Slashdot Mirror
The Sinking Ship that is AOL
EyesWideOpen writes "This article at Salon discusses the ways in which AOL is trying to stay afloat, with the release of version 8.0 of it's software, in a time when AOL (which recently merged with Time Warner) has had a string of bad press -- falling stock prices, SEC investigation, etc. -- attached to it's name. One of my favorite quotes from the article says of AOL: ''It was never really an Internet company. AOL was based on the idea that people needed to live in a halfway house while they became accustomed to the Net.'...If folks can get a better, faster, cheaper online experience by ditching AOL, they'll do it in a heartbeat.'"
While we all hate AOL they still do offer the most access numbers out of any other ISP if you do a lot of traveling.
Not really sensical arguments, but when they start giving answers like that it's hard to get through.
Also, where I work, one of our techs had AOL before starting here. Even after having our dial-ups (free) and our T1, he still kept his AOL for a year or two - would even connect to it over our T1 connection.
Must be nicotine levels or something addictive.
What was left to me was AOL, so I signed up for that 1025 hours, and then did some shopping around online for another internet provider... I eventually ended up with a wireless internet service provider that uses the Motorola Canopy system, which gives me sustained performance comparable to a decent cable or DSL service, plus even more nice things like static IP and RDNS allocation.
Needlessly to say, then it was "Goodbye, AOL!" ... "The call" was pretty funny to me, since I had (ab)used their service to leap to a competitor. The rep on the other end tried in vain to convince me to keep my AOL account, and even tried to use the argument that "a dynamic ip is good because it's more secure." I got tired in the end and basically told him to cut the crap and just cancel my account.
I suspet that the number of free hours given out by AOL accounts for millions of dollars each month in 'lost' revenue.
I agree with your original comments about how AOL has the touchy feely stuff down pat. They have huge customer service departments to answer questions when the like "how do I send a picture through e-mail" and so on. I have worked in small home-based businesses selling custom computers and internet access and frankly, support is the most troublesome part of it because most users just don't get it. Although I eschew AOL internet and pre built PCs (dell, gateway, etc) for myself, I must unfortunately recommend such solutions for clueless users because it's the only way they're going to get support for answering stupid questions because the people who run small businesses that ship better products don't have the time or money of all of that.
Alternatively, I have found thousands of sites that bombard IE with popup ads, and Ad-aware reports that much more nefarious activity is happening as well.
In this comparison, it is blatantly obvious that IE is the inferior product which fails almost completely in its attempts to meet my expectations. If AOL can provide a web browser that does not include 1,001 ways to violate my security, require third party software to repair the damage, and inundate me with advertisements, then that is a marvelous advantage for them and for their users.
If, however, you are more concerned with preserving advertisers revenues and consider the end users' rights and privacy to be an inconvenience, then your comment is right on.
Long live microsoft trolls, eh?
email sent by Robert Hughes, disgruntled Time art critic, to AOLTimeWarner macher Gerry Levin, quoted by Tina Brown:
How can I convey to you the disgust which your name awakens in me begins Hughes to LevinThe merger with Warner was a catastrophe. But the hitherto unimagined stupidity, the blind arrogance of your deal with Case simply beggars description. How can you face yourself knowing how much history, value and savings you have thrown away on your mad, ignorant attempt to merge with a wretched dial-up ISP? . . . I dot know what advice you have to offer, but I have some for you. Buy some rope, go out the back, find a tree and hang yourself. If you had any honour you would.Seems like some of the Time Warner employees are feeling some strong emotions about their management's attempt to hitch themselves to a sinking ISP...
> Over the weekend, I heard analyst say that if
> AOL had not purchased Time/Warner, the
> Time/Warner stock would be around $40 and AOL
> would be around $4. Right now, AOL is at $11.89.
I have always thought that AOL was never in the business of selling internet access. It was in the business of selling AOL stock.
