Time Warner Properties May Only Be Available Through AOL

ryman writes "According to MSNBC, Time Warner is considering making its online content available without charge only to AOL subscribers. Sounds like a desperate move to redeem AOL, but this will have to take on a big toll on its online readership."

Comments

I will not miss them.

[Faggot]

And I feel that most other Internet users, AOL or not, probably are thinking the same thing. Let's show them this.

Re:I will not miss them.

[AKnightCowboy]

Hmm, I wonder if this is why I got a message about needing to be registered to view a video of Michael Jackson hanging his baby over the ledge last week on CNN. I said "Ho hum" and went to foxnews.com instead where it was readily available. There's a beautiful thing about the Internet: choice.

Re:I will not miss them.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Frankly, this "content" is bland McContent. You want the definition of "lowest common denominator" - look at TW or Fox. Where is real news and commentary? There is little to find in any mainstream U.S. outlet. The quality of "analysis" is largely mere opinion.

Stories unreported in the U.S., including about internal matters are better found from outlets in India, U.K., Germany and Israel.

You know, people who can find Iraq on a map! ;-)

Re:I will not miss them.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

fox news bland? are you kidding? it's the only cable news network that isn't completely dominated by left wing liberals.

You think other U.S. Media is dominated by Liberals? You live in a domestic bubble, where Clinton is considered "left." Try www.guardian.co.uk - Now look at the absurdity of your statement.

No, Fox is no different: More pseudo-expertise presenting asertion and opinion as commentary. More bias-minus-analysis. Just more fodder to sell product to those already in agreement. No attempt to advance the general level of awareness and discourse by and for an informed public. More "McThought."

Re:I will not miss them.

[Chris Y Taylor]

"You think other U.S. Media is dominated by Liberals? You live in a domestic bubble, where Clinton is considered "left." Try www.guardian.co.uk - Now look at the absurdity of your statement"

He said "liberal", not "socialist." I'm sure Clinton is also considered terribly right wing in Cuba and the PRC, as well.

Since such definitions are relative to geography, it makes sense to use the local reference point. I agree that Fox's news analyists seem to be more conservative (and in the present climate, more mainstream) than other major news outlets. Using typical U.S. definitions, of course, since it is a U.S. network.

Re:I will not miss them.

[Archfeld]

2nd that, the best thing for the US would be for these morons to form a club and charge for entrance. The rest of us could go seek less biased news and actually find out how F'd up the US government is for a change....

ITN or BBC offer a much better source...

Why shouldnt they

[Hunts]

At the risk of being flammed to death, and no this isnt even a troll. I raise this point.

I'm a company, I've made some content and I only want people who are "members" and "customers" of my company to see this contaent..why cant I do this?

Sure it wil suck for the rest of us, but hell its their company...If you dont like it..buy stock.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[scenic]

There's no reason you "can't" do this. But, I question whether it's a good idea, and in the best interests of your general readership.

Personally, they should do it. It might save more interesting online news sources like Salon. :)

sujal

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Oculus Habent]

If the online readership of their publications requires no money (most online versions of magazines/papers don't) then restricting the service to customers ensures that they have made some money off the viewers.

Hopefully they will change their mind, but I don't expect the free content to be free forever.

A single, low flat fee for access to most or all of their content would be nice. Say, $2-$10/mo.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Anonymous Coward]

AOLTW's responsibility is to their stock holders. A move like this would be extraordinarily detrimental to their stockholders, and this is obvious to anyone that has half a brain. People don't swap to AOL, because if they've taken the 15 minutes it actually takes to learn how to configure TCP/IP in Windows, they don't need the AOL software anymore. Since people don't swap to AOL anyway, they certainly aren't going to swap just for some specialized content.

In summation, people don't swap to AOL anyway, so they certainly aren't going to just for some specialized content.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[raretek]

With the media, the name of the game is eyeballs. The more eyeballs you have, the more you can charge for advertising revenue. If you begin keeping people from your content, they will simply go elsewhere, and thus you will experience a lower demand for your advertising services. I seriously doubt anyone, beyond a few oddballs, are going to subscribe to AOL just to get access to a particular media outlet, especially one as commerical as that.

As far as I'm concerned, I hope they do do it. This is one company I have no warm fuzzy feelings for, so let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[mugnyte]

Most of the smart folks here will comment about Good Business Practices. As a concept, this one is flawed: AOL's membership is dwindling, and it's ability to enticing new users is limited as the general internet is really the goal for a growing number of people.

SO, this obviously looks like a piggy-back maneuver, not a public release of content. What everyone here already knows is that once digital, information leaks everywhere. Anything resembling a fence around it is surely to be a PITA to manage.

Example: I have AOL on broadband. I grab a movie and put it in the P2P until I see it's been downloaded a dozen times. Then I remove it from my library and try again. I'm one of 100 people doing this every week, for a few months. Hooray, useless content everywhere, then AOL's content pipe is shut down and TW is angry. End of story.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[nanojath]

I don't think there is any reason you should get flamed to death - but it is a good example of why (whichever side you happen to agree with)we used to attempt to impose a wall between those who generated content and those who delivered content. The idea was that mass-media forms of communication are so powerful that you want to avoid too much of that power being concentrated in a single, self-interested entity. I'm worried that we're getting to the point when the up-and-coming media-consuming audience doesn't even realize that this was ever the case.

Of course, what you usually worry about in that equation is what is going to get forced down your throat rather than what you will be excluded from seeing... and you raise a good point, I mean, nobody is complaining that they can't pull down HBO on network Teevee, so more than an issue of rights, it's just a matter of whether it's smart. There is no content on the Internet that would induce me to become an AOL user, because AOL is stoopid access for people who are either too inept or too lazy to spend the fifteen minutes figuring out how to DIY with a browser and an ISP. I suspect there are plenty like me out there. My prediction is they will watch their hits drop precipitously for a while and start backpedaling.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[beaverfever]

you are correct - there is no reason why they can't do something like that, and it's not like this is the first time something like this has happened. Ever notice which studios most of the movies on turner classic originate from? just one example.

this is simply the way business works - as usual a chunk of the populace demonstrates their ignorance of how the precious US-style market-driven economy (read: the world around them they face every day) works by showing outrage over a practice that's perfectly normal and always has been.

did I rant a bit for a moment there? sorry about that old chum.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Ezubaric]

TW does not make money off of online content (or not much, anyway). They make it off of print adv. Online versions are supplements to the ones in print. The print revenues pay for creating the content. The online ads pay for the infrastructure to display them.

Unless this hurts their print readership, this seems like a good idea.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[analog_line]

The only thing that will save Salon is if more people subscribe to their service, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Hunts]

Oh I agree.

I dont thinks probably the best business plan ever. An additional charge rate would be better.

Something along the lines of $10 a month for AOL users. $15 a month for non-members.

But the company has a right to only allow its customers to view its content.. thats business..thats capitalism

Re:Why shouldnt they

[SethJohnson]

The actual name of the game is "which eyeballs". Ad targetting is where profit is made for content producers. Per-impression charges rise dramatically when you can tie the ad to a particular demograph.

Time Warner is positioned to really tie those impressions. Through intelligent proxy-mining, when an AOL user visits Time Magazine online, they'll already know what other websites the user frequents. They'll know if the user has been shopping for digital cameras on Ebay or performing searches on Google for "skateboarding". As the user accesses the Time page, the user will be greeted by targeted ads for digital cameras @ buy.com or the Tony Hawk Pro Skater video game on PS2.

Sure, privacy enthusiasts would go nuts about such tracking taking place. But wouldn't it be a nicer alternative to the popup hell suffered by IE users? Or how about an acceptable salvation for sites like Salon who would otherwise go bankrupt?

Re:Why shouldnt they

[raretek]

"TW does not make money off of online content (or not much, anyway). They make it off of print adv. Online versions are supplements to the ones in print.

Ah, so that explains why they would consider this. I had no clue, thanks for hitting me with that beloved hammer. :)

Unless this hurts their print readership, this seems like a good idea.

I still think they will make themselves less relevant by this, which will hurt their readership in the long run. But, that is my opinion. I hope they do this.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Exedore]

I think specialized is the key word here. People might subscribe to a pay service that offers truly specialized content that's hard to find elsewhere and provides a sufficient amount of value.

The content provided by Time, People, and Teen People is neither difficult to find elsewhere nor particularly valuable.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[raretek]

"The actual name of the game is "which eyeballs". Ad targetting is where profit is made for content producers. Per-impression charges rise dramatically when you can tie the ad to a particular demograph."

Actually, I think "which eyeballs" would be a play in the game of eyeballs. That would depend, and I'll admit my ignorance here, on whether it's more important to have 2 million impressions in general, or have 2 thousand whose demographics you thoroughly understand.

I guess that's probably the question their asking themselves. I hope they do it as I'm pretty sure I can see what will happen. "Tie two birds together, and though they have four wings, they still can not fly." :)

Re:Why shouldnt they

[stinky wizzleteats]

I'm a company, I've made some content and I only want people who are "members" and "customers" of my company to see this contaent..why cant I do this?

Well, I'm certainly no fan of CNN, and wouldn't mind a bit if its web presence evaporated as a result of this foolishness. That having been said...

As a company, you can do whatever you want under the law. If you start a company under the pretense that you are providing "free" (cnn.com had a ton of ads the last time I went there) news content on the Internet, develop a huge readership, and then start charging for the service (through AOL membership or otherwise), nothing is legally wrong with that.

However, don't be surprised if the rest of the world thinks you are a flaming scumbag for doing so. The last time I checked, my right to think that, say that, and gather a group together to discuss it were constitutionally protected.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[ACNeal]

This has been addressed in the near past here in a different light, maybe about salon going under, or something.

If you aren't paying me for my content, I don't care if you are happy.

I would rather have only 5 paying readers than 5 million non-paying readers.

Numbers don't matter unless they are paying you for your service.

Business doesn't get much simpler than this. The elusive 2nd step to profit, is selling something.

I don't understand how people can continue to think like this, and it is a common thought process:

"It isn't a good idea for company A to start charging all of us non-paying, never-gonna-pay users, because we may never become paying customers."

If they never start charging, you wouldn't become paying customers either, so they aren't out anything by pissing you off.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Sj0]

I think the only reason it's a problem is because the company is so danged *huge*! When all sources of media group together like that,

The world is a big place to be controlled by a few people.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Octagon Most]

Something along the lines of $10 a month for AOL users. $15 a month for non-members.

