Slashdot Mirror
AOLization of America
PanchoNB wrote to us with a feature that C|Net is currently running about the AOLization of America. I think it's been called the "McWorld" concept before, but the feature does a good job of looking at how powerful Time-Warner-AOL really is, as well as talking about the history and prospects.
When Netscape became popular, I enjoyed downloading the latest preview releases and I reported my share of bugs. The whole idea of Netscape thrashing Microsoft in the browser war was thrilling! Microsoft was a giant, and as a rule I always root for the underdog (which reminds me... vote for Alan Keyes!!!). When Nullsoft released WinAmp, I found my entrance into the world of MP3s, listening to the latest in controversial technology.
For me, Nullsoft and Netscape represented a change in the way the world worked... a departure from a centralized computer world. It was a world full of grey areas of privacy and copyright that I hoped would be worked out by a global consortium as opposed to the restrictive political regimes of any single nation.
When Netscape and Nullsoft were purchased by AOL, a company that represented "the enemy" for me, I realized that everything I had hoped for and believed in had crumbled to the power of the dollar.
To this very day, that's precisely what AOL represents... that enough money will overcome even the highest of principles, and that at some point, everyone sells out.
--
Take my father. Very bright guy -- scored around 1550 on his SAT, wrote programs in assembly on punch cards in the 60s, eventual fine arts major, very well-read, does cryptograms in his head.
AOL user.
Why? The only thing he uses his computer for is to receive and distribute email, with the occassional scanned-in JPEG of his granddaughter. I have no doubt he could set up an ISP account, but he'd rather be reading or coaching youth soccer or gardening or so on. For his purposes, AOL is just fine. (So is Windows, but that's another can of worms.)
Moral of the story: Usage of AOL does not imply a lack of intelligence -- just a lack of energy used in getting online.
--
..!!in an intastella burst i am back to save the universe!!
I've seen your arguement before. AOL fosters newbies who will eventually see the pure shit they are using and eventually 'grow up' to a 'real' ISP. I agree with it, but at the same time I think you're wrong.
Think about the average AOL user, ie: your mom, your grandparents, someone who's been enticed by the latest TV commercial. These are the people who use the computer only for word processing or for faxing. They don't need much else. They take this same "If it's got what I need, I'm happy" stance towards internet access. If AOL can give them stock quotes, e-mail, weather, shopping, IM's... why should they bother growing up?
This is the stance of the Common Everday Non-Techy Person, which is AOL's prime market. So they see a couple ads? They don't see a bunch of weird techy configuration stuff (my parents description of window's dial-up networking configs :P), they only see what they need and some minor hindrances.
My point is, more technical users (ie: those interested in computers, coders, gamers, etc.) will grow up to ISP's. However, this is a small fraction of AOL's user base, and that is why we will continue to have headaches like I've seen described here.
The AOL'ization of America was inevitable. If it wasn't AOL who came to fill the huge market gap that ISP's frankly can't deal with (while satisfying techies like us), someone else would. It's called business. All you elitist people out there are just going to have to realize that getting everyone online means getting everyone online, idiots and ignorants included. I'm reminded of a Dennis Miller quote: "Think of the average person in America. Now realize that 50% of America is dumber than that."
It's a pain, but we will have to deal
At the same time, users can 'grow up'. They can outgrow AOL and eventually move to a real ISP. So that hand-holding can be useful, just like for a child, many of whom are quite annoying at first, then get much more pleasant. (Then there's adolescence -- script kiddies? :)
So all in all, I would say that in hindsight, AOL has actually been good for the Net by bringing on lots of users who eventually became good Netizens. (I can't believe I just wrote that.) I would even go so far as to say that there's a number of productive /.ers (myself not included) who got started with AOL. Then there's the trolls, so two sides to every piece of bread...
The question remains, what will happen now that they dominate content? I suggest that just maybe, they'll generate content to bring people online and interest them in the rest of the Net, and these users will eventually move on to better, more lively stuff. Even if they control 20% of Web content (a HUGE proportion), that means that there's four times as much stuff out there that they don't control. If you build it, they will come.
It'll be annoying, but it'll be good in the long run.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Unless of course more people are forcing higher bandwidth...but I think it is the clueful people, not the clueless people, which are really pushing that
.bmp because he can't figure out WinZip, and who religiously gzips every outgoing file? Who watches streaming video? Who listens to steaming audio? Who actually likes shocked and/or flashed websites?
Not true! Who is more impressed by graphics-heavy web sites, and who is just as happy reading text with minimal formatting? Who sends email attachments as uncompressed
It's the AOLers driving bandwidth consumption, and therefore driving bandwidth expansion. The users who are considered "clueful" have mostly been online since the days of the 2400 baud dialup, and understand how to minimize bandwidth usage.
0 1 - just my two bits
I don't see AOL having very much power. The only effect AOL has in my house is as coasters...
The media has WAY too much power. The Time-Warner merger with AOL gives them MORE power.
Imagine what it would be like if the media was controlled by a single organization. Ever read 1984? If not, do it. It's a really good read.
Slashdot-terminal has a quote in his sig. "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."
For those of you who haven't read the book, that quote refers to Winston Smith's job. His job was to 'update' old newspapers. If a paper made a 'mistake' in one of their articles. For instance, last quarter, the ministry of plenty could've said "There will be a surplus of goods next quarter. Everyone will get their boots and coats!" Which made the people happy, when actually the next quarter was a poor quarter. Nobody got their boots and coats. Smith's job was to update the article to show that the ministry 'didn't actually say' what it reported they said. When people tried to look up the article, they would realize that the ministry of truth actually did not say ANYTHING about boots and coats.
Anyway, my point is that the media is not trustworthy, and the general public are sheep. Look at Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. People killed themselves because they thought aliens were coming. (If you don't know anything about the WOTW broadcast, read up on it.. it's pretty interesting).
We need to start thinking on our own, and stop letting the little glass-fronted boxes in our livingroom and computerroom do it for us.
(side note: Rob, slashdot's eating HTML on the preview.)