Because I own parts of a couple of various businesses, I get a pile of free magazines, including "Inc." "Inc." is for "growing businesses" and "entrepreneurs". Lovely people, those. Unfortunately, the writers at "Inc." are horribly out of synch with real live american small businesses. One example of this was the Inc article where it was discussed how one whould "market" a company for sale. Lo and behold, the company's products and business weren't the interesting thing anymore, the company itself was being marketed. AOL should have been listed in this article as the ultimate example of this. It made the owners of AOL billions.
AOL shareholders had no way to justify the valuation of their ISP/online service based on revenues or expected future profits (the traditional model of valuation). The ISP business is hard: it is low margin, price-sensitive, the barriers to entry are low, it is basically unregulated, and you're at the mercy of the ILECs. AOL has all these problems -- it's not just other ISPs.
"Ordinary" dial-up ISPs might sell privately today for $100-$150 a subscriber, and maybe $250-$350 during the bubble. AOL was valued at about $2,500. AOL didn't run from that -- it brayed repeatedly about how its size and scale were so valuable and about how controlling the onramps to the internet was so valuable. But they feared that the game would be up before that value could be locked in.
So...faced with the prospect of having all their paper wealth evaporate, Case et al ginned up the idea of using a stock purchase deal to buy some legitimate assets. This made perfect sense, and I argued with some friends that more tech bubble babies should have done this.
AOL could have bought GM or Chrysler or any number of major banks. Instead, they had to buy something with a tenuous connection to an ISP: a media company with a bunch of cable assets. Bingo. Content and a means to deliver (at some as-yet-undetermined date) high speed access and new services.
As with most ill-conceived mergers of large companies, the big thing was "synergy." If you are unfamiliar with it, "synergy" is the modern financial philosopher's stone that auto-magically turns horseshit into honey. (Look for HP/Compaq to have either horseshit or honey coming out of its ears sometime in the next couple of years -- I suspect you know where my bet is).
AOL essentially pimped itself so well that it fooled the stodgy old dorks at Time Warner (who feared and still fear that technology will impoverish them) that not only would AOL save them, it would make everyone filthy rich. It didn't. In essence, AOL gave some (not so) magic beans in exchange for the Time Warner cash cows. Time Warner was fleeced. They probably lost more in the stock market bubble than anyone else in the world.
I wonder if former Time/Warner stock holders feel like idiots for approving the merger.
What do you think?
Note: I have no problems with how any of this went down -- everyone involved had smart advisors and lawyers and accountants. Time Warner people aren't sympathetic victims -- they just made a horrible decision about a business that they just really didn't understand, IMHO. I do not consider this to be an indictment of AOL or Time Warner. It's just an interesting story to me.
guac-foo
Lots of petrified grits
I run about 1000 websites. Analyzing the logs for all sites combined over the past few years, the drop in AOL activity is pretty staggering. AOL alone used to account for 25% of all our traffic. As of today, it's down to about 8%.
Jan 1 2000: 24.97%
Jan 1 2001: 17.08%
Jan 2002: 12.32%
Feb 2002: 11.89%
Mar 2002: 11.41%
Apr 2002: 11.42%
May 2002: 11.26%
Jun 2002: 10.36%
Jul 2002: 8.22%
Aug 2002: 10.16%
Sep 2002: 9.97%
Oct 14 2002: 8.12%
AOL is still holding the #1 slot, but not by much. In January of this year, it had a 6% advantage over the #2 spot, now held by attbi.com. Now, that margin is down to about 2.5%.
Uhhh, actually, this is wrong.
There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how Starbuck's, while growing wildly, is actually losing market share to local coffee houses.
A lot of locals complain about the competition, but their sales are way up for the most part.
A few coffee houses go under when a Starbuck's springs up, but it may not be related. It turns out that there's always been a large turnover rate in coffee houses, a lot of them close down every year for decades. Coffee house closings are actually down.
It appears that the introduction of Starbuck's just increases the market for good coffee.
ObSlashdotObservation: Wouldn't it be nice if MS could view their competition the same way, not as enemies that have to be eliminated at any cost, but rather as part of a healthy market that allows everyone to prosper?