Slashdot Mirror


RemarQ.com Shutting Down

ZeroLogic writes: "RemarQ.com, is shutting down! According to the message on the home page, it looks like they want you to use their pay service instead. It's a shame since RemarQ was the only good Web based usenet reader I could find." ...and the free stuff will keep going away as IPO money runs out all over the Web industry. Expect a feature on this soon.

12 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Now what? by ShaunC · · Score: 3
    Where do we go for old Usenet now?
    I hate being the one to point this out (although I'm usually the one who points this out): Usenet wasn't built to be permanent. Deja has long been an annoyance for many, myself included. Participating in Usenet isn't supposed to involve having your words forever etched in stone - and it shouldn't involve having to opt-out of that kind of situation, either. Forgetting an "X-No-Archive: Yes" here and there can cause you a whole shitload of trouble, harassment, etc.

    I for one am glad to see Deja's pre-99 stuff broken down. I wish they'd switch their entire site over to consumer advocacy, or whatever their business model is this week, and get rid of the Usenet archives entirely.

    I wouldn't mind seeing C|Net's help.com, which posts messages to Usenet without the poster having a clue as to what Usenet is, die off as well.

    Shaun
    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  2. Re:IPO Money? by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3
    Ad revenue based sites are always going to have trouble making it...

    More precisely, its a winner-take-all market. The leading ad-driven site stands to make piles of cash.

    Its entirely possible that within a few years, a well-placed ad on a the leading ad-driven site will command superbowl-like fees.

  3. Re:Now what? by FyreFiend · · Score: 3

    I for one love Usenet archives. It saves me from posting a question that's been asked and answered a 100 times.
    Now C|Net's help.com is another story. That just pisses me off. They're making money (banners) off of people's niceness. If they want to make money by answering tech questions then hire some people to answer them! Don't leech off the newsgroups.

    --
    - Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
  4. Re:Eternal Unsolved Question:Does Advertising Work by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3
    Coca-cola actually _unsold_ me, personally, with advertising. Here's the story- I was cheerfully buying 12pack after 12pack of Coke, because I was cheerfully in a rut and didn't want to consider bothering with any other soda, although I periodically got envious that Pepsi drinkers got to buy pepsi by the case, a '24pack'.

    Then Coke took to sticking a text area directly on their cans, on every can. I've seen it used for special promotions (like 'win a trip to Disneyland') but 99.99% of the time it was the same advertising blurb- and a horrible one! Hopefully I will soon entirely forget this, but it went, "By now you've probably opened it already. The taste. The fizz. It's all there (bits of ad blurb already forgotten, thankfully deleted- culminating in) Coca-cola enjoy.

    I could not get away from this freaking, drooling idiocy. It spoke to me every time I tried to drink Coca-cola- I'd lift the can and boom, there was the blurb, "By now you've probably opened it already. The taste! The fizz! It's ALL THERE..." I took to reciting it to friends with GREAT SERIOUSNESS, verbatim, to illustrate just how horrible the blurb was. And then, finally, fed up, I taught myself to like Mountain Dew, knowing it was another caffiene-rich soda beverage much smiled on by geek types- and ever since, I get both, the Mountain Dew in 24-packs.

    They have ceased running the blurbs, but the damage was already done. I never wrote to Coca-cola and explained, "You guys are making me _embarrassed_ to hold a can of your product in public, and you are un-selling me from it". Seemingly someone did- how many other people went and started drinking Dew or Pepsi or jynnan tonix, however?

    Advertising can be damned dangerous. If you annoy people badly enough you UN-SELL them from your product. And it really, really doesn't matter if people remember the name- if they remember it in order to never buy it again!

  5. Is Remarq really closing? by redvine · · Score: 3

    I'm a little suspicious. There's only the story on the front page, and it is chock full of type-o's. What's more, the graphic with the article links to a completely unrelated discussion. There is absolutely no discussion of Remarq's closure in the remarq newsgroup (discuss.remarq.remarq.status), or at fuckedcompany.com. And to top it all off, Remarq is hosted on Windows IIS. Couldn't someone have just hacked the site and posted this? Well, maybe that is naive on my part, but it just seems a little suspicious.

  6. The Onion knows all by american_bongo · · Score: 3

    "You mean I can no longer expect to enjoy a grossly overinflated market cap for my unprofitable, $200-million-in-debt Internet start-up? That's not fair!"

  7. what happened to generosity? by Kyobu · · Score: 4

    Why do so few free services appear these days? What happened to, "I'm doing it for fun, and if I make a few bucks, then that's icing on the cake"? Like Slashdot, for instance, and photo.net, for another. Everything now has to make millions of bucks, or else it's not worth doing, apparently.

    --
    Switch the . and the @ to email me.
  8. IPO Money? by Rombuu · · Score: 4

    I think you mean VC money, since RemarQ hasn't IPOd.

    Really, all it means is that the web as matured to the point where you just can't throw something up, try to attract a bunch of eyeballs, and then try to figure out how to build a business model later.