From what I read in the WSJ this morning the thought is to provide all the content to AOL members and teaser content to the web-browsing public. Ideally this would be at no additional charge to AOL members as a way to offer added value and bring on more subscribers.

One major reason AOLTW stock tanked is that subscriber growth dramatically decreased. Bringing that back may be just the Wall Street elixir they need. I'd love to see them implement digital access to more Time Warner properties. How about streaming/downloadable access to previous season episodes of the Sopranos, for example?

And if it is no additional charge for AOL members then it is $15 a month for you - the price of AOL's "Bring Your Own Access" plan.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Fine. I have a subscription to (the dead-tree version of) Time. Why shouldn't I be able to get on-line content without subscribing to AOL?

Re:Why shouldnt they

[The Good Reverend]

Not so quick...

I would rather have only 5 paying readers than 5 million non-paying readers.

Even if this means alienating users/potental buyers of your products? If there's a People article about some new WB movie, and I'm stopped from reading about it, I very well may just skip the film. Many /.ers are the type who would do this. Is not offering free content worth losing customers for your other ventures?

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Kintanon]

Simple Math:
25 Slashdotters skip 5 movies (or the equivelant)that's about $1250 worth of lost revenue.
So they only need 125 subscribers to make back that "lost" revenue. (if it's 10$ per year or something close to that). If they charge more, they need fewer. So I think they are looking at it from the perspective of making a HELL of a lot more money then they might lose.

Kintanon

Re:Why shouldnt they

[kawika]

I would rather have only 5 paying readers than 5 million non-paying readers.

Then you can't do math. Let's say the 5 paying readers give you a very generous $100 a year for their subscription, that's $500 for the year.

Now, let's say the 5 million non-paying readers each visit your site once during that year and view just 2 pages during the visit. That's 10 million page views. Let's say you put one banner ad on each of those pages. At a lowly CPM of just $1 you will earn $1,000 for the year.

Most likely it's much more favorable towards an ad-based site, since subscribers rarely want to pay $100 for an annual subscription and most people view more than 2 pages per year at the site.

Either approach can work to finance a site, but you really have to run the numbers.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[T3kno]

Amen. When someone makes me start paying for something that was free I stop supporting them. I dont mind paying for something in the first place, but I will never pay for something that was free, and if it's something that I cannot live without I will find another provider before I'll support the entity that was providing it for free. It really doesn't make sense, but don't make something free if you intend to charge for it later.

I will never ever pay for content though, there is really nothing worth paying for out there. I dont pay any of the channels that I watch on TV any thing, I pay a monthly subscription to the satelite company for access, but I dont pay the individual content providers anything. If I thought there was anything descent on any of the pay channels I would get them, but they all suck. Content providers need to realize that they must still rely on advertising to pay the bills because the end user is never going to.

The same thing goes for talk radio, music radio sucks like no other thing has ever sucked before, but I dont even have to pay for the access, the way it should be.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Jay L]

At the risk of being flammed to death

Ba-DUM, ba-DUM, ba-DUM, ba-DUM, ba-DUM, baaaaaooooouuuuuurrrrrrllllggh!

Re:Why shouldnt they

[alienw]

You are dead wrong. 5 million non-paying customers are far better than 5 paying customers. When you have 5 million customers, you have the potential for 5,000,000 paying customers. If you have 5, there is not much room to grow, and you will have to shut down. The first step to making money is having an audience, and not simply having two people who pay a small monthly fee.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[kitzilla]

Eyeballs are meaningless if you can't sell them.

The problem with the old Internet business plan--get lots of eyeballs and turn a profit showing them ads--is that traditional online advertising is not effective (at least in the minds of many advertisers).Not even mighty Yahoo was able to make the portal model work. They had to move towards pay services, and seem glad they did.

Exclusive TW content will help AOL. THEIR business model as a dialup ISP is coming to an end, and they must find content people will pay for.

Would someone subscribe to AOL just for a TW read? Really, that depends on how good the content might be. Salon demonstrated--too little, too late--that people will pony up bucks for compelling online subscriptions. The onus is on TW to produce great product.

What TW will do for AOL is improve the overall value of the service. If AOL is to survive, they'll need LOTS of great reasons for people to subscribe--exclusive stuff you can't find elsewhere. This is a step in that direction.

You know, I actually like AOL these days. They've underwritten Mozilla. They developed a top-shelf client for Mac OS X. They irritate Microsoft. And I can always find someone to chat with if I'm sleepless at 2am.

Good luck to 'em.

Re:Why shouldnt they

[Winged Cat]

This is what advertising and merchandising were invented for: to make a profit off a bunch of people who would never pay for the core content you are providing. There is a reason many Web comics are taking this route (and/or just asking for donations) and surviving from it.

Tying sites to a particular online service...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is madness. What's needed is syndication: why can't I pay my ISP a few bucks a month for access to a package of properties of my choosing? TW's advertisers should revolt over this.

Re:Tying sites to a particular online service...

[anthony_dipierro]

You could. Just sign up for the BYO access plan.

Re:Tying sites to a particular online service...

[MagPulse]

Except $15/mo is more than a "few". You could get 8 magazine subscriptions for that price. Plus they're more portable, which is arguably one of the main advantages of magazines. And you're not stuck to Time/Warner publications.

Re:Tying sites to a particular online service...

[b1t r0t]

I never canceled AOL because I've been getting billed $5/mo for it. I don't know whether it was because I was a "charter subscriber" or because I never signed up for unlimited usage when AOL offered it, but for $5 I have a screen name (multiple ones, even), and maybe 10 hours per month of dial-up access. I don't even know whether it's possible for a new AOL account to be set up this way any more.

For a while I was letting my mom use it for e-mail, but now I'm getting her to move to the mail server that I run on my fixed-IP DSL. There's the risk of a little spam getting in (I had her AOL e-mail set up in whitelist mode), but now there's no auto-purging of old mail, and no requirement to use AOL's clunky client.

Lately I've noticed a few things (like the overhead photos in MapQuest) that can be accessed free as long as you have an AOL screen name. So I plan to keep it for as long as they don't raise my rate.

What's the point?

[metatruk]

I mean, do they expect to get more AOL subscribers? Who is going to get AOL just for TW content? Anyone?

Re:What's the point?

[Reality Master 101]

Who is going to get AOL just for TW content? Anyone?

At the risk of sounding obvious, the answer to "who" is anyone who is interested in TW content. If you have someone who likes People magazine, then they might sign up for that.

That's like asking, "who is going to pay for a magazine subscription". Anyone who likes that magazine.

Re:What's the point?

[astrashe]

I don't know if anyone would buy AOL just for Time/Warner content, but it does sweeten the pot for some people.

The people that I know who are on AOL are there for stuff that's not available on the net at large -- chatrooms, the parental controls on IMs that allow kids to chat with their friends, without worrying about predators, etc.

I know parents who buy AOL even though they have broadband and home networks, for just this reason.

This move would just make AOL that much nicer for the people who subscribe. By itself, it's not enough to swing anyone. But when you add it to the pile of AOL features that people like, it contributes to the cumulative effect.

Since online readers of Time or People don't do the company much good anyway, it seems like a good move to me.

I could see them doing something similar with online movies in the future -- bringing out stuff first for AOL customers, or whatever.

Re:What's the point?

[Oculus Habent]

Let's take a look at the business points...

• Current Internet population pays nothing for the content - if they lose viewers, they have only lost ad revenue.
• Reduction of traffic means savings in maintenance, bandwidth, servers, etc. (may make up for ad revenue)
• All viewers will be guaranteed customers of Time Warner - they must have paid TW sometime.
• Increase in AOL members, however small, will improve income to the company, also providing them with more ad revenue...

If you were AOL wouldn't thie be beginning to look better?

Re:What's the point?

[quintessent]

I don't know how many years it's been since I looked at any Time Warner publication online. Oh, how I'll miss it.

Re:What's the point?

[skroz]

Keep in mind that TW owns a LOT of properties.

Time
People
Life
Fortune
SI
A ton of other magazines
Warner brothers (WB network and WB movie studios. This includes All THings Looney Tunes, as well.)
CNN
TW Music
Time Warner cable
HBO

The list goes on and on. So if TW goes all out, you will be unable to access all of that content without paying a fee.

So yeah, that sucks.

Re:What's the point?

[bigdavex]

I mean, do they expect to get more AOL subscribers? Who is going to get AOL just for TW content? Anyone?

It might be a deterrent to leaving. Especially if the customer isn't sure which content is free and which isn't. He just knows some of his content goes away if he changes ISPs.

Re:What's the point?

[Exedore]

Oh... I dunno... maybe cite the dead tree version instead? If you cannot do this because the electronic publication has content that the paper version does not, then you wouldn't really be paying twice for the same content, now would you?

Hell, you don't even have to pay for the paper subscription... you see, there are these things called libraries (for the time being anyway) where they keep back issues of popular periodicals on microfilm.

Re:What's the point?

[skroz]

Forgot to mention... they're only conidering magazine content for now. The other properties are not up for consideration at this time. CNN is a question, though... does cnn.com qualify as a publication?

Re:What's the point?

[MattEvans]

Despite what other posters seem to think, this switch, if properly promoted, could get AOL more subscribers. By tying TW properties into AOL's internet service, they've achieved the holy grail of ISP's: product differentiation.

Basically, dial-up internet access is a commodity, and has been since the mid/late '90's. There are some variations in customer service, e-mail/web space, and other little things, but ISP's are essentially offering the same product (access to the public internet) for the same price (~$20/month). For most customers, choosing a dial-up ISP might as well be done by flipping a coin. This is not the ideal situation for businesses, since they really don't have any basis for competition beyond flashy commercials and price cuts (not much of a margin for those). If you can't differentiate yourself from your competition, it's hard to increase your market share.

AOL now has the opportunity to truly separate themselves from their competition. History buffs might recognize that this is what AOL (and Prodigy, Compuserve, etc.) had in their early days. There wasn't much on the internet, and so they were able to sell unique content: chatrooms, magazine articles, software downloads, etc. Of course, all of that stuff eventually sought out a wider audience, and much of what made AOL unique diffused across public space, accessible to customers of any number of ISP's. AOL was now in the unenviable position of competing against (comparatively) bare-bones ISP, who could offer unmetered access at lower monthly rates. Despite the fact that AOL has consistently cost a few dollars more per month, they maintained a large customer base (inertia and advertising being the biggest reasons, probably).

