s leading media and entertainment companies in the development, production, and marketing of entertainment, news, and information to a global audience. NBC Universal owns and operates a valuable portfolio of news and entertainment networks, a premier motion picture company, significant television production operations, a leading television stations group, and world-renowned theme parks. NBC Universal is 80% owned by General Electric and 20% owned by Vivendi.
Combined Assets/Properties

The assets and properties owned or controlled by the new joint venture will include some of the best known brands in the entertainment industry, including:

• Several of television’s most successful cable networks, including USA, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, E!, Style, Versus and the Golf Channel;
• One of the nation’s largest television groups, including:
• The NBC Television Network;
• Local broadcast TV stations in ten top U.S. markets including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia;
• The national Telemundo Network and 16 Telemundo O&O stations in locations such as Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Houston, Chicago and Dallas/Ft.Worth;
• Preeminent television production operations that produce Emmy Award winning programs like The Office, 30 Rock, Law & Order, Heroes, Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show, as well as syndicate operations through NBC Universal Domestic and International Distribution and a 3,000-title library of television episodes;
• NBC News, the leading source of global news and information in the United States with top-rated programs such as Nightly News with Brian Williams, Today and Meet the Press;
• A robust sports programming lineup featuring the Olympics (through 2012), NBC Sunday Night Football, NHL/Stanley Cup, PGA Tour, US Open, Ryder Cup, Wimbledon and the Kentucky Derby, Versus, Golf Channel and Comcast’s 10 regional sports networks;
• Universal Pictures, which has produced Academy Award winners Atonement, The Bourne Ultimatum, Brokeback Mountain, Ray and A Beautiful Mind, Focus Features, which recently produced Away We Go, and an extensive movie library with more than 4,000 titles through Universal Studios Home Entertainment;
• Fast growing digital media properties including CNBC.com, iVillage, NBC.com, Fandango, and Daily Candy, which together generate more than 40 million unique users each month;
• Ownership of theme parks in Florida (50% interest), California (100% interest) and a financial interest in a theme park in Japan;
• A minority interest in A&E, Biography, The History Channel, The Weather Channel, Lifetime and Hulu.com.

Microsoft Updates Bing

John Paczkowski — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:00:14 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Psystar to Apple: Would You Consider $50,000 Cash and $2.65 Million in Unsold Hackintoshes?

John Paczkowski — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:50:31 +0000

If this isn’t the end of the line for Psystar, it’s damn near close to it. According to court papers filed Tuesday, the Mac clone maker has opted to pay $2.7 million in damages rather than continue its ill-starred legal battle with Apple.

Under the terms of the agreement, Psystar will pay Apple (AAPL) damages totaling $1,337,550 for all the copyright, DMCA, and breach of contract claims against it and another $1,337,500 in attorney fees and additional damages. In return, Apple will drop all its trademark, trade dress and unfair competition claims against Psystar. Cupertino has also agreed not to “seek to execute on the money judgments…until any and all appeals in this matter are concluded or the time for filing any such appeal has lapsed.”

Not that Apple is likely to collect that money, anyway. As I’ve noted here before, Psystar’s total assets, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

The agreement if full, below.

Apple Psystar Settlement Agreement

Apple to Psystar: And Don't Get Any Bright Ideas About a Black Friday Sale, Either

John Paczkowski — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:00:29 +0000

Having diligently hewn Psytar’s legal coffin over the past year and a half, Apple has now taken up its hammer and set about nailing the Mac clone maker into it. This week, the company called for a permanent injunction against Psystar’s operations.

“Psystar…has built its business on infringing Apple’s copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple’s research and development efforts, and trading on Apple’s hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers,” Apple said in its motion.

“Psystar’s appropriation of Apple’s intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar’s ‘OpenMac’ computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple’s Mac OS X,” the company added.

“Psystar even seeks to profit from Apple’s efforts to protect its rights, extolling this litigation as Psystar’s ‘opportunity to gain market share,’ in a pitch to venture capitalists….Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, it will not stop its unlawful conduct–conduct that is causing irreparable harm to Apple’s business, brand and goodwill.”

Catch that? Psystar was pitching VCs on its plan to use Apple’s IP to “compete directly against Apple.” Shameless. Little wonder Cupertino is so intent on burying the would-be rival.

