Does anyone read year-end predictions? Is there any value in them other than entertainment? In the past week, I've certainly been entertained by some of the radical crystal ball gazing being done. James Cramer, for example, expects Rupert Murdoch will acquire the Wall St. Journal as he (Murdoch) continues to build one of the world's most extensive content portfolios, while creating a significant online presence. Here's Cramer's take: "But for Dow Jones, in the last years of Peter Kann's stewardship (he's retiring), finally enough is enough in the stagnant share-price business, and the Dow board will decide to take Rupert Murdoch's offer of, say $50 -- some $20 less than he would hae offered five years ago. News Corp. will probably close all but the editorial board and merge the news staff with that of the New York Post (don't think Rupert doesn't have it in him.) Murdoch will also give joyful Roger Ailes the staff he needs to set up a full-blown business-network competitors to CNBC."

Meanwhile, Paul Kedrosky looks for Wal-Mart to beef up its middling Web operations by acquiring Amazon.com. Kedrosky believes there are four reasons Wal-Mart would be willing to spend $20-billion (plus a takeover premium, no doubt) on Amazon:

1. Wal-Mart lags badly in its own web presence (see the Alexa figure at right).

2. Amazon has built a more viable business than Wal-Mart thought it would.

3. This past year was a tipping point for more ubiquitous and growing presence for online shopping in retail.

4. Wal-Mart can currently afford it. With total cash of $4.5 billion against Amazon's cash of $1.4 billion, and comparative market caps of $199-billion and $20-billion, the time is right. Granted, it would almost certainly be dilutive, but the strategic value would trump its dilutiveness.

Does either scenario make sense? I think there will be plenty of competition for the WSJ, if it ever goes on the block because it's such a well-regarded property. I think there are plenty of people who would see owning the WSJ as a "trophy" as much as a business. As for Wal-Mart/Amazon, it could make sense but you would have to question whether the differences in culture - Bentonville vs. Seattle - would make such a deal work.

There was no doubt 2005 was yet another eventful year for Google, highlighted by its stock roaring through $400 and the $1-billion investment in AOL for a 5% equity stake. That said, I'm looking for even bigger things from Google in 2006. With $7-billion of cash, Google has the potential to do more than hire more engineers and continue its ambitious campaign to corner the market on the biggest brains (Vinton Cerf, Louis Monier, Kai-Fu Lee, etc.) in the high-tech world. Google has a lot more to offer than launching new services such as Google Talk and Google Maps - not to suggest they aren't cool and useful. In terms of services, I'd like to see Google get serious about its portal with some more bells and whistles and seamless integration between its applications. It would be the ultimate mash-up to see Blogger, Google News, Maps, RSS Reader, Talk, Picasa and search thrown together in one place. Google should also take a serious look at offering a browser (a.k.a. the GBrowser). As the Web-based applications company, it makes little sense not to control the browser, which is becoming the Web's operating system. So far, it appears Google is content to work behind the scenes to support Firefox but there's nothing wrong with giving Firefox a helping hand and developing your own browser. (By the way, Google owns the domain gbrowser.com) I'd also like to see Google get more ambitous about video/television - whether it's acquiring Tivo or working with content providers to deliver free and fee-based video streams and downloads. Apple's deals with ABC and NBC are just the tip of the video-on-demand iceberg, and Google could be a key player in the market's growth. It would be good to see Google enlighten us on its Internet access plans. Instead of strategic tidbits (i.e. a proposal to build a Wi-Fi network in San Francisco and the sponsorship of a Wi-Fi system in New York), I want to see Google come clean on why it has been buying tons of dark fiber. Is it going into the access business or creating simply a network and data centre plan to reduce its telecom costs while beefing up its services? What's interesting about all of these "suggestions" is do not require a lot of money. This gives Google the opportunity to move forward on a lot of different front and still have the cash to make a major acquisition. Maybe Google should take a harder run at AOL. Maybe it should buy a wholesale telecom carrier with lots of high-capacity pipe to carry all of those Google packets. Maybe Google should buy Knight-Ridder and turn the newspaper industry upside down. While few or none of these ideas seem to fit the modus operandi of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, I'd still like to see something really dramatic from Google in 2006.

For a look at what Google did in 2005, BetaNews has an extensive review.

 

The blogosphere is full of chatter today about Steve Case's editorial in the Washington Post that AOL should be split into four parts - Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Entertainment, Time Inc. and AOL. Whether or not you agree with his belief that Time-Warner has to be put on a "better path", what I find really fascinating is how Case (and, I suspect, his P.R. advisors) is trying to rehabilitate his tattered reputation. The editorial, which I'm sure the Washington Post was overjoyed to receive, is just another plank in Case's strategy to re-establish himself as a businessman whose views matter. You have to remember it wasn't that long ago that what Case did and said were imporant, and his every move was closely followed by the media, the high-tech world and rivals. Today, Case has nearly disappeared from the scene as new Web 2.0 entrepreneurs and established high-tech superstars like John Chambers and Bill Gates dominate the stage. It's obvious that Case isn't happy sitting on the sidelines with his enormous personal fortune, his luxury time-share business and stake in AOL. He wants back into the game. I started to get a scent of his comeback efforts earlier this year when the Financial Times ran a very sympathetic feature story on him. It was clear the one-on-one interview was positioned as an "exclusive", and his P.R. advisors did a wonderful job getting the journalist to feel Case's "pain" and his efforts to continue his entrepreneurial panache. Case also talked with BusinessWeek, which ran an extensive story on his past and new ventures. As for Case's views on Time-Warner AOL, I'll leave that subject to others. Just keep in mind Case is coming out of the AOL closet for a reason. His mandate - whether it's personal redemption, revenge, an alignment with Time-Warner nemesis Carl Icahn or maybe supporting his current ventures - is being happily supported by the Washington Post. Do not be surprised to see more of Steve Case in '06 as he attempts to re-work history and give his career and profile a jump-start.

For more views, check out Om Malik, Mathew Ingram (who wonders if Case wants AOL back) and IP Democracy's Cynthia Brumfield.