Now, AOL has something to sell. Lots and lots of magazines. TV shows and movies. Access to a media empire (Wasn't that why they merged in the first place?). When consumers are deciding on an ISP, this will influence their decision. For a few extra dollars a month (I think it's $23.95/month compared to $19.95/month for other national ISP's, but correct me if I'm wrong), subscribing to AOL gives you access to the whole internet PLUS exclusive TW content. I suspect a lot of people will look at this as if they were getting dozens of magazine subscriptions for $4 per month, if it's marketed properly.

Of course, it might not work like this. Frankly, I think most people who want to be online are already online. The same inertia effect that's kept AOL's subscriber base intact might keep people from switching to AOL, even if they think they'll get a better deal there. There may not be many new customers to be found. Another danger is that if this isn't marketed properly, potential subscribers won't realize what they could be getting; the extent of TW's media holdings can't be overemphasized in any ad campaign. The only effect would then be to piss off non-AOL subscribers who currently read TW content online, but won't be able to in the future.

Bottom line: if done properly, this could get AOL/TW a lot of new subscribers. Do it poorly, and they'll just alienate a great number of people.

Re:What's the point?

[DunbarTheInept]

I think they just want to have paying-only customers, and having an AOL account is ONE WAY that counts as being a paying customer by default, so anyone coming through AOL gets in without paying extra, because they're already paying money to the AOL/TIME/WARNER company. The headline is misleading. They aren't allowing content ONLY to AOL. They are allowing it to others who pay also. It's just that for AOL the entire set of subscribers is assumed to have "paid".

Do they have a right to do this? Of course. And I have the right to tell them goodbye because their site was only worth the price when it was free. It's not good enough to be worth the charge, so let them be dumb enough to throw the fee on it and watch it wither away.

uh, so what?

[tps12]

Does anyone look at corporate websites anymore? The only national company whose site I ever look at is Microsoft, and that's only for MSDN stuff and security patches. Time Warner? Please. If I need to see what time Will and Grace is on, I can check the paper.

Re:uh, so what?

[acm]

a lot of people read CNN online. I do occasionally, but I could certainly live without it.

Re:uh, so what?

[scotch]

Microsoft ... MSDN ... "Will and Grace" ...? Surely you troll.

Re:uh, so what?

[scotch]

1. You're spot on with "Will & Grace" - inane drivel.
2. Lighten up
3. Log in
4. You are welcome

Re:uh, so what?

[scotch]

3. you obviously care too much about karma. I'm not trying to flame, but it really doesn't matter that much. A few dings from the crack whore moderators isn't going to hurt your overall karma, and if it does, oh well, you know.

If you're not browsing at (-1), you're missing some really funny shit.

People dont need thier hand held anymore...

[Havoc'ing]

its about the only thing that made AOL popular when the net first emerged. this is just a last ditch effort, shoot the horse already.

Re:People dont need thier hand held anymore...

[ncc74656]

Lots of people I know use AOL, even if the know how to use the computer. Mostly because of convenience (lots of access points when you travel).

MaGlobe has plenty of PoPs, and you only pay for the time that you're dialed in. If your primary net access is through some sort of broadband (cable, xDSL, etc.), prepaid dial-up makes more sense than shelling out $20+ per month for conventional dial-up access.

Hmmm, I got one business that's doing well...

[jlowery]

and another one that's doing poorly.

I know! I'll bind them together at the hip like siamese twins! That will make them both look and function so much better! Ya, that's the ticket!

Stupid marketing dweebs.

Re:Hmmm, I got one business that's doing well...

[nicuss]

Yeah, this sortof thing works if you have monopoly in the good bussiness and offer the bad bussiness for free with it. Like M$ did.

But here they have monopoly (not really but good enough) in the bad bussiness (AOL) and are trying to attach it to a good one with no monopoly (Time). Big mistake if you ask me...

Other purcahse options?

[joemc79]

Seems like they'd be limiting their paid audience if they only allowed AOL users to subscribe. This is, of course, assuming there is a big market for online subscriptions to People Magizine.

Two things...

[anthony_dipierro]

They should start out by just making it ad free through AOL. Then move to allowing extra features through AOL (premium stories, free music streaming). Then finally move to exclusive access.

Secondly, they gotta offer direct PPP access as an alternative. No way I'm using their bloated client, no matter how many features they stuff into it.

Re:Two things...

[selectspec]

One incentive to making it ad free would be that since the viewership is limited to AOL, the ad revenues would be less.

Re:Two things...

[nolife]

Secondly, they gotta offer direct PPP access as an alternative. No way I'm using their bloated client, no matter how many features they stuff into it.

They offer 'alternate' access to AOL. If you are an existing AOL dialup subscriber you can connect to AOL over any internet link or you can pay something like $10 a month for access minus the dialup ability. I am not a user so I do not know exactly what the difference is between coming in off ip or dialing directly in but a few of my relatives have used my Comcast cable to get into AOL with thier passwords. If they offer AOL special content and it was available for only $10 month it might be worth it for anyone with existing conectivity.

Re:Two things...

[Oculus Habent]

they refer to their access numbers as AOL.COM numbers - it is a PPP connection, and you can just dial in...

Re:Two things...

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, but they're not really ready for that yet. They are primarily an ISP, not a content provider. If I'm going to pay them, I want them to be my ISP. I just don't want to run their stupid client.

Whatever though, the future is broadband, and it's getting pretty close to "too late" to come up with innovations for dialup customers.

Re:Two things...

[El]

Secondly, they gotta offer direct PPP access as an alternative. No way I'm using their bloated client, no matter how many features they stuff into it.

I've been told that you can minimize the AOL browser and bring up the browser of your choice one you're logged on, with the added advantage of not having all your pages be filtered by AOL's servers. However, I'm not willing to subscribe to AOL to test this...

Re:Two things...

[JordanH]

• They are primarily an ISP, not a content provider.

It's more complicated that this. AOL is an ISP and a content provider. It's one of their value ads that makes them more attractive than NetZero or local ISPs. You may not like any of their content, but I can tell you from experience that my then-5 yr old daughter really liked the kid's section some years ago when I took the free month and used to ask why we didn't get AOL for years.

Remember also that TW is primarily a content provider. If AOL/TW is to remain together, then this providing TW content only to AOL subscribers is a natural move.

Not that it's a good business plan, but, in for a dime in for a dollar, I guess. People get committed to the direction they've taken. It's either this or just spin off AOL and that might be a painful admission of failure for some in the AOL/TW boardroom.

Re:Two things...

[Reziac]

That's how all the people I know on AOL do it -- none of them use the AOL browser.

However, I don't know if you can access AOL mail via anything other than the AOL client.

De ja doom!

[zuggy]

This smacks of other brillaint ideas like MSN's exclusive access to Viacom's Star Trek web site a few years back. I guess the target demographic for their magazines are people unable to use the internet. Maybe it should be aOL tIME wARNER?

This is the new management?

[kindbud]

Correct me if I am wrong, but taking successful online publications and tying them to an struggling, unwanted online service seems so very... 1998. Doesn't it?

Re:This is the new management?

[Oculus Habent]

How are you gauging "successful online publication"? Are they making a profit from their ads? Can it be shown that the free service increases readership of the printed publications?

This is an early warning of Things To Come. As the economy stays in the doldrums, we will see more free/ad-driven services online either dry-up or turn to subscriptions.

It happened here at slashdot, it happened at User Friendly. It's happening.

There is freedom of information, but that information won't be available for free...

Re:This is the new management?

[_ph1ux_]

It didnt work for VA either....

AWESOME!

[cr@ckwhore]

I really hope they do this because my primary competitors are AOLTIMEWARNER online publications. Mine will remain free.

That's fine

[fobbman]

I'm sure that their competitors will be happy to have me read their content.

What? Time Warner bought all their competition? Hmmmm...

Proprietary content

[Alomex]

This was long coming, since the announcement of the merger. Almost immediately we was a revival or the "AOL keyword" in addition to the URL in all Time-Warner owned media. Before that, the "AOL keyword" was nearly gone.

The recent announcement suggests that this has not worked, hence the need for more radical measures. If AOL has critical mass, they can pull it off and make people pay AOL fees just to download, say, Britney's latest CD, or cool Star Wars trailers. If they don't have enough critical mass, all they will achive is to bring down the once mighty TimeWarner online properties along with AOL.

So the real question is, does AOL have critical mass to carve out a proprietary section of the Web?

Re:Proprietary content

[Monkelectric]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; int y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero

Common, this is the second lesson in most beginners programming classes. You're mixing integer division and float multiplication (clearly a mistake) and then worrying about the result being horked. If I put kerosene in my gas tank should I be pissed my car dosen't run? If you want to gripe about C please choose a legitimate gripe.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

You signature demonstrates that you completely lack an understanding of the concepts of floating point and integer arithmetic. I'd suggest changing it, as it makes you look both foolish and stupid.

Actually it is you who comes across as ignorant.

There are other ways to implement integer arithmetic, as done for example in Algol or Pascal. A typical solution is to use div instead of / to denote integer operation.

That way the programming language remains consistent with standard math notation.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

It is amazing how beginners like you come to accept bugs in design as the only possible state of the world. Why not use a different symbol for integer division and thus avoid overloading a well known math symbol ("/") in a way that is totally unexpected and absolutely archane. To wit

y = 1/2 * x;

is different than

z = x * 1/2;

for int y,z; float x.

See Pascal for the way it should have been done.

Re:Proprietary content

[Monkelectric]

Now you're trolling ... Im not a beginner, I've desgined CPU's, written compilers, and I'd wager I know alot more about you on this subject. The reason integer division works the way it does is because of how division is implemented in cpus. Integer division traditionally was implemented as multiple subtractions, to compute Y/X in c code: while( Y Furthermore, Integers are defined as a step function, so the result is not only foreseable but *mathmatically correct*. You might not know it, but what you are really mad about is that the compiler dosen't automatically promote the "1/2" to float. C is desgined with speed in mind, if you want promotion you have to specify it.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

Now you're trolling ... Im not a beginner, I've desgined CPU's, written compilers

Look, your reply was at a beginner level. To sum it up, I complained about a design choice in C which goes against commonly used math notation. Your original reply, rather than addressing why this design choice is or isn't right was: "yes but we learn how to handle such oddities in the first class". Yes, that we do, so?

and I'd wager I know alot more about you on this subject.