And make no mistake, Apple legal is going to grind Psystar into fine silicon dust. In addition to the injunction, Apple is requesting compensation for legal costs and statutory damages owed under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And according to Apple’s expert witness, statutory damages for the former should run “between $1500 and $300,000″ and for the latter “between $449,500 and $4,495,000.”

Suffice it to say, that’s quite a bit more than the current value of Psystar’s assets which, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

Going, Going…Most of What's Left of Joost Goes to Adconion Ad Network

Peter Kafka — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:57:21 +0000

The tale of Joost, the would-be online video heavyweight, is almost at an end. Most of the company’s remaining assets have been sold off to Adconion Media Group, the two companies announced today.

What exactly did Adconion buy? Some of Joost’s technology, as well as its trademark, and about a dozen of the company’s remaining 25 employees, a spokeswoman says.

So what does that leave? Does any part of the original Joost survive as an operating company? “I believe so,” says the spokeswoman, who is going to get back to us about that.

Price? Your guess is as good as mine. But I’m guessing it’s not going to be very much, and nothing close to what investors like Sequoia, Index and Viacom (VIA) were hoping when they plowed $45 million into the company more than two years ago. Index, by the way, is also an investor in Adconion and led an $80 million C funding round in February 2008.

In any case, this is all a matter of “i” dotting and “t” crossing, as Joost has officially been in hospice mode since June, when the company laid off most of its employees and replaced CEO Mike Volpi. Prior to that, Volpi and his investors had been trying to broker a sale of the company, hoping that they could convince a big infrastructure player like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) to bail it out.

No dice, though Time Warner Cable did end up hiring some technical help from Joost.

ADCONION MEDIA GROUP ACQUIRES JOOST ASSETS

New Capabilities Provide Advertisers, Content Owners and Publishers with an End-to-End
Cross-Channel Video Solution

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. – NOVEMBER 24, 2009 — Adconion Media Group (www.adconion.com), the largest independent global audience and content network, announced today that it has acquired certain assets from privately-held Joost, the online video service. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“Video is a top priority for our company, and through the acquisition of the Joost assets we will be able to provide advertisers, content owners and website publishers with an end-to-end global video platform and cross-channel video and display ad-serving solution,” said Tyler Moebius, CEO, Adconion Media Group. “This acquisition immediately brings additional scale and content to the Adconion video pre-roll network for clients who are looking for a safe, cost-effective alternative to achieve the maximum value of online video advertising. We’ll also continue to operate Joost.com, providing clients with a destination site to showcase and distribute their branded entertainment content.”

In June, Joost announced a change in its business strategy to focus on providing white-label video platforms, and Adconion plans to pursue this strategy. On Friday, Adconion announced its first long-term licensing partnership as the exclusive display and video ad-serving solution for the Goldbach Media Group in Europe.

The acquisition of Joost assets adds many dimensions to Adconion’s existing video services and further will solidify its position in the online video and content syndication market. Prior to the acquisition, Adconion offered targeted distribution of content, including video and television commercials, to audiences around the world via Adconion.TV; as well as customized branded entertainment solutions for clients through its exclusive relationship with the digital studio RedLever. Through the Joost acquisition, Adconion.TV will add to its library of professionally-produced video content available for targeted pre-roll advertisements across 2,000 premium publishers.

Janus Friis, co-founder of Joost, said, “Over the past few months we have been actively exploring strategic options for Joost, and have concluded that the sale of certain of its assets to Adconion is in the best interests of Joost. Adconion has a strong technological platform and a compelling business model, and we believe that both businesses will benefit as a result of this acquisition.”

A leader in advertising innovation, targeting and distribution, Adconion reaches nearly 300 million unique users on a monthly basis. Prior to the Joost acquisition, Adconion was serving more than 80 million video streams per day to targeted audiences across 2,000 global websites.

AOL: We Need to Fire 2,500 "Volunteers"

Peter Kafka — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:08:15 +0000

AOL, which has already told investors it will spend up to $200 million firing a good chunk of its staff, has now told employees. The company is looking for “up to 2,500 volunteers,” CEO Tim Armstrong told his staff today. That’s a third of AOL’s payroll.

The voluntary layoff program begins Dec. 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If AOL doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will ax people on its own.