    Ad revenue based sites are always going to have trouble making it... look at Salon's problems recently (not that I can't think of anyone who doesn't deserve it more..) Look at the magazine industry.. Very high failure rate, pretty low profit margins.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  9. suprised? by radar+bunny · · Score: 5

    ok,
    let me get this straight.
    I'm going to give you a product or service. And, in return you dont have to give me anything. And later, everyone's gonna act all shocked when I don't make a profit and have to stop giving everything away?

    --
    "I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
  10. You're wrong- "Free" is here to stay on the web by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4
    I'm sorry, but "IPO" money really never had anything to do with the freeness of services - its all about the business model.

    Sites that are ad-driven will always be free - to not be free would be instant suicide for an ad-driven site.

    If sites are not using an ad model, then its wide open. Admittedly, these models have tended not be very fruitful, and it simply reinforces the strengths of those few sites who can be profitable on ad-based revenue.

    I would have thought it was obvious that the market for ad-driven websites is obviously winner-take-all (AOL is not in this category - they are a subscription service). The portals are a clear indication - within five years, Yahoo outlasted its competition, who have all signed on with partners through acquisitions.

    While over time the amount of choice on the web will drop, the leaders in ad-driven sites will always be free services.

  11. Death of Usenet-Film at 11:00 by thogard · · Score: 3

    So yet another usenet portal bites the dust. That doesn't bother me nearly as much as the number of major usenet sites that are looking for peers. Last week I got a message from my best feed saying that that they are closing down their own nntp server becuase they only have a few customers that use it and thouse tend to like the alt.sex.binarys.isoimages and wares groups. Now most isps aren't running their own news servers anymore and just farm it out to someone that just takes care of it. So much for distributed news. Thouse ISPs that do run news tend to just have one usenet feed from a backbone provider that is only running news because some sysadmin somewhere decied they needed it for their own use.

    I've been running usenet (or netnews) servers since 1987 and I'm thinking that usenet as it was is slowly going away. I remember back in the days were spam didn't have a name. before it was invaded by C&S and sciencultology. when sept was when all the newbies showed up. Them where the days :-) Too bad the modern net isn't based on lots of people tring to help each other for the common good.

    So if anyone needs a news peer that only will carry about 600 groups email me

  12. Not to be Ungrateful, but... by Sir_Winston · · Score: 5

    I can't say I'm disappointed that Remarq's free service went bye-bye. Not only was its pay service not known for being among the best in either retention or group availability, but its free service was, IMHO, a mockery of USENET. It didn't carry many of the active groups, and it catered mostly to people who don't really understand USENET or the many ways to access it. As such, I think it dameged "real" USENET providers, by allowing Web users to go to USENET and stay there without learning even the simplest basics about it, and by providing a free alternative just barely good enough to keep newbies there and keep them from joining up with real providers--thus making it harder for real providers to stay in the black.

    It's hard for me to make that last statement, since I'm very much in favor of Free Software, but there's a major difference between the big software companies and the big USENET services. Even the "big" USENET services are relatively small, and many have trouble staying afloat; RemarQ cut into an already lean profit margin for some providers, and the cost to the public of the important USENET news services shutting down is, dare I say, more grave than the cost of losing this free and limited RemarQ service.

    Also, as I said, services like Remarq allowed people to get onto USENET without learning any of the basics involved, many such people never even realizing that they're not on the Web any more. While I'm a champion of ease-of-use, there comes a point when the ease-of-use of RemarQ does more harm than good. You end up with most of the free RemarQ users--not all, but most--not contributing to the newsgroups they're accessing, never bothering to read the FAQ because RemarQ does all the work for them, and littering them with "me, too"s the likes of which haven't been seen since the horrid AOL invasion of yore. Most of the senseless wastes of bandwidth I've seen on USENET recently, all the "me, too"s and clueless newbies who won't read the FAQ even after you tell them twice, have come from RemarQ.

    The loss of RemarQ isn't even that bad, since great premium USENET access can be gotten for between $5.95 and $14.95 a month. Personally, even though the NNTP connection is limited to 33Kbps, I prefer Altopia's service: $12 a month, they have every single newsgroup, and a minimum of a four day retention for binaries (up to 8 days, depending) and longer for text (usually about 7). If you have a cable connection, and down/upload binaries, you can pretty much leave your connection on all the time to make up for the slow connection cap. They also offer 128kbps access, but at a hefty $48/month. One reason I support them so much is that Chris at Altopia seems to be big on freedom and very against censorship--Altopia has never dropped a group, for any reason, that I know of. As long as you're not uploading anything illegal (yeah, *you*, wArEZ d00dz and pedos!) Altopia doesn't care what you do, and is very conscious about not keeping records longer than necessary to prevent abuse. I like their privacy policy, it's absolutely the best. To be fair, I also hear good things about uncensored-news and usenetserver.

    But that's just my 2 cents; support a free (as in -dom) USENET by subscribing to a good provider. Please, they need as much help as they can get to keep the news free and uncensored, unlike the Web.

    --


    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*