I doubt it. In fact your explanation is not quite right.

The reason integer division works this way is because originally CPUs did not have floating point operations. Heck if you were lucky they had integer division, which you represented in assembler using DIV. Then FORTRAN (version 1.0) came along and mapped assembler almost one-to-one to a "high level language". Along with it came the rule that 1/2 = 0, 'cuz in assembler DIV 1,2 gives AC=0.

All this shows is that this dumb C decision is a legacy decision. It is still wrong and is a common example of improper overloading.

In fact, Python which is one of the few languages out there whose designers seem to be quite comfortable admitting to and fixing design screw-ups (way to go guys!) is slated to replace integer division with the operator //.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

Just out of curiosity, what would you have the following snippet of code do under your rule of using / to denote only floating-point arithmetic?

int x = 4, y = 2, z = x / y;


If your language has type coercion, like C does, then you make it z=trunc(x/y). Of course the optimizer would identify this and internally use integer division.

In languages without type coercion this is just an error, unless cast.

Re:Proprietary content

[DunbarTheInept]

If '/' in pascal is only for floating point, and 'div' is only for integers, then you'd still get two different results wouldn't you? Do it one way 'round and it's okay - do it the other and it's a syntax error because you are trying to floating-point-divide two integers (It's been a long time since I did Pascal - I dropped it like the dead rat it is once I learned C.)

Unlike pascal, C is a language where you *want* to be in control of what types are used for things, since unlike pascal, C is supposed to be usable for operating-system things, so insisting that the system do arithmetic by integer when you ask for it is the right answer in C.

It's kind of stupid anyway since a *good* programmer would have just written 0.5*x instead of 1/2 * X to avoid the pointless extra division.

Re:Proprietary content

[DunbarTheInept]

Apparently the Python developers don't give a rat's ass about backward compatable python source code, if they're willing to change something like that and mess up the existing code (way to go guys).

'/' is NOT more natural for floats than ints. It is not natural for either one in traditional math where you didn't have to use the ascii '/' as the division operator. It *has no* previously understood mathematical meaning that predates using it for programming lanaguages.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

Apparently the Python developers don't give a rat's ass about backward compatable python source code, if they're willing to change something like that and mess up the existing code (way to go guys).

Once again you feel to see the obvious alternatives and then assume there are none.

Languages such as XML, HTML and LaTeX have made non-compatible upgrades while not breaking backward code by prefacing new code with a statement in computerese meaning "this is the new version of the language".

In latex is called \documentclass in xml is .

in traditional math where you didn't have to use the ascii '/' as the division operator. It *has no* previously understood mathematical meaning that predates using it for programming languages

Funny, I have a 1938 math textbook right here (The Theory of Numbers, by Hardy and Wright) using "/" everywhere to denote division. I wonder how they managed to do that, several years before the invention of computers....

Re:Proprietary content

[El]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; int y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Any C programmer with more than a week's experience would code that as int y = (int)(x / 2); which results in y == 1. 1/2 = 0 using integer arithmetic in every computer language; this has nothing to do with C and just makes you look like a moron.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

Here we go again... First off, read the example again. The complaint is not with the type conversion, but with the unexpected left to right expansion of the data types. That is, the expression returns a float, but the evaluation combined int and float operations.

Second, this is not the case with every computer language as you moronically state. Pascal doesn't do this, and neither does Python 3 or M or Algol or many other non-C derivatives. They avoid this issue altogether by using a different character for integer division.

Before you reply again, you will be well advised to read the rest of the thread (that is the parent thread of your post).

Re:Proprietary content

[DunbarTheInept]

Once again you feel to see the obvious alternatives and then assume there are none.

Once again you belittle people to disagree with you, based on the haughty misconception that they're saying something stupider than they really are. If 'div' is the integer division operator, and '/' is only for floats, then if you change one of your int variables to a float or one of your floats to an int, you have to go find everywhere it is used and change the operator for, what is in my opinion no good reason.

Where is your alleged alternative to that that I'm allegedly not seeing? Or were you assuming I was saying something stupider?

Thought so.

Re:Proprietary content

[Alomex]

Once again you belittle people to disagree with you, based on the haughty misconception that they're saying something stupider than they really are.

Where is your alleged alternative to that that I'm allegedly not seeing? Or were you assuming I was saying something stupider?

Your post here matches precisely what I thought you were saying. Here's the relevant paragraph in your reply, highlighted:

if 'div' is the integer division operator, and '/' is only for floats, then if you change one of your int variables to a float or one of your floats to an int, you have to go find everywhere it is used and change the operator for, what is in my opinion no good reason.

That is exactly what you don't need to do. You place a preamble marker at the beginning of new code. There is no change needed in the previous code. This preamble marker declares that in this new code "div" and "int" are properly interpreted rather than using the dangerous overload in C.

You were clearly unaware of this and in fact, believed it is impossible to evolve a language without breaking new code. This is just not so. I suggest you read up on <?xml .. > as an example of how to evolve a language without need of any change whatsoever to previous code.

Reason #452

[ianjk]

Not to use AOL.

Counterproductive?

[badasscat]

How will this help TW sell more copies of EW, Time, or whatever? How will it help them sell more ads on the web-based versions?

Seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul. They may get a couple hundred thousand more AOL subscribers (though I doubt it), but they'll get fewer subscriptions to their magazines and fewer ads on their online properties.

Re:Counterproductive?

[RollingThunder]

People who had been willing to buy the paper copies, but stopped since the content was online for free, will resume buying paper copies. Not all, but still at a presumably higher amount of $$$ than they lose from the ads on the free stuff.

Those who eschew paper but still are willing to pay, will get the information electronically, again presumably making AOLTW more money via subscription fees than they are losing from their lost ad impressions.

They don't care about the ads anymore. The point is they want to sell the content, not the eyeballs. Frankly, I prefer that. When you're selling the content, you tend to make it a higher quality than when you're giving it away, IMO.

I don't see how you can conclude they'd get -less- subscriptions, either. The article contends the free content online was costing them subscriptions, not gaining them.

Re:Counterproductive?

[Jason Earl]

The third alternative, of course, is that people will simply give up on AOL-TW information altogether and start getting their news from someone else. Frankly I think that this is much more likely than a mass migration back to print subscriptions or towards new AOL subscriptions.

The problem with selling content over the Internet is that the barrier to entry is so low that there will always be folks that are happy to undercut your prices.

Redemption for the merger....

[supabeast!]

Perhaps the AOL/TW execs are trying to redeem themselves for ever merging to begin with. AOL users will be much more likely to hang around if only AOL can offer things like CNN.com and rollingstone.com.

It also takes something away from MSN users, who already pay more than other generic ISP clients, and only get extra advertisements compared to the extra "features" of AOL.

Topic is misleading

[Henry V .009]

It doesn't matter whether or not they lose readers. It matters whether or not they make more money. Will the cash earned by drawing more customers to AOL outweigh the cash lost through advertising?

The sad thing is that they aren't talking about a lot of money either way. I told them that the merger was a stupid idea for Time-Warner. Anyone who actually thought it through knew the same. Time-Warner traded a profitable business for monopoly money.

Re:Topic is misleading

[raretek]

"It doesn't matter whether or not they lose readers. It matters whether or not they make more money."

Um, when a media company loses readers or consumers of that media, that company will lose money, not to mention relevance, and power.

You are right, that *IF* they can get enough AOL subscribers to make up for their lost advertising revenue, then it might be worth it, but that seems like betting on a long shot. Anyone going to give up their DSL line to subscribe to AOL? Anyone going to pay an extra monthly fee to use AOL over their DSL lines, just to get access to their content? I'm asking this of slashdot readers, would anyone out there actually do this?

Re:Topic is misleading

[Henry V .009]

Um, when a media company loses readers or consumers of that media, that company will lose money, not to mention relevance, and power.

Relevance and power, yes. Money? When those readers aren't paying anything? Look at Salon.com. They've lost millions and are still losing money. Internet advertising doesn't make a great deal of money. So, like I said, it is small amounts of money either way. There won't be many new AOL subscriptions. And they aren't making much money out things as it is.

What about cnn.com?

[osxuser-02]

It's owned by AOLTW, and is free. Does this mean I'll have to get my national news from MSNBC? This could really be a problem because AOLTW has their fingers in a lot of pots, so a lot of high-content sites could quickly disappear? Also, has anyone interviewed AOLTW's advertisers about this? They can't be too crazy about having limited viewership. I would imagine an AOL-only crowd would skew demographics heavily...

Don't let the door hit you in the a55...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, I hope they do. Take the boring old media off the internet. For that matter, withdraw AOL from the internet too. Make it a nice gula^H^H^H gated community like in the old days.

Send the spammers, squatters, lamers, MCSEs IP lawyers and the rest of the "cyberspace information superhighway" baggage back to AOL and quarantine it for the good of all.

Wow...

[autopr0n]

Talk about camablizing TW for the sake of AOL.

If they really want to redeem make AOL an attractive choice, they should allow broadband AOLers to download TWs Tv shows and old movies and the like.

Of course they'd rather sit on their ass and wait for things like CDBPTPA or whatever to 'promote' broadband by making computers illegal so people won't steal their crap. Sheesh.

I do read CNN once in a while though, when people to link to it.

WHAT?!?

[kevcol]

No more free 'People' or 'Entertainment Weekly' online? Heavens- my life will be incomplete!!

The Internet is international

[LX.onesizebigger]

The Internet is international. AOL is not. You do the math. They are effectively shutting out international users.

This won't work, because it will not be seen as AOL having extra features; it will be seen as Time-Warner lacking the feature of accessibility, and in the context of the Internet, users will always choose the most easily accessible source, and that means the one you don't have to sign up or pay for.

Re:The Internet is international

[Christianfreak]

This isn't true. I didn't check the links but a quick search of Google shows that AOL does have at least some international access.

The people they are shutting out are the real Internet users who wouldn't use AOL if they were paid to. This is a horrible idea, I'm glad I don't own their stock... if I did I'd be selling it now.

Re:The Internet is international

[LX.onesizebigger]

As I recall, they tried to establish themselves here in Sweden back in the nineties with their usual tactics of heavy coaster^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCD bombardments. Didn't really work because they charged about five times more per minute than all other ISPs at a time when modem access paid by the minute (the only option at the time) was already insanely expensive. Needless to say, it didn't work very well.