This is lousy news for employees, who are faced with a “jump now or wait to be pushed” decision, but it is designed to cheer investors: AOL says the cuts will drop its annual operating expenses by $300 million. Through the first nine months of this year, AOL’s operating expenses ran around $1.8 billion.

Meanwhile, AOL is looking to shed some parts of its business altogether. It has hired bankers to sell off its ICQ messaging service and is considering dumping MapQuest, among other assets.

Armstrong’s (expensive) goodwill gesture: He is giving up his 2009 bonus, which was to be at least $1.5 million. His explanation to employees: “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.”

Here’s the text of the company’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

On November 19, 2009, AOL Inc. (the “Company”) informed its employees of proposed restructuring activities as part of its continuing cost reduction initiatives aimed at aligning the Company’s organizational structure and costs with its strategy (the “Restructuring”). The Restructuring is conditioned upon the successful completion of the Company’s previously announced spin-off from Time Warner Inc. (the “Spin-off”), as well as the approval of the Company’s new Board of Directors that will begin service in connection with the Spin-off. It is anticipated that, if approved, the Restructuring will include the reduction of approximately a third of the Company’s current employee base, which will be conducted on a voluntary and involuntary basis. The goal of the Restructuring is to reduce ongoing annual operating costs by approximately $300 million. If the Restructuring is approved, the Company expects to incur restructuring charges of up to $200 million, substantially all of which is expected to be incurred from the date of the Spin-off through the first half of 2010.

Sprint Nextel Silences iPCS

John Paczkowski — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:01:42 +0000

Wireless company iPCS is a legal thorn in Sprint’s side no longer. This morning, Sprint said it would acquire its litigious affiliate for $831 million, including the assumption of $405 million of net debt.

That works out to $24 per share in cash for iPCS. This is a 34 percent premium over the company’s closing price of $17.88 per share on Friday, but perhaps a small price to pay for putting an end to the two iPCS lawsuits–one over Sprint’s acquisition of Virgin Mobile, the other over its investment in Wimax operator Clearwire.

As a result of the iPCS deal, Sprint (S) will no longer be required to divest its iDen network in certain iPCS (IPCS) territories, though iPCS had won a court ruling requiring Sprint to do so. Now, Sprint will not only keep those assets, it can peddle their services to some 700,000 iPCS customers in a territory that covers 81 markets in seven states.

Below, the official announcement:

Sprint Nextel to Acquire Wireless Affiliate iPCS, Inc.

More than 700,000 PCS Wireless Users and 270,000 Wholesale Customers to Become Sprint Direct Subscribers
Extends Company’s Direct Service Territory to an Additional 12.6 Million People
Sprint Ends Plan to Divest iDEN Network Assets in Certain Midwestern States Pending Transaction Close
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. & SCHAUMBURG, Ill.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Oct. 19, 2009– Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) and iPCS, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPCS) today announced an agreement for Sprint Nextel to acquire iPCS for approximately $831 million, including the assumption of $405 million of net debt. This transaction value represents 6.4x projected 2010 Adjusted Earnings Before Income, Taxes, and Depreciation (“Adjusted EBITDA”*). Sprint expects to achieve approximately $30 million of synergies annually in the transaction and expects the transaction to be free cash flow accretive to Sprint in 2010.

Under the terms of the agreement, Sprint Nextel will commence a cash tender offer to acquire all of iPCS’ outstanding common shares for $24.00 per share. This price per share represents a 34 percent premium to iPCS’ closing stock price as of October 16, 2009. The agreement also requires a minimum of a majority of the shares outstanding (on a fully-diluted basis) to be tendered in the offer. Following completion of the tender offer, any remaining shares of iPCS will be acquired in a cash merger at the same price per share. Shareholders with approximately 9.5 percent of the outstanding common shares of iPCS have already agreed to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer and to vote their shares in favor of the merger.

The acquisition is subject to customary regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions, and is expected to be completed either late in the fourth quarter of 2009 or early 2010. As part of the agreement, Sprint Nextel and iPCS will seek an immediate stay of all pending litigation between the parties with a final resolution to become effective upon closing of the acquisition.

