Slashdot Mirror
AOL: Amazon Who?
theodp writes "America Online said that it is now selling DVDs and CDs directly as part of its push into digital music, ending a temporary link it had with Amazon.com until it was able to do so itself. The step to sell physical CDs and DVDs is part of AOL's efforts to get a bigger share of the digital music pie to offset shrinkage in its dial-up Internet service and the slump in ad spending. AOL plans to build on its music offerings, which now include online music subscription service MusicNet, with a digital music store that will let users burn as many songs to CDs as they want."
Does this mean they'll include music in those damn CD's they keep sending me?
When you put these discs into a microwave.
...from the guys that brought you Gnutella!
rc55.com
AOL needs to get a more broad name going on here... especially since thier next offering will probably be 'Underwater basket weaving' Why not just 'Microsoft'
-Digital Extremist
Everybody knows Amazon will be done for. For, with every AOL STORE CD purchase, you get two CDs free of AOL's own choice!
Even before you make a purchase!
If you know what I mean... When you look at it this way, AOL is already the biggest CD distributor already, with the most CD's in the most homes (and trash cans.)
Cover your eyes and click this link!
"We need a way to boost our profits now that everyone is dropping our worthless service and getting cable and DSL. Hmmm... I know! We'll sell music! Now that Napster is gone, we don't have to worry about piracy anymore. Wait 'till our stockholders hear this! This is almost as great as my idea for AOL Airlines."
to offset shrinkage in its dial-up Internet service
So, wait, who is stealing AOL dialup? More interestingly, why would people steal AOL dialup?
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - useless and outdated service provider AOL was found dead in on the .com cutting floor this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to landfills full of unopened CD's. Truly an internet bubble icon.
With your subscription to Music.Net you get unlimited suckage free of charge!
on July 4th, 2004, AOL became self-aware, it took control of communications and launched an attack on us, the humans.
3 billion people died that day.
Buying your internet access alone from America Online is dubious enough in it's justification. But buying your music CD's from AOL? That's tantamount to clinical insanity.
VOTE!
Such a sad day for the company. They just lost an agreement with the biggest CD distributor in the country.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
I'd imagine that even the newest of AOL users would still be able to type in www.amazon.com in thier web browser. I assume AOL will have some type of in your face promotion for this online but unless they can undercut Amazon and the other thousand or so places to by music online on the selection you want, they will just be another place to price check before buying.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
With the labels and the studios getting more and more involved in distributing directly to the customer, is this signalling the end for the middle men?
:o)
People like Amazon will have a hard time selling music if everything from AOL Time Warner and Sony (for example) is only available direct. After all in the online space AOL TW has absolutley no need of Amazon - they are a big enough brand that people will be happy enough to buy things from them, and location is not an issue.
Unfortunatly I can't see the removal of the cut that the middle man gets going to the consumer or even the artist.
It'll be a good things for us geeks on a digital boycott of DRM enabled media however - you won't have to go looking to find out which ones are AOL TW productions, you can just avoid shopping at their e-store
Beep beep.
it does n't mean anything because they're just distributing the same CD.
There's quite a bit of difference between automated labeling of a single pre-packaged product such as the AOL CD and an order fullfilment process. Infact the only common denominator is that just happen to be CD's, there really is n't much overlap here.
The first step is to sell CDs directly without Amazon.
The second step will be when Amazon's name mysteriously disappears from AOLs DNS servers.
Third? The lengthy court battle...
Will it be like this:
You'll end up getting 3 CD's a week you didn't order?
You'll call to cancel, but there is a fee, and the CDs keep coming anyway?
When you try to stop playing their CD's, will your stereo / DVD player fail to play CD's from other sources?
Will DVD Owners end up forming a class action law suit to regain control of their TVs?
AOL - is that pronounced 'A - Hole's ? Right?
It story seems to me very similar to the history of Mircosoft:a single company with a proprietary, incompatible products steadily increased their market share by aggressive advertisement until they became the dominant monopolist.
Don't be fooled by the fact that AOL is just a service provider. If they control over 70 percent of the internet access of private customers all players in the network business would have to follow their word and do their bidding. They could dominate standards bodies and in fact enforce proprietary standards locked by IP and patents on the whole internet.
This makes me wonder if it's now time for a GPL service provider. By following the principles of the free software movement, they could set up free WIFI access to the internet. This would have the nice side effect that the US goverment won't be able to censor the internet any longer. Furthermore we might get all free broadband access without paying huge fees to greedy companies which do nothing for the community.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
I realize they're talking about buying CDs and DVDs, but eventually they'll have to move it into Internet downloads like Apple's iTMS.
:)
Obviously they're use some type of DRM (most likely developed by their A/V gurus at Nullsoft....Frankel'll love that one), but once an AOL user leaves the collective will they still get to take their music with them or will they require AOL for the rest of their adult life?
That it, until they lose another $99,000,000,000 this year and are forced out of business
Or maybe just set up a playlist they can stream off the order status page of whatever they ordered. Once the order is fulfilled the playlist can go away along with the order page.