Re:The Internet is international

[anonymous loser]

That's funny, I know plenty of people who use AOL because they have local dialups all over the world, and sell local services in many countries besides the US. I have friends in Japan, for example, who subscribe to AOL Japan.

The only other company I know of that has local dialups all over the world is AT&T Global Network which is the one I use, because I don't want to risk installing AOL on my machine even though they have much better coverage.

p.s. there are foreign-language versions of TW's popular magazines like Time, etc. So, the argument that the print magazines are US-only is not true.

Advertisement free?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

This could actually be a good thing. Pay a premium for advertising-free premium content. It's not all that different from paying for premium television channels (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) on your cable or satellite system.

If they're smart, they'll also make this available to non-AOL users through the Netscape Network as well, so all you need is their "Screen Name Service" and a browser to sign on. Price this fairly -- say, $4.95 a month -- and they might garner a good number of users. It's actually working pretty well so far for Real Networks; why not expand things a bit?

With ad revenues for web sites dwindling rapidly, this is probably inevitable. And I think it's ok.

Re:Advertisement free?

[MeNeXT]

Very GOOD thing...

Hopefully ALL these media giants come up with these great ideas and maybe we'll get back the internet we once had...

As for add revenues dwindeling...where do you get this?

SPAM continues to grow, therefore I would say the buisness model has not evolved with the times. Ever notice how the spammers complain that their revenue continues to shrink but the spam keeps comming. They either must be loooooosing a lot of money or somebody is pulling your leg.

Ah, the walled garden...

[Paul Neubauer]

..where the prisoners inside are told the walls keep the barbarians out. And the "barbarians" don't care and build a better world outside the walls of the... garbage dump.

Does roadrunner count?

[techstar25]

So what about TW's RoadRunner broadband customers? Do we get access as well? I've used RR for years now and I'm happy with the service.

Re:Does roadrunner count?

[Ioldanach]

So what about TW's RoadRunner broadband customers? Do we get access as well? I've used RR for years now and I'm happy with the service.

That's my question as well... I'm subscribed to TW's RR and TW's cable service. Then again, I don't think I've hit any of the places TW wants to make AOL only... um... ever. So I guess it shouldn't be a big deal to me, just another company shooting themselves in the foot. Of course, if I ever do have to, I'll call up RR and be the "clueless user". ("But I already pay you guys for internet access on a cable modem, why would I need AOL? I mean, its not like I need dialup.")

If slashdot is any indication...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

...it won't make a difference. After all, how many times have you seen someone here complain about the NYT free registration requirement to view articles? If people are complaining about free content I hardly think making it subscription-only will matter.

Flashback!

[Saint Aardvark]

Anyone else here reminded of CompuServe? Or GE? Or Prodigy?

Oh yeah, that's brilliant...

[jht]

Actually, it's a big cost-saving measure. Yeah, that's it. By making all the TW magazines AOL subscription-access only, they'll be able to cut their bills for bandwidth and server equipment drastically.

Because NOBODY'S GOING TO FSCKING READ THEM ANYMORE!!!

They already charge for the archives on-line, which isn't a bad way to go. Do they really think that people are going to use AOL just to get to Time Magazine (or SI, or one of their others)? I suspect most would-be subscribers will, at most, subscribe to one of the print mags. Better that than a $23/month (or half that for the BYO plan) AOL subscription.

For the monthly price of AOL, I could subscribe to most of TW's print mags, including the truly useless ones like Business 2.0 - and get my Internet via the DSL account that I'm already happily using. I really can't see anyone switching to AOL, of all services, just to read the current issue of TW mags online.

But hey, ideas like this prove that crack is still affordable to the masses, because they're obviously using lots of it at AOLTW!

Re:Oh yeah, that's brilliant...

[Octagon Most]

"For the monthly price of AOL, I could subscribe to most of TW's print mags, including the truly useless ones like Business 2.0 - and get my Internet via the DSL account that I'm already happily using. I really can't see anyone switching to AOL, of all services, just to read the current issue of TW mags online."

Which "most" is that?

Time magazine is $29.95 for one year, People is $113.88 for a year, Sports Illustrated is $39 for one year, the "truly useless" Business 2.0 is $19.95 for one year....

But, AOL's BYO plan is $15/month since you already have DSL. That's $180/year so you could have enough left over for a few of those $5 rocks yourself. That's assuming you would subscribe to those publications. But it's clear from your tone that you wouldn't. Many people do and for them, and current AOL subscribers, it might be a good deal.

Value of content?

[peterdaly]

One of the real issues that may poke it's ugly head in all this is the value of TWAOL's content. How much is it worth? If you ask the executives, they probably can put a value on it. Is the value realistic? Maybe we will see.

I really think this is something that needs to happen, and it's about time. Content has a percieved value in old economy companies which is based on physical distribution mechanisms.

Right now the value of content is not known in my my mind. I don't think anyone else really knows either.

Just look at Salon.com. They, probably more than any other company, are in a battle to define the correct value of their content. At some point we need to progress beyond 1980's paradigms of content value in large media companies as well. Salon.com is in the thick of it as we are reading this. We see headlines almost weekly about their quest to break even, much less turn a profit. Salon has a problem that online content is their only product. AOLTW has other lines of business and markets to help keep them afloat. Maybe now it is AOL Time Warner's turn to test the waters and discover, or at least try to, the real value of their content.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

-Pete

Guess I'll just have to wait...

[TheSHAD0W]

...until someone pastes the whole story into a Slashdot entry. Oh joy.

OT: Your Sig

[scotch]

Are you complaining about that behavior of C? Consider the alternative, if you are.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[Alomex]

Are you complaining about that behavior of C? Consider the alternative, if you are.

If you think C integer/float arithmetic rules make any sense, I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no question asked.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[scotch]

Heh, good one. I do think they make sense: the rules are complete and consistent. Like most (all) things in C, the philosophy is "do what I say" versus "do what I mean". To get the answer I presume you want in your sig, C would have to always do type promotion, or guess what you mean. Both are unacceptible for a language such as C. Remeber, integer math is valid: sometimes you want 1/2 to equal 0 - when it occurs as an intermediate expression, what's the compiler supposed to do, guess your intent?

Re:OT: Your Sig

[Alomex]

Remeber, integer math is valid: sometimes you want 1/2 to equal 0 -

I prefer the Pascal model where integer division is a different character. This conforms to day-to-day math notation usage.

Failing that I would like to see a taint model where the presence of a float in the expression forces a cast on every element in the expression (this is not always possible in polymorphic languages by the way).

Let me give you an example. Consider a language where everytime you wrote "for" it meant if, everytime you wrote "if" it meant while and everytime you wrote "while" it meant for.

It is clear that this is an unnecessary complication, which will only create confusion "if" reading the code. "while" one would expect the average reader to be confused by this "if" gaining nothing in return.

Simply sticking to the traditional math usage of "/" would have made things a lot clearer. C should have used a new symbol for integer division.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[DunbarTheInept]

The alternative when told to do 1/2 * X to get it to come out the way you want is to say, "Despite the fact that the computer can do integer arithmetic many times faster than floating point, I want to never make use of that and instead do all math as floating point operations anyway just because I'm too lazy to write something like 0.5*X or 1.0/2.0 * X to tell the compiler explicitly what I want."

DWIM is a stoopid way to write a compiler.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[Alomex]

The alternative when told to do 1/2 * X to get it to come out the way you want is DWIM

That is one alternative. There are other possibilities. For example, you could do what Python 3 and Pascal do which is to have a special symbol for integer division.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[DunbarTheInept]

Neither floating point nor integer division matches the mathematical meaning of division exactly. After all in math, something like:
1.0 > ( 99999999.0 / 100000000.0 )
would be true, but in floating point computer math it might not, since a 2's compliment number can't hit all the same precise discrete points on the number line as a decimal representation.

What I'm getting at is that it's a mistake to think of floating point interpetation for '/' as being more "traditional" than integer interpetation. Both are a divergance from the traditional. I think C's method of "do it the way that matches the types involved" makes a hell of a lot more sense than Pascal's way of "change all the operators in the code if you decide to change the type of the variable in the future."

Re:OT: Your Sig

[Alomex]

I think C's method of "do it the way that matches the types involved" makes a hell of a lot more sense than Pascal's way of "change all the operators in the code if you decide to change the type of the variable in the future."

I wonder if this isn't the case simply because of your familiarity with C rather than anything else...

While I'm at it, integer division in C and Java are textbook definitions of dangerous overloading. It is somewhat surprising to see the reaction my .sig has caused in /. Too many people seem to be offended by the mere suggestion that C evaluation rules might not be ideal (as I said elsewhere they have evolved, with sqrt(2) being the standard example).

It is true, as you point out, that rounding issues also appear in the overloading of floats to be made to look like reals. I don't wish to argue in favour or against this type of overloading. I'll simply pass on two observations, one in favour and one against:

(1) we are somewhat more familiar with this type of overloading. In elementary school we do write things such as 1/3 =0.3333 which are technically not ok.

(2) OTOH there are famous well respected CS researchers out there (Kahn, IIRC) who oppose real/float overloading for similar reasons to the "/" issue, and would be happy to see a model where you would have to write

x = machine_truncate(3.5/4.2);

In fact, I understand one of the motivations of the IEEE floating types was that at least this way we can predict what happens when we write

IEEE_double x = 3.0 / 4.0;

regardless of the architecture.

Re:OT: Your Sig

[DunbarTheInept]

That is a terrible solution. It makes more sense to say the type of the operands used determines which type of operation to do. If x and y are floats, what does x div y mean? floor(x/y) or floor(x)/floor(y)? They aren't the same thing.
Or does the language just punt and say it's a compile time error to use div on floats?

Re:OT: Your Sig

[DunbarTheInept]

Taking this back to the beginning, what I don't understand is why any programmer worth his pay woud be writing code that said x = (divide one by two) * y in the first place. The sane way to write it is x = y / 2, which not only doesn't have the "problem" you point out, but is quicker to execute (both because if x and y are ints it avoids floating point calculations, and because it has less operations), simpler to look at, and avoids any dependance on the language's order of operations which also improves readabilty. (Some languages take multiplication and division to be of equal precedence, some do not, so x = 1/2*y might end up meaning x="one over two Y" to some people's way of thinking. Granted that's only a problem for people who don't have a comfortable feel of the language yet, but then again so is the "problem" your sig brings up.)