As a result, Sprint will no longer be required to divest its iDEN network in certain iPCS territories and will terminate its previously announced divestiture process pending closing of the transaction.

iPCS’s services are sold under the Sprint brand name and in Sprint-branded stores. Because of the nearly seamless marketing and sales relationship between Sprint and iPCS, customers should not experience any change in their service as a result of this transaction.

“Acquiring iPCS brings added value to Sprint by expanding our direct customer base, growing our direct coverage area and simplifying our business operations,” said Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint Nextel. “Customers in iPCS territory will see a seamless transition and continue to enjoy a superb customer experience.”

“We are very pleased to have reached this agreement with Sprint Nextel. Given the increasingly competitive landscape, we believe this is an opportune time to provide our shareholders with a liquidity event at a very attractive price. iPCS shareholders will receive a significant and immediate premium for their shares and our customers will continue to receive the same excellent service from the same dedicated people who provide that service today,” said Timothy M. Yager, president and CEO of iPCS. “We look forward to working with the Sprint Nextel team to ensure a smooth completion of the transaction and transition in the coming months.”

Intuit Acquires Mint for a Mint [CONFIRMED]

John Paczkowski — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:09:17 +0000

The TechCrunch 50 hasn’t even begun yet and already it’s making news. Online personal finance site Mint, which took top prize at the event in 2007, has evidently been acquired by Intuit. Price: A reported $170 million.

A nice, easy exit for Mint, which might have been the next Intuit–had it stayed the course and remained independent. But above all, a savvy move for Intuit (INTU), which has neutralized a growing threat to its Quicken Online and absorbed Mint’s 1.4 million registered users and their $47 billion in assets. Seems that “doesn’t-make-me-scoff-out-loud business plan” that Kara Swisher once noted, worked out quite well for Mint.

Below, Swisher’s January 2008 interview with Mint founder and CEO Aaron Patzer.

UPDATE: Patzer has confirmed the acquisition from the TechCrunch 50 stage. The price is indeed $170 million.

[ See post to watch video ]

A Service to Make 401(k) Tweaking a Piece of Cake

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:09:04 +0000

In the current economic turmoil, with investment portfolios melting in value, it’s become harder than ever to plan for retirement. Many people lack good investment advisers, or the time and skill to do their own investment research.

So, a small San Francisco company, Cake Financial, is introducing Thursday a $99-a-year automated service that attempts to tailor a mutual-fund portfolio that will get you to retirement according to your goals. It’s designed to be simple, clear and relatively quick, using plain English, easy-to-understand graphics, and a step-by-step approach that walks you through the process. In essence, it’s a robotic, low-cost investment adviser.

[ See post to watch video ]

The service, called Cake Premium, automatically imports your investment and 401(k) account information from any of 65 major investment companies, analyzes and categorizes your holdings, and then proposes how best to reallocate your positions. It uses its own proprietary formula to rate funds, both on their performance and on their fees, and suggests substitutes that it believes would be better.

This new Premium service evolved from two earlier Cake products, a free investment-tracking service and a $30-a-year service comparing mutual funds. Both products emphasized social networking among active investors. But the new Premium version goes much further in terms of recommendations, is aimed at average folks and doesn’t focus on the social networking. Like the others, it’s Web-based and runs in all the major browsers.

Cake (cakefinancial.com) isn’t a registered adviser or broker, and doesn’t actually conduct any transactions. So, if you choose to follow its advice, you’ll have to buy or sell the necessary funds elsewhere. The company says it doesn’t receive commissions or fees, and has no financial ties to any mutual-fund company, bank or broker. It says its income from Cake Premium comes solely from consumer subscription fees.

I’ve been testing Cake Premium, using a dummy portfolio provided by the company. Because I am not an investment expert, I can’t evaluate the merit of Cake’s recommendations. You may want to ask a trusted adviser about that after test-driving it via Cake’s 30-day free trial. But I can say that I found the service clear and easy to use, and can see how it could be helpful to average people with limited time and knowledge. However, I also found that Cake Premium has some significant limitations.

Here’s how it works. After you enter a few basic facts, like age and desired retirement date, you tell the service your login information for your retirement account, such as a 401(k). But it won’t work if your account isn’t at a major investment firm like Fidelity or Schwab (SCHW). And you can’t manually enter your data from an account that isn’t covered. The company assures users this is all done very securely.

