AOL may have gotten the better of Google

Before he issues his next diatribe against this week's AOL-Google deal, billionaire Time Warner investor Carl Icahn might want to check out the public reaction to the news. In the blogosphere, at least, the consensus seems to be that Google got the short end of the deal.

It's not hard to see why. Not long ago, AOL was considered such damaged goods that it was difficult to imagine anyone wanting to partner with the online service, much less paying $1 billion for only a 5 percent stake. One of the more pragmatic theories posits that Google sought the deal largely as a defensive move to fend off Microsoft.

AOL, on the other hand, gets to hitch itself to the hottest technology company in the land. And in a less tangible benefit, it avoids being subsumed by Microsoft, a company with which it has a long and contentious history. So while Icahn may well be right to advocate an outright sale, the deal may hardly be the "disastrous" decision he portrays it to be.

Blog community response:

"I like Google, I really do. I think they are doing great things for the Internet. So why the hell are they considering doing this deal with AOL? Unless to change the beast from the inside out, I can't see anything good to come from this."
--Enlightened Cynic

"Here you have another very very dumb move from Google. Picking up a 5 percent stake in AOL (are still around & kicking?) for $1 billion in return for preferential placement of AOL links in the search restults page (yuck!), technical assistance to AOL in search engine optimizing."
--HawkEye

"In its desperation to keep AOL from crossing over to the Microsoft camp, Google has finally lost its virginity. AOL will be helped with securing favourable placement in Google's search results by getting the inside track on how to optimize web pages for Google's algorithm. And it will place links to AOL videos in the Google Video Search homepage that will not be marked as advertising."
--Jos'Blog