Well, there's the BBC

[autopr0n]

Check out BBC Americas. Quality news, and it's all subsidized by the British tax payers!

Okay, I'm sure to get modded down for this...

[DwarfGoanna]

But with all the TV ads I see touting MSN against AOL.......

Sorry, but I just look at MSNBC as a slightly skewed news source when it comes to things like this.

bah..

[grub]

You've got bankruptcy!

"Time Warner" and...

[talks_to_birds]

..."Content" in the same sentence?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

t_t_b

Yeah, right

[pvera]

They have too much traffic to think about doing something so stupid. I have kept cnn as my home page for as long as I have been online but I will not pay AOL to access it, since I already pay a hell of a lot of money for cable TV. I guess I will have to switch to Google News and Washingtonpost.com until THEY decide to do something as retarded.

Yeah right

[sulli]

If they pull CNN.com they'll just hasten the death of CNN at the hand of Fox.

Score one...

[theonetruekeebler]

...for Fox news. I had a brief and bizarre encounter using CNN.com from work: it wanted me to register as a Netscape user. I restarted my browser and the problem went away.

Risks

[mmol_6453]

Need to limit your search results down a bit.

It's more like, who is interested in Time Warner content enough to pay $40/mo for a specific ISP.

Joe {citizen|company} may risk several things by switching from one ISP to another:

• Connectivity speed -- Maybe they're accustomed to a T1, or they work at a major ISP themselves. Then again, maybe thier favorite sites lie electronically closer to them with their current ISP than with AOL/TW. At one job, I'm seven or eight hops from Slashdot. At my other job, I'm thirty hops away.
• Connectivity predictability -- Maybe they already know the reliability of their current connection, and don't want to jump into an unknown situation.
• ISP relations -- Maybe they know the customer service reps personally, or maybe they have a dedicated service representative who sees to it they get good service.

Re:Risks

[Reality Master 101]

AOL doesn't require you to use them as your ISP. It's only $14.95 a month for the content sans ISP.

Not especially bright, but not surprising either

[RareHeintz]

The only reason AOL bought Time-Warner in the first place was to lock in what they knew to be an insanely inflated stock value - that is to say, they knew their own company had very limited value, so they went out and swallowed another company with greater value, hoping that when the bubble burst, the company that wasn't worthless would keep the natural sinker afloat.

This step is the logical extension of that plan - count on the value in Time-Warner media properties to make AOL valuable as a middleman.

Of course, Time-Warner media properties are only as valuable as the number of people who consume them. This plan will survive for precisely as long as it takes people to figure out that (a) they're paying and AOL toll and (b) they don't actually have to pay it, because Time-Warner doesn't produce anything that can't be had elsewhere without paying a tax to subsidize AOL's misbegotten existence.

Of course, the media-consuming public can be slow on the uptake, so maybe this scheme will work after all.

OK,
- B

Re:Anonymous Proxy Anyone?

[Christianfreak]

An AOL user? ... setup a PROXY? ... *laughing hystarically*

(I tried to put the actual laughing but the lame lameness filter couldn't figure that out.)

off topic

[poot_rootbeer]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; int y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Well, duh.

Why would you try to express pi/2 as an integer, anyway?

Re:off topic

[Alomex]

Well, duh.

Why would you try to express pi/2 as an integer, anyway?

If I offered you 1/2 million dollars what would you expect to get 0 dollars or $500,000 ?

C breaks the standard day-to-day math interpretation of "/".

Re:off topic

[Pac]

C breaks the standard day-to-day math interpretation of "/".
Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; int y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Or is it you breaking the standard day-to-day math interpretations of "integer"?

Let us see. When you divide an integer number and require an integer as a result, two outcomes are possible: either the division is exact and yields another integer or it isn't and you must round the result to get a correct answer (correct by the rule requiring the answer to be an integer).

C rounds an inexact integer division down. So:
int y= 1 / 2 * 3.14159 = 1 / 6.28 = 0.16 = 0

What would your doubt be again?

Re:off topic

[Alomex]

Eternally bitching and whining about something that will never change will only annoy people.

About this you might be right. In general, people seem not to care if the complain is valid or substantiated, they are just plain annoyed by the "whiners". Yet every so often, there are people out there big enough to take on suggestions and criticisms (see the Python 3 effort).

I don't know what is the proper thing to do, shut up so as not to annoy the average folk? or carry on the message talking to those who are listening?

Here are two questions for you out there: (1) what would you do in this case? and (2) which of the two types above are you?

Re:off topic

[DunbarTheInept]

Here's a better analogy - If the smallest unit of change I had was a dollar bill, and I tried to rip it in half to give you half of it, would you expect each piece to be worth 50 cents?

If you were speaking and offered me "one slash two" million dollars that wouldn't mean anything in "traditional math" since it doesn't use "slash" as a divide operator.

Re:off topic

[Alomex]

If you were speaking and offered me "one slash two" million dollars that wouldn't mean anything in "traditional math" since it doesn't use "slash" as a divide operator.

I don't know where you came up with this. The slash has been in use in math for at least a hundred years.

This gotta be trolling...

Re:off topic

[ncc74656]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; int y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Well, duh.

Considering that (int)1/(int)2==0, y should equal zero. int y=0.5*x would produce the expected result (with a compiler warning about the lossage that you'll get going from double to int). It also eliminates a division operation.

As long as you know the precedence rules and the way that values are typed (constants are treated as integers unless there's a fractional part or unless they're cast as floats), the way C handles math makes plenty of sense.

news.google.com

[jamesoutlaw]

I stopped reading CNN and other web sites exclusively when I found out about http://news.google.com ... it's sill in beta, but it's got links to all of the news I want to read.

Re:news.google.com

[jamesoutlaw]

yep... i know that, but they also link to _Many_ other sources. You are not stuck with reading only CNN.

Monopoly behavior

[rikkards]

Wouldn't this be considered a monopolistic behavior where they are using their power in an abusive way?

The 1980's are back again

[Torgo's Pizza]

Doesn't this just smack of the Pay-BBS's of yesteryear? Where Compuserve reigned king and you had to pay a fee just to access all their content. The parallels are striking. Ma Bell becomes your ISP. The Pay-BBS is the same as these Pay-Content sites.

The problem with the model is that as everyone moves to a pay-for-content model, you are dealing with a limited consumer resource: money. Consumers only have so much money that they are willing to spend on web-content, which we've seen is precious few. What makes Time-Warner so confident that their content is going to make everyone pony up cash to see it?

Until they come up with the online equivalent of "Friends", I don't see a lot of people coming.

Re:The 1980's are back again

[rnturn]

``Doesn't this just smack of the Pay-BBS's of yesteryear? Where Compuserve reigned king and you had to pay a fee just to access all their content.''

Don't forget that nice little twist that Compuserve came up with: you pay more if you've already paid extra for your high speed modem. Wouldn't put it past AOL to charge people an additional fee for having a high speed Internet connection.

Re:The 1980's are back again

[analog_line]

I don't imagine AOLTW's bandwidth costs are in the totally defrayed by the advertising found on their sites. They likely have been losing magazine subscriptions to Time, etc, for awhile, since almost anyone who doesn't want to pay for it and has an internet connection can read it for free.

Even if 10,000 pay, say $10 monthly for an subscription to the online versions of one of their magazines, and maybe another 10,000 get an AOL account for access to all of them, that's more money than they ae getting from those properties now. Not to mention the likely increase in magazine subscriptions from people who were only reading it online because it was free and might've paid anyways.

People don't seem to realize that people who make and do things for-pay are WILLING to go out of business if no one wants their stuff. If you went to a Suncoast Video and just stood in front of the screen watching whatever movie they had running, before too long they'd tell you to buy something or get the hell out before they have security kick you out. They don't care what you think should be free or not, and acting like they should only makes you look like an idiot.

Probably mentioned already...

[scot4875]

Someone's probably already noted this, but I don't think this sounds like such a bad idea. Maybe it'll be the move that kills off (as we know it) AOL-Time Warner in one fell swoop?

--Jeremy

Re:Just buy stock?

[PurpleFloyd]

The point being that companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to do what the shareholders want: the shareholders own the company . If enough Time Warner shareholders don't like it and say so, Time Warner is legally obligated to stop. Buying stock in a company is like buying votes in the US, except it's all perfectly legal.

Most ISPs...

[mmol_6453]

...require extremely little configuration.

PAP lets me set up a customer's computer to dial into our system and get all the settings automatically. Really nice.

Return to the bad old days?

[afidel]

This sounds like the days when AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServ were battling for who had the best proprietary systems and could milk $5/hr out of their poor customers with little/no alternatives. Of course now is the time when if I want info on a news story I do a google news search and get about a dozen or more free sources for any important story. Doomed to fail, guess the Time Warner guys got snookered by the internet bubble and pictures of stock options dancing in their heads.

Competition

[Shadow Wrought]

But Time Inc. has concluded that its free Web sites hurt circulation and Web-based advertising is too meager to make up the difference.

Maybe what has really hurt Time is that it has a lot more competition on the news stand these days coupled with the growing distrust of large media conglomerates. The web is also a source of competition with the "traditional" news outlets in that anyone with the time and willingness, ala Matt Drudge, can provide content.

I just really do not see how further restricitng your audience to that of a dying company is going to help you out. Maybe this will see the final demise of AOL and Time Warner.

What about quasi-Road Runner customers?

[SophtwareSlump]

While I admit that I don't read many AOLTW owned sites, I am a RoadRunner customer, but in my area it's offered by Insight Communications and not Time-Warner. My email is 'branded' as rr (@insight.rr.com), but I don't write a check to Time-Warner for my online service. I'd be interested to know how this would work out, or if I get bent over as I suspect. Now that I look at the article again, it looks like it may be AOL only, and not even include Time Warner's RoadRunner customers. Yikes.

To see what exactly the AOLTW empire owns, check out Who Owns What

The greening of the net....

[Newer Guy]

The greening of the net began years ago. Frankly, I can't see how sites like Mapquest, CNN.com, etc. can afford to keep giving away services for free. Face it guys, the Internet as an ad medium fell flat on it's face. Content costs money, and corporations are in business to make money, not give it away. In a way, the net hase become a big disappointment to me. Maybe I bought into the hype, I don't know. But one thing I do know is that I miss the net's good 'ol days. Unfortunately, they're gone....forever.