Next, Cake Premium will assess the mix of mutual funds you hold, and decide if that mix matches your goal. It rates each fund, categorizes them by type, and then labels your current strategy by degree of risk. For example, it might tell you that your current holdings are “moderately aggressive” or “conservative.” It might also tell you “you are paying way too much in fees.” All of this is displayed in very clear text and graphs.

Then, it makes an overall judgment. In my case, Cake Premium declared that the investments in my test account weren’t properly diversified and represented the wrong level of risk for my situation.

Finally, the service will suggest a new allocation of funds, propose you substitute some funds with others it considers better, and present you with a detailed listing of which ones to sell and which to buy—naming specific funds. You can, at any time, alter Cake Premium’s proposals to see how your chances of meeting your goals will change, and you can do the same by adjusting a few factors like when you might retire and what percentage of current income you’d need.

But what about those limitations? For one thing, the service is focused only on mutual funds, and can’t give you advice about CDs or money-market funds. Also, it is all about retirement, not other goals, like saving for college.

And unlike a good investment adviser, Cake Premium learns only a portion of your financial picture, so its mutual-fund recommendations aren’t made in a complete context. For instance, it includes only a single small box into which you can type a total of your other assets. The company says it plans a more detailed information-entry process in future versions.

Finally, a maddening problem: If you are trying to reallocate the mutual funds in a 401(k) plan, Cake Premium isn’t smart enough to limit itself to suggesting substitutes that are actually available in your plan. It may in fact suggest only alternative funds that your plan doesn’t offer. The company suggests you purchase such funds for a separate account, like an individual retirement account.

Overall, Cake Premium may be a helpful tool in confusing times. But its limitations make it an incomplete solution that’s no threat to a really good, honest investment adviser.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Liveblogging Fortune Brainstorm Tech: AOL CEO and Chairman Tim "The Plumber" Armstrong

Kara Swisher — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:09:01 +0000

It did not start out too well for AOL CEO and Chairman Tim Armstrong, with a poll on the screen showing most of the attendees in the ballroom at Fortune Brainstorm Tech voting that the Time Warner (TWX) online unit was either out of juice or irrelevant.

The event, which is taking place over three days in Pasadena, Calif., is packed full of Web and media luminaries, so BoomTown will be sitting in the front row and liveblogging some of the sessions here, such as this one that I did for the session with Bob Iger, CEO of the Walt Disney Company (DIS).

Armstrong did not break any news in the interview with Fortune’s lively interviewer, David Kirkpatrick, relying more on projecting an I’m-in-charge-here attitude and saying confident things like “a challenge is also an opportunity.”

In general, Armstrong tried to be upbeat about the prospects for AOL, which has for too long been the Web’s sad sack of an Internet company.

“We are still in a very large trade wind,” he said, referring to advertisers spending money online. “If someone asked you if advertising [online] is going to go up, I think you would have to say yes.”

To take advantage of that, Armstrong said AOL would be focused on investing “in content systems that connect with advertising systems–that’s a white space we are going after.”

He noted that AOL needs to have the same “plumbing approach” to content that Google (GOOG)–where Armstrong had been a major advertising exec before taking his new job–has had to search advertising.

“You have to take the Silicon Valley approach to content,” Armstrong declared.

Armstrong also talked a little bit about his recent 100-day trip around the AOL empire worldwide and what he got out of it.

“I got a lot of advice from different people about what to do,” he said.

His takeaway, which he will discuss at an all-hands meeting scheduled for tomorrow with AOL staff: “It’s really about strategy. If we don’t have the right strategy, we’re not going to win.”

Which is kind of stating the obvious, but it sounded good.

Armstrong also touched lightly on the issue of getting rid of various assets AOL has compiled over the last several years, like it pricey purchase of the Bebo social networking site.

But some, as I recently reported–such as the Truveo video search service and the information search company Relegence–are staying.

Armstrong also talked of buying, but judiciously–noting to me later that AOL had 900 possible acquisition deals blocked in its pipeline.

Someone call a plumber stat!

Armstrong said he has put a stop to a lot of those deals, including putting the kibosh on a $400 million check he was supposed to sign right when he got there.

It was, as he told me after his interview, a windfall that supposed to go to a big computer maker for a distribution deal, which he chose to pass on.

“Everything has to make sense from a return-on-investment basis for me,” said Armstrong. “It’s that easy.”

And that hard, although he did move the crowd, which was polled with the same questions about AOL’s chances after Armstrong talked.

He got more people in the audience to vote that AOL would “return to health as a major Internet player,” which is–as legions of the company’s leaders have shown–no easy task.

[Photo credit: Brad Markel for Fortune]

RIM to Nortel: WTF?

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:13:47 +0000

Well, this is odd.

Nortel Networks has rejected Research In Motion’s bid for the wireless infrastructure assets Nortel is unloading as part of bankruptcy proceedings. RIM said Monday night that it intended to offer $1.1 billion for Nortel’s CDMA and LTE businesses, but was told it could do so only if it agreed not to bid on other Nortel assets, something it had intended to do.

In a blistering statement, RIM (RIMM) accused Nortel (NT) of imposing unfair conditions on the court-supervised auction of its assets and of jeopardizing their continued Canadian ownership.

“RIM is extremely disappointed that Nortel’s world leading technology, the development of which has been funded in part by Canadian taxpayers, seems destined to leave Canada,” said co-CEO Jim Balsillie. “RIM remains extremely interested in acquiring Nortel assets through a Canadian ownership solution that would serve the dual purpose of keeping key wireless technologies in Canada and extending RIM’s leadership in the research, development and distribution of leading edge wireless solutions, but RIM has found itself blocked at every turn.”

Why? Nortel says RIM was late to the game and hasn’t followed proper auction procedure.

“Other parties moved expeditiously to comply with the court approved procedures to become a qualified bidder,” the company said in a statement. “It was not until July 15, 2009, that RIM submitted a letter to Nortel asking to be a qualified bidder and since that time, Nortel has diligently attempted to work with RIM on acceptable confidentiality terms relating to Nortel’s valuable intellectual property assets, but RIM refused to comply with the court approved procedures.”

What’s really going on here? It’s hard to say, though clearly there’s more to the story. After all, RIM’s $1.1 billion bid is far, far more than Nokia Siemens’s stalking horse bid of $650 million. And what does RIM want with the CDMA business, anyway?

European Commission Overclocks Intel Antitrust Fine

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:29:20 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

More Pulitzers, Less Money: New York Times Ad Sales Down 27 Percent; Q2 Looks Just as Bad

Peter Kafka — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:16 +0000

Yesterday the New York Times won five Pulitzer Prizes, and executive editor Bill Keller took a well-deserved victory lap with a speech that reportedly had his newsroom in tears.

But for better or worse, none of that matters to investors, who are trying to figure out what the company’s long-term prospects look like. In the near term, they look terrible.

In the first three months of this year, the New York Times Company (NYT) lost $74.5 million, or 34 cents a share once you factor out one-time charges, on revenue of $609 million. That’s worse than Wall Street’s low expectations of a five-cent loss on revenue of $630.8 million.

The reason, of course, is that the ad market is miserable in general, and even more so for newspapers. The company’s ad revenue was down 27 percent, notably worse than the awful 17.6 percent decline the Times recorded in the last quarter of 2008.

And as in the last quarter, former bright spots like the Internet business have now gone dark as well: Internet revenue was down 5.6 percent, Internet ad sales declined 6.1 percent, and revenue at the Times’s About.com unit dropped 4.7 percent.

Expect more of the same for the second quarter of this year, warns CEO Janet Robinson: “At this time, and it is early in the quarter, we believe the rate of decline in ad revenues in the second quarter will be similar to that of the first.”

The Times has been trimming costs (via salary cuts and layoffs) and has bought itself a bit of breathing room by getting rid of its dividend, taking on a very expensive loan from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and selling off assets like its Manhattan headquarters. It still has some moves it can make–it is trying to unload its stake in the Boston Red Sox and to find a buyer for the Boston Globe.

But at some point it’s going to have find a way to start selling more ads again. Because awards alone won’t save the paper–Pulitzers can’t even guarantee their winners’ continued employment.

The Times has stopped providing monthly revenue updates, but it has been pretty good about providing detail via its earnings calls. I’ll be on the road during today’s 11 a.m. call, but will check the transcript and get back to you later with the most interesting nuggets.