IBM will sell The Weather Company to Francisco Partners, a tech-focused private equity firm, for an undisclosed sum, it announced Tuesday.
IBM selling The Weather Channel and the rest of its weather business::IBM will sell The Weather Company to Francisco Partners, a tech-focused private equity firm, for an undisclosed sum, it announced Tuesday.
In before a fascist wannabe billionaire buys the weather channel just to destroy any credibility it has and hijack the climate change debate. Even change the name of weather channel to something like “Y”.
You reminded me of this story from 2018 when the Trump team tried to put someone in charge of government weather data so that they could shutdown free public access, allowing private companies to use it and commercialize it
“ One particularly alarming thread explored in Lewis’s reporting follows the ongoing efforts of Barry Myers, the chief executive of AccuWeather and Trump’s pick to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to privatize the agency’s practice of collecting and analyzing data that helps generate weather warnings meant to keep all of us, and not just those who can pay for it, safe.”
The two networks’ shared ownership has alarmed some meteorologists, who say that WeatherNation is helping to legitimize the extreme viewpoints aired on Real America’s Voice, occasionally sharing its forecasts on the political network; at times the networks feature the same advertisers. These critics also argue that in its own coverage, WeatherNation fosters climate change skepticism by shunning any mention of the established links between human-driven climate warming and the disasters the channel covers, thus discouraging viewers from considering the consequences of climate change
I've watched WN on a regular basis since 2014. That's the year I cut cable and WN was the only streaming option I could find. I was also sick of The Weather Channel and the non-stop drama being pumped out of their studios.
WN may or may not be linked with RAV / Steve Bannon but I simply don't care. They do weather and that's it. It's on when I want (always), gives reasonably accurate predictions, and there is zero political BS or unnecessary drama.
The article has it correct, the WN is basically a modernized version of TWC from two decades ago and that's all I need / want it to be.
We can talk about GCC, I'm no denier, but I don't need to be having that conversation while I'm trying to find out what today's weather is going to be. If refusing to put GCC coverage front and center is wrong then every weather app on every smartphone in America is guilty of the same thing.
Same firm that acquired LogMeIn (LastPass) and MyFitnessPal--and after those acquisitions both MyFitnessPal and LastPass quickly moved to worsen the free tiers of services in favor of their paid subscription models.
I used to love the WU app, it was beautiful and accurate. A few years ago I started noticing more and more puzzling changes, before I realized IBM had purchased them. They ruined an incredible app. Seems like they just outsourced development to lowest international bidder.
BM planned to leverage its Watson technology as part of the acquisition, foreseeing its use for weather analytics and predictions. The deal, which closed the following January,[27] does not include the Weather Channel itself, which remained owned by the Bain/Blackstone/NBCUniversal consortium, and entered into a long-term licensing agreement with IBM for use of its weather data and "The Weather Channel" name and branding
Maybe for you, but all the other weather websites I've tried are wrong. Even DarkSky was wrong half the time. It said sunny skies when we were in the middle of a blizzard once. I don't know, maybe there's something weird about where I am.
They've been shitty since TWC bought them. Maybe a little before when they killed their old web interface which was informative and fast and replaced it with a new design that was difficult to read information, and worst of all, slow as fuck. That's about when I stopped subscribing.
IBM will still sell you a brand new, updated mainframe in 2023.
They’re also in the open source software space (IBM owns Red Hat, a software company that has a lot of projects for Linux. Red Hat has their own Linux distro too)
I think it’s fair to look at IBM with a more cynical eye. Historically it’s been “acquire, way you’ll make no changes, wait a bit, make changes that piss off 80% of your customer base.” Somewhere in there is a “reduce customer service effectiveness” step that is distinct from “make changes.”
After that it’s either “sell it off to the highest bidder” or “keep at it because who else are the customers gonna use?”
I hear this a lot, but every company I've been a part of that did it seemed to be a bad idea. If a division makes money, the only reason to sell is because you believe the investment in that division can be used to make more money (for less). Getting rid of a profitable entity is usually greed based.
It's corporate-speak that means nothing. The same company "focused on it's core business" today will buy something unrelated sometime later and say it's "poised for growth in a growing market".