The big deal is

[suman28]

Anyone who knows computers will not use AOL, but the people that truly matter are the 134 million customers that AOL has. So, that means that a select few hundred thousand (not actual stats) users will be left out. But I am not complaining, seeing that I never showed any interest in anything AOL has to offer anyway. So there.

A single, low flat fee for access

[dpilot]

This idea won't fly in the long run.

A few bucks for Slashdot here.
A few bucks for Linux Today there.
A few more bucks for Ars Technica.
Still more bucks for RealWorldTech.

Actually, I don't subscribe to any of those. I read them, and I feel somewhat guilty about not subscribing, but I see a problem here. There are too many people holding out a hand for a little bit of my money.

Currently I support two PBS stations and public radio. I also have one magazine subscription, Linux Journal, and a few more magazines come to my house.

In the current situation, web subscriptions would like to exceed my dead tree subscriptions, and I can't even carry them to the bathroom.

Maybe the subscription model is better than popups, but it's still Not There Yet. If I knew the answer I'd be rich, but maybe it looks like a single higher-priced 'web subscription wallet' that lets me get those services, pay one fee, and not feel like I'm getting nickeled and dimed all over the place.

Re:A single, low flat fee for access

[GreyPoopon]

I read them, and I feel somewhat guilty about not subscribing

I don't feel guilty about not paying subscriptions for online publications. I wish I had some figures to back it up, but I'm reasonably certain that the cost of online publishing is lower than paper publishing. My reasoning is that there's a one-time expense for the infrastructure that surely must be less than the cost of setting up printing facilities. Then, the ongoing maintenance should be significantly below the cost of resources for printing facilities.

At any rate, advertising *should* be sufficient to pay for the service. The real problem is in the expectation that have been set for those paying for the adverts. They've been conditioned to think that an advertisement is only successful if they get a click-through. They need to be made to realize that merely having their advertisement seen by a surfer is just as good as what happens with advertisements in newspapers and magazine.

Publishers should instead be going out of their way to transition from print into digital. As less paper copies are sold, advertisers will be forced to turn to web advertising to get their message out. Once that happens, the rates should start to go up and it'll be simple to get to profitability.

CNN.com already in the fold

[mbbac]

CNN charges for some of its premium content. However, I was unaware of this because I am a Roadrunner customer and as such don't need to pay for the premium content. I recently found out about it when a co-worker tried to view the Michael Jackson video they had and was prompted to sign up.

Result of Stupid Corporate Structure

[hirschma]

I used to work at Time Inc., back in the day, so I have some insight about why this is happening.

AOLTW is structured like a loose collection of fiefdoms. Each magazine, each business unit is largely independent of each other. If one wants the content of another, they PAY for it, using real dollars.

This manifested itself in some supreme silliness. For example, at one point, Warner Bros. refused to license the Roadrunner character for use to promote the RoadRunner service. There was also a point where getting articles on line required typing in articles from the early print runs - because the magazines either wouldn't or couldn't provide the material in a friendly electronic format. This constant state of civil war pretty much doomed pathfinder.com, TW's first attempt at online hegemony.

This is likely happening because the AOL side is paying big to put the stuff online, but is not getting a return for it. The other option for them, likely, was to stop putting the magazines on line at all.

Anyone that works there, or used to, knows that AOLTW only succeeds in spite of themselves. Their frictionful culture will eventually kill them.

Ah, but you use the wrong measure...

[Jerf]

My prediction is they will watch their hits drop precipitously for a while and start backpedaling.

Ah, but you see, they don't measure success in hits. They measure it in revenue or profit. In fact, if it costs them more to serve a page to a non-customer then they get from advertising on the page, reducing the hit count might well be a good thing!

One nice thing about the downturned economy is a renewed dose of sensibility on the part of businesses. I still wish they'd think a little more long term, but learning that you can't eat or sleep in "mindshare" is at least a little reality check...

Even I would become an AOL user. *ducks and covers

[miffo.swe]

It would be fun if they did this. At last some content instead of beefed up flash games and crappy stuff.

I have waited for someone to release old movies and music etc online that most people wouldnt dream of buying or renting. If it was cheap and had a fixed rate i'd go for it.

Lets face it, MSN is just a portal on steroids and not much more. Most of their content is bought from outsiders except the news and little else.

If AOL made such a bold decision they should have a huge pile of credit for it. No matter how evil they are percieved i think they deserve some if they do it.

NOTHING short of...

[GeneralEmergency]

...Jack Valenti screwing a snub-nosed .38 into my temple would ever get ME to sign up as an AOL subscriber.

Note to Self: Quit picking on Jack Valenti so much.

FWIW

[Inoshiro]

Java, C# both follow the same order of operations.

When you are casting like that, you will lose information.

Re:FWIW

[scotch]

sqrt() is not part of C, strictly speaking :) Type promotion contradicts standard math usage. Get over it. :)

Oh NO!

[bogie]

"The discussions so far have looked at core subject areas such as lifestyle, teens and celebrities. That means chunks, if not all, of Time Inc.'s Entertainment Weekly, People and Teen People magazines could be taken off the Web"

How will we ever survive without those three pillars of journalistic integrity?! My God, I mean how will I know how to dress cool? How will I find out who was "Man of the Year" or even worse I'll miss out on "Worst dressed".

Please everyone, try not to panic!!

AOL still in search of a business model

[azpenguin]

A while back, I naively applied for a job doing tech support for AOL. Turns out they were just looking for "Saves" people, who are the guys that take cancellation calls and beg and implore people to stay with AOL. I'm glad I didn't get the job. The tour they give of the place reinforces something that most people smart enough not to use AOL already know: AOL's customers are not the 30+ million people paying for access. AOL's customers are the advertisers that are told, "We have over thirty million captive people you can reach, whether through popups, banner ads, sales pitches on tech support calls, and email!" Lately this business model has bitten AOL and now Time Warner in the ass. Considering how many other sources there are for getting information, I think this will heavily dilute the value of the offered properties. There's not going to be enough value to entice any significant amount of people to either subscribe to AOL or pay the fee for the content. Also, most people who use AOL aren't using it because they can get exclusive content. They're using it because they see AOL as the internet. This isn't going to bump subscriber numbers significantly either up or down. I don't see a huge amount of risk for AOL/TW, but I don't see any real payoff either.

AOL and similar services are on their way out fast

[SiliconJesus101]

There was a time many years ago where the internet did not exist as we know it today and you needed to use AOL, Compuserv, Prodigy, etc to "get online". I remember the old days of dialing into a service on my Apple II+ with a 300 baud modem. Nothing more than a real advanced massive user BBS. This was the only way for a home user to get connected to anything. Fast forward to the present day; we now have the internet and all of it's content ad nauseum.

I think the only users that are still on AOL or similar services are from the baby boomer era and prior. The level of computer literacy we have today is unbelievable. Try to find a 10 year old kid today that doesn't know how to use a computer. As the current generation grows up and the AOL generation dies off you will see AOL start to fail even worse than it currently is.

A friend of mine teaches computer classes and calculus at the local high school and junior college. According to him, the students in his computer classes usually know far more than he does and are usually more (gasp) Linux and BSD savvy than he ever was. Looks like a trend to me....as us old farts step down a newer and more computer literate generation is stepping up....and they most definitely do not need AOL or the stigma attached to using it. This is nothing more than a company who's time has come and gone attempting to hold on to what little is left in their rapidly dwindling demographic market.

Heh.

[autopr0n]

No wonder the spellchecker couldn't figure out what I meant. I don't really put that much effort into slashdot postings, there are other things in life to worry about. And I do know where the word comes from, thank you.

toolbar.aol.com

[Anonymous Coward]

If the performance of toolbar.aol.com is any indication of what we can expect from "members only" aol sites, they should pay me for wasting my time :-)

Every aol/tw site hangs trying to get that worthless toolbar to download.

Barnaby

Times like this.

[dolo666]

I think it's times like this (when Corps get greedy/scared) when we all need to pay attention to what's going on. Look at a cat falling into a tub of water as its claws rear up in panic to grab a hold of anything it can, to try and stay out of the water. Naturally, the cat is going to hurt someone if it gets a hold of them. Naturally the cat is going to get wet because they are totally scatterbrained at the moment - without any sobriety or common sense to spare. (and no uncommon sense to spare either!)

Big business is no different than that poor panicked kitty when the boardrooms start changing their tack, in an effort to leverage people into buying into their crap. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for a service when they could find the same info for free? Likely the same people who wear I'm with Stoopid T-shirts (or perhaps those standing NEXT to them!!).

Let some other sucker pay for news. And why should we rush to companies with cash in hand? They provide a service to make money and, like RIAA, they make all too much of it if you ask me, and they spend it all trying to influence courts and politics.

Another total insight is that any society is only as advanced as the time it takes to find a given fact, and you could rate any age of society where this same is true - that the time it takes to find out a fact and understand it is directly proportionate to the level of advancement of the given society in time (at this time). I could go really off the wall and say that the next logical step for human advancement is the abolishment of corporations and finance, since the very act of resource hogging is Neolithic and an impetus to human advancement! But to refine and restrain my argument, I will instead suggest that on a given trajectory, human finance is likely a cultural necessity and although future exploits be damned, eventually it will end and become replaced by either some other exploit or some unilateral benefit (unlikely given human nature).

Corporations wish to slow down the transfer of information because the people who are now in control of the world are mostly getting old themselves, or at the whim of those who are aging!

Put in stop-gaps so we can keep up! Add some more costs and measures to make 'em line up to hand them money for services we don't even provide! (CNN could post something, Time picks it up and the non-AOL users over at time have to pay? That's nonsense. And what about Reuter's/AP?!?)

What companies need to adopt now is a policy that allows them to save customers money and yet generate money at the same time. Give and take is essential for market growth; try selling that to a boardroom AND keep the evil twists out of the mix! Customer breaks have to be unilateral or they don't work out in the long run. Society is getting smarter. Give a bunch of stuff away for free, but charge for extra pampering / better bandwidth / services / and accessories. Or maybe don't charge?

I challenge some philanthropist to design a company that runs perfectly without charging anyone money for goods and service. (And at the same time refrain from cult or criminal status!!!) I bet if someone ever invented that company, they would be the next Ben Franklin because that company if entered into competition with other companies would likely crush all competition in existence today.

All it would take is fifty people who decided to adhere to certain principles of non-profit competition with the end goal being free provision via science, technology et al.
Shit guys, I'm sure we could find 50 of em here at /. if we could pull them away from whatever they are doing in their cubicle!