If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
The joke is that AMAZON lost an agreement with the biggest CD distributor in the country (AOL) ;)
He's (OKAY fine, I'm xintegerx) putting a different spin on the story...
Who would really trust getting anything from AOL anyway? I mean it's one thing if I buy from Amazon and they mysteriously start customizing the home page to "fit my tastes" - which is sort of disturbing from a privacy sort of view, and also sort of disturbing seeing death metal stuff mixed in with anime on a front page. But if I had AOL and bought music from them, I imagine that the harassment would never end. I mean AOL is like a big commercial already, and with the control they have over their user's Internet experience, I can see major harassment to follow.
The music industry is really in dire straits when AOL can take the lead in selling music. But it is a good move, and probably good for consumers. selling music on disc and as downloads makes sense. I suspect we are seeing the slow but real migration of music distribution from offline retail to online retail. When Walmart start selling tracks you know it's finally happened.
The more companies do this, the more competition and the better the choice for the consumer. If there is one single way to eliminate those pesky P2P people, this is it.
Oh, and AOL, while you're at it, please start planning to sell TV series and movies the same way.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
No, when you put one of their DVDs in your DVD player, it'll force you to wait and download a damn update to their software before you can turn off your TV
;)
So they're not taking control... They're just annoying as hell
KappaStone
to offset shrinkage in its dial-up Internet service
Must be cold in the modem pool...
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
There would be enormous consumer uproar, and the DOJ would come after AOL for anti-trust violations.
LOL, well, I've been calling them A-O-Hell for years now...
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
True, but many of the people with AOL like having no control of the internet. To my parents (I didn't allow it before I left for college) just wanted AOL. It tells you when you have email. It tells you where to find your news, where to shop, and constantly gives you help and advice. They just didn't want to take the time to figure things out on there own. So AOL is providing what many of their customers probably want.
Thankfully, for my sanity when I come home, my father has finally begun to use Netscape 7 (he's not quite ready for a browser he has never heard of) and shop at stores online other than those that AOL recommends. Give the users time, they will eventually agree with your comments. But not until they get over their fear of the great big Internet. Baby steps.
AOL will never become the Microsoft of the internet. They got to where they are now by providing a user friendly experience over dialup connections. The vast majority of their customers are still dial-up too.
However, where they succeeded in dial-up, it is unlikely that will continue onward in broadband. Dial-up is a lot easier to run, there is relatively little infrastructure to maintain besides the back-end internet connection and the phone bank. Broadband is an entirely different ball game. Especially now that the FCC has ruled the telcos no longer have to share their DSL. The only major players in the near short term are going to be the cable companies and the telcos. Granted, AOL owns one of those cable companies but they have a lot more fiercer competitors, some who have a lot more experience in running those types of networks.
The only area that AOL can really differentiate itself from its competitors, is through its add-on 'community service'. But most households that opt for broadband are unlikely to want to pay extra for this service. People don't buy broadband so they can experience AOL at faster speeds. They get it for other uses like music, movies, etc.
I believe, cable is currently leading the pack over DSL, and AOL is lucky to be on that side of the fence. However I am not convinced that cable is the wave of the future. I don't believe the telcos are going to be pushed out of business lightly. They have a lot of congressional lobbying influence. When they get their act together and begin to offer residential fiber optic service in mass, at reasonable prices, the pendalum may swing back the other way. And for the users that don't need the extra speed of fiber optic, some generation of WiFi may take over. It's cheaper to run, no need to lay feed and just access points to maintain.
When the Internet becomes as pervasive as the telephone/cell phone,etc has now we will really start to see some great things out of it. Before that happens though, connection fees are going to have to be a lot cheaper than they currently are.
I was just wondering if they are still doing this or if it is now possible to buy from them and not get spammed to death.
Didn't Amazon patent the whole contract-cancelling process a couple of years ago?
I mean AOL is like a big commercial already, and with the control they have over their user's Internet experience, I can see major harassment to follow.
It's not harassment. It's value-adding.
AOL adds perceived value to a membership by offering AOL Call Alert for $4 a month, voice mail for $6 a month, premium packages that allow multiple concurrent sign-ins (for families) for $6 a month, and all sorts of co-branded programs from which they derive revenue. This music/DVD sales idea is no different from, say, "AOL Shopper's Advantage" (which is just this with an AOL logo on it).
AOL spends more than any other Internet service to gain customers -- I remember reading that it costs about $52 for AOL to recruit a new member, so they have to make that up as quickly as possible.
For more information, click here.
As far as AOL competing in this space, I will not clam that it will never happen, but an AOL that gets business customers will need to offer quite a different product than the one they sell to residential ones.
On the subject of CD/DVD sales, I see them getting a good amount of business from AOL subscribers as they can make it extremely easy for their customers to locate/buy these items( via the AOL interface ). Their business would then do well for the same reason Internet Exploder is popular with Windows users...it's right there in your face, no need to go looking for a competing product.
How will this affect Amazon/Barnes&Noble? Not much, those companies have loyal customer bases and plenty of marketing also.
I can't afford a sig!