Re:Times like this.

[Dirtside]

You have a lot of good ideas, but I wanted to point out a few of your, er, spoonerisms, so that your arguments might be better received in the future :)

that the time it takes to find out a fact and understand it is directly proportionate to the level of advancement of the given society in time (at this time)

What I think you're getting at is this: as the age of a society increases, the time it takes to find a given fact decreases. This is an inversely proportional relationship -- as one goes up (age) the other goes down (seek time). If something has a directly proportional relationship, then as one factor goes up (e.g. age), the other goes up (e.g. population).

since the very act of resource hogging is Neolithic and an impetus to human advancement!

An impetus is a push or shove that gets something going. The word I think you were looking for is "impediment", which means "obstruction". :)

some other exploit or some unilateral benefit (unlikely given human nature)

"Unilateral" means "one-sided". Perhaps you meant "universal"? Unilateral benefits seem likely given human nature -- people will strive to make things benefit only them. What's unlikely is something that benefits everyone (i.e. a universal benefit).

Aside from that... good stuff :)

Re:Times like this.

[dolo666]

This is an inversely proportional relationship -- as one goes up (age) the other goes down (seek time). If something has a directly proportional relationship, then as one factor goes up (e.g. age), the other goes up (e.g. population).

Eeek! You took me out of context or I didn't explain myself clearly. I'll paraphrase: The access/availability of factual information and the level of understanding of said info increases with the age of society -- that is what I meant. So I really meant to say directly proportionate. I think my stressing of the concept of the time decreasing was a mistake in that it's never wise to focus on what needs to be decreased as decreasing an abstract is quite difficult when it's not quantifiable, such as the time it takes to find something on the net that is valid, since that time is random. Therefore the increase of information available, the bonification of access via search tools like google, and the cross reference ability of a society are all stipulated and what really needs to be focused on. It's not the lack of any factor that is causing this benefit -- it's the existence of said facet.

An impetus is a push or shove that gets something going.

I did in fact mean to say that it's Neolithic *and* an impetus, in the sense that we must examine it and understand it. Now that we can see what it is, we can hold it up and thrust forward new ideologies.

"Unilateral" means "one-sided"

I did in fact mean to emphasize the fact that the exploits lead to a unilateral benefit, although my comment about it being unlikely given human behaviour was meant because once something is one sided, it turns back on itself by some other force as an eventuality (market / trend / gravity / Murphy's Law).

F=MA is what I was getting at.

I hope you decide to re-examine my writing and comment back! :) I love getting feedback like this because it give me a chance to clarify my meaning.

I guess it seems that I'm agreeing totally with you. =)

Irrelevant

[Pac]

Division and multiplication precedence here are pretty irrelevant, both int y= (1 / 2) * 3.14159 and int y= 1 / (2 * 3.14159) will result in y=0.

A related story

[egg troll]

In other news, crap is only available in a septic tank.

Seriously, if Time and People want to seal themselves off behind AOL's wall of crap, I say more power to them!

Fat Bloody Chnce

[Headius]

I already wrote to CNN.com and told them I would never EVER pay for their stupid video subscription. I could almost always see the videos somewhere else, and if I couldn't, who care? The news is what I care about...video is fluff at best.

If CNN.com goes away, boo-hoo. There's 100 other services out there that provide news for free, some without the capitalist slant. All these companies that are feeling the pinch of the slowing economy and the remains of the burst bubble break my heart. Cry me a river.

What nobody paid attention to back when the bubble was riding high was that surprise surprise, just because the Internet has arrived doesn't mean there's more consumers. The consumers just move from one product to another. It's akin to thermodynamics: demand cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form of demand to another. Sites that don't provide anything new or remarkably different from everyone else are not going to survive.

Originality is what drives the best sites. Google is a shockingly good search engine...Yahoo and Amazon are very simple interfaces to many different types of content (stores, news, searching, auctions) and of course eBay is simply the de-facto standard for buying and selling items online. Provide something new and original, or stop whining.

Just like CNN

[ehiris]

You have to pay for video but you can opt to not be a bandwidth hog and read for free as in speach not free as in video.

Don't forget the BBC

[doorbot.com]

Let's not forget that most of the headlines on CNN.com are sensationalized. And half of those are just watered down versions of what you might've seen on HardCopy. Ignoring Google for the moment, BBC News (especially the text-based version) is a great way for Americans to get their daily news.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/default.stm

Move over moviefone.com

[SpinyNorman]

This sounds like a great way for them to lose their almost monopoly on the movie listings business.

moviefone.com is/was the only AOL site I use, but I'll just as happily use a competitor provied by Microsoft, Yahoo, Google or whoever steps up to the plate.

But what about Road Runner?

[Hrothgar The Great]

Maybe I am missing something, but my cable modem ISP, Road Runner, is owned by Time Warner Cable. Does it seem odd to anyone else that I would be unable to browse content distributed by Road Runner's parent company over their own damn network?

If something about my statement is incorrect, please feel free to set me straight - I really am confused as to why TW would want to do that to their own customers, even if they are the same company as AOL now...

Payment plans, options, etc.

[Oculus Habent]

If companies start thinking of ads like in magazines and newspapers, you'll be at Ars Technica, clich the "next page" link, and be presented with a full screen Flash ad that you can't skip until it's loaded, played, and presented you with the link...

I'd rather pay $10 and spend 5 cents for every article I peruse than deal with that kind of hassle.

There are plenty of reasonable payment schemes.

• Per page rates like slashdot.
• Per article rates.
• Per "issue" rates - hard to do on sites not based on a printed publication as they tend to avoid "editions".
• Monthly/Yearly subscriptions.
• Now+ payments - $2 give you 7 days access to the site, or something similar.

Having several of these options available would be more work for billing, but would offer great choice to the user.

I like it fine

[alizard]

They have every right to do this, and I encourage them to do so.

Of course, their remaining online advertisers will shit bricks and demand MASSIVE cuts in ad rates. Most will probably vote by finding other places to advertise. They might get a dozen new subscribers out of this, but they'll be lucky if their advertising revenues are only cut in half.

Perhaps you'll join aol and start posting your new aol address to the world so you can get the content. I'll be watching and laughing.

Their smarter public stockholders will be selling it short as soon as they start doing this.

The wire service stuff they republish one can get anywhere anyway, including direct from the wire services.

And this affects me...how?

[ncc74656]

Since AOHell acquired Time Warner, I've cut out everything distributed under the combined company's name. CNN, TBS, etc. are deselected from "channels I watch" on my TiVo. (CNN already was, anyway...who needs CNN when you have Fox News Channel? Besides, Ted Turner is evil.) I don't watch their movies anymore (could be painful when the Matrix sequel comes along, but I haven't missed anything else). I don't click the links to CNN, Time, etc. that get posted here and elsewhere. They could go out of business tomorrow and it wouldn't affect anything that I read or watch.

(If the two companies decide to split up in the future (as has been rumored), I'd reconsider. Until then, AOHell isn't getting any of my money. They're worse than Microsoft...at least Microsoft doesn't have a stranglehold on the media.)

Hey, its their content, their customers.

[nurb432]

They can do what ever they please with it. It may or not make good business sence ( reducing market share is never good... ) but it IS their data...

Personally i wont even notice the difference, as its all biased anyway.. as is most of todays so called 'media'..

Re:Not especially bright, but not surprising eithe

[HamNRye]

So, TW acts as a middleman between artist and distributor, AOL acts as distributor... Why doesn't TW just buy Tower and Borders??

Time Warner can really begin to shaft their mid-tier distributors. This makes good sense.

Offer premimum content to flesh out your dead-tree subscribers and keep the normal content to show non-subscribers what they're missing. And I steadfastly refuse to pay for any content that is not ad-free. Period.

My misgiuded rant....

~Hammy

Low-brow Readership

[jellybear]

With their main readership being aolers, the content will probably become even more low-brow than it is now.

In related news...

[bryan1945]

The Bryan Empire will only let subscribers to his daily defecation witness the event. Everyone else has to pay $49.95 for the event.

10 years ago I never would have believed the above to be true, now I shudder at the fact that it may become true in the next 10 years.

I believe that our lives have become so easy that the "Running Man" may be next.

Music

[loconet]

Does this include music? Does this mean that only AOL users are entitled to sing and be sang Happy Birthday?

Yes, AOL Time Warners owns the copyrights for the Happy Birthday Song!

a thought

[meatspray]

For the price of the AOL subscription, I could get the hard-copies of the TW content several times over can I not?

You're nuts, AOL-only 2x-3x value

[alexhmit01]

AOL users are the target demographics for Internet users. My business does a lot of work in "Internet Marketing," primarily search engine marketing. When AOL switched to Google, we did a little dance. Our bread and butter customers are AOL users. I've run the numbers, and our AOL users are easily worth 2x-3x the Internet as a whole.

Let's be real, if I'm selling a mass market product, would I rather his "everyman" on AOL, not too tech savvy but willing to pay extra for things, or the Slashdot "everything should be free and I'll help you circumvent the New York Times free registration" crew? The largest pools of users are AOL users and college students. Which crew has more money to drop on luxury items?

Not only that, if the service is limited to AOL users & paying Time Warner users (say, through Netscape.com as the service), the ads are even more valuable. By limiting it to people that are paying for a premium service (and AOL is 20% more than most ISPs, and 100% more than the cheapest) or paying for content, I am limiting myself to people with disposable income.

I got a friend doing the struggling artist thing in New York. She was complaining that she thinks that the NYT should sell "sections" of their paper cheaper so she could just buy the sections she wants. She doesn't understand why they pass up selling to her. I tried to explain to her that advertisers aren't interested in people trying to save 50 cents on the paper...

Alex

The once and future business model

[Reziac]

For many years, people subscribed to AOL, Compu$erve, Prodigy, and other online services *because* of the unique proprietary content (certainly no one subbed to Prodigy or AOL for the topnotch service!) But as similar content became widespread on the net at large, people wandered away to general ISPs, and the proprietary content model gradually fell apart.

Can it be made to work again? probably not unless it becomes so widespread as to be ubiquitous. But meanwhile, I think it's a reasonable business model for AOL/TW to investigate, since they already have the subscriber base and own the content.

Occurs to me that as a logical extension, AOL should also offer TW-owned entertainment content (music and movies) as a reliable replacement for the iffy files folks now scrounge from P2P sources. Tack on another $10/month and call it "AOL Premium".