My question is, will the strategy of selling to a declining population (as people leave AOL for other Internet providers) be worth it in the long run? Sure, AOL/TW can make money off their subscribers this way, but, as someone previously posted, when AOL users' anxiety over the Internet drops to the point where they look elsewhere for service, AOL/TW loses that potential sales channel completely.
I don't think AOL is going away anytime soon, but unless AOL is also going to pursue an *outside* channel of sales (one that non-AOL subscribers can get in on) as well, the strategy only makes sense in the short term. I'd guess that there's something larger in the AOL/TW works, and this announcement is the equivalent of "open beta".
- Jack
If AOL really wanted to save money, they'd stop supplying every friggen' store and consumer in America with two thousand CDs whenever a new version came out. :P
Why not just offer free streaming music of the entire TimeWarner collection of artists to AOL users? Seems like a decent way to attract customers.
AOL does own the following artists' works: Frank Sinatra, Fleetwood Mac, Eric Clapton, Neil Young, James Taylor, The Grateful Dead, Talking Heads, B-52s, Doobie Brothers, Little Feat, Van Morrison, The Ramones, Depeche Mode, The Kinks, Paul Simon, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Miles Davis, Randy Newman, Dire Straits, Prince, Emmylou Harris, Madonna, Linkin Park, Enya, Faith Hill, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tom Petty, R.E.M., Disturbed, Goo Goo Dolls, Blake Shelton, Trick Pony, Seal, Green Day, Sixpence None The Richer, Steely Dan, Josh Groban, The Flaming Lips, Jaheim, SK, D'Mello, Souljahz, Brad Mehldau, Joshua Redman, Pat Metheny, Robert Randolph, The Used, Glassjaw, and Barenaked Ladies; as well as thousands of others.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
...a digital music store that will let users burn as many songs to CDs as they want
I burn as many songs to CD as want already. Nobody has to let me. As long as it's non-commercial, etc., it's everyone's right to do so.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Can they just go bankrupt already?
I look forward to seeing all the questionable accounting and insider trading that the executives of that cancerous beheamoth is beyond a doubt guilty of.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
It will be interesting to see if they are around in five years.
AOL, one of the largest (and arguably hoariest) national internet service providers around, is losing business because of some questionable business practices and needs to generate more revenue.
In order to do this, they've severed ties with a prominent internet business (Amazon) and are going to attempt to run their own physical media music store...
Excuse me? Where's the sense in this?? If you have a business model that's doing poorly, you are not supposed to tack on another business model that's also doing poorly! If the problem is too much fat, the solution is not to tack more on.
As someone at Adbusters said, "Economists must learn to subtract." While the specific application is different in this case, the basic principle holds true for most businessmen, accountants, and marketers who can only think of "bigger" and "more profitable" and not "streamlined" and "more responsible."
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
The problem with "direct" sales is most record labels won't want to sell anything from the others. It AOL really going to sell Sony music? Nah. So are we going to have to buy music based on label not band?
"Dude you can't get that at the Sony store. That's AOL".
I'll take something like Amazon any day--very easy.
This should not suprise anyone. AOL is part of Time-Warner, which is one of the BIGGEST media and recording companies. This is just Time-Warner using AOL as an in-house storefront and reaping more profit by cutting out the distrubitor and retail middle-men. You should probably start to expect to see other Time-Warner stuff on AOL like movie DVDs and magazine subscriptions. I'm actually suprised this didn't happen earlier.
I bought Less Than Jake's new CD called Anthem in a prerelease special. Buying direct from the record company gave me the bonus of having it [supposedly] autographed by all five members of the band, but guess what else? It was copy protected.
The bias in many of these comments is very sad. They seem to suggest that we should ONLY buy music from amazon? Competition is bad now?
The more people that sell music etc online, the more likely it is that we will be able to get music the way we want to.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
or a more legal method might be to secretly slow down all traffic to amazon.com from AOL's Walled Garden. How would anyone find out? Amazon.com still works; it's just twice as slow.
cpeterso
So, people are probably wondering "Why doesn't AOL just open an online music store like Apple and integrate it into their browser?" Simple. AOL is too damn slow, and they know it. It would take *years* to download a cd from them.
(Plus, as was already noted many times above, they are already good at making a lot of CDs.)
You wouldn't enjoy the music they gave you one those CDs. It would be the same stuff that's sold in gas stations and truck stops throughout the world.
Hmm, I was under the impression that AOL/Compuserve learnt that craft years ago.
I wonder how much land one could cover with all the unused CS CDs that were included with PC mags over the years.
Ok.. so I haven't seen anyone mention this yet... ...click on any one of the "shops" Now, Look towards the center-bottom of the page. Whats it say there? Yeah, thats right... technology POWERED BY AMAZON.COM SO... this means that Amazon gets to furnish aol with the sales software and all the other DB workings.. but not have to deal with Physical inventory or warehousing... This means that Time Warner can deal with all expensive stuff and Amazon just keeps raking it in.
Go to http://shop.aol.com
AOL trying to break into the DVD/CD market is going to end up what K-mart tried to do with its dial-up service. (We all know how that went.)
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin