Slashdot Mirror
AOL To Charge for AIM Videoconferences
gwoodrow writes "In some of my college computer classes, we discussed the necessity of some sort of profit to be made eventually from major software. AIM was often sited as a rare example of a large company offering up a free service that generated almost no profit whatsoever. Well, that's all changing. It seems that AOL will begin charging for both voice and video conferencing services via the buddy list. Some AIM addicts are surely getting worried that AOL may eventually charge for regular usage."
Why charge for AIM when you can slowly put ads on the AIM conversation windows ala ICQ.
I like working at home in the nude, but that's not something other people need to be exposed to!
I wonder what this means for iChat?
Just AOL IM or all using the protocol?
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
How will they handle this if one person is using iChat and the other's on AOL or AIM?
AOL will probably be able to charge for this and get away with it, but charging for the basics won't ever work, there are too many free competitors.
They better improve the software a whole lot though.
To avoid being charged, forward this message to everyone on your contact list! AOL will keep track of how many people forward this and if enough of us do, then they will be forced to keep AIM free! Thanks!
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Goodbye AIM! It's been a long run while it lasted. NEXT!
The problem with a business model like this is that you then your subscribers can only talk to other subscribers. If you essentially ARE the market for instant messenging, the case of AIM, then you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot as you scare away the vast majority of your users. Even if they did charge for any AIM usage (not just voice/video), and I signed up, what would be the point? I can't imagine anyone else I know paying for AIM. Buddy lists will only be filled with fools that have recently parted with their money. I can't imagine that they'll be able to make back in subscribing fees what they'll lose in advertising from the mass exodus..
I hope they do start charging for it. Perhaps then people will finally move to an open standard such as Jabber.
they'd start charging for AIM. because they have such a monopoly in the instant messaging field that people would rather pay for AIM (spyware and ads included!) than use yahoo or msn.
why will people even pay for videoconferencing when it's free elsewhere?
There are so many alternatives and other options, why would anyone worry? Yeah, okay, you might have to tell/convince your friends to use a different service, but free is a word most people can't ignore.
Oh, and ads are annoying as hell (reason why I use Gaim).
Doesn't AIM get some money from advertisers since they get their adds put in front of millions of people? I dunno how much $ this would pull, but I would guess its enough to at least break even? Either way, I could see the justification for the more bandwith intensive parts of AIM being paid for, especially if the bandwith strain on the AOL system increases along with it.
why would anyone pay that much?
Yahoo and MSN offer very good audio and video conf. Somehow I feel AIM is much more bloated than the other two. Yahoo IM has seen a lot of improvements lately. the voice is pretty clear and the video is pretty darn good. Initially it would be difficuly for some to use another messenger, not to mention add everyone in your buddy list but AIM would loose out the cost factor, atleast in audio and video conf.
This won't affect me that much even though I do use AIM. Most of my contacts also have other messenger programs, and since trillian is my program of choice it won't change the way I communicate to them one bit. I don't think AOL will charge for it's normal service, in fact I think they will give up on charging for video conference with all the other alternatives out there such as yahoo and msn which also have perfectly capable (and free) video conferencing. Yes they make a little money from advertising, but the end users aren't the ones shelling out the cash, and I don't think they will.
won't this just cause a rapid flow to MSN Messenger, which supports free video conferencing?
Um, why not just switch to Yahoo Messenger then?
That'll kill AIM. Good. 'Bout time the world moves to a better medium for instant messaging.
And notice I said "better for IM" - as far as I know, streaming XML isn't the best choice for video conferencing.
I thought the voice and video connections go direct from one user to another? How would AOL regulate this?
Instead of making so many AOL cds (I have at least 2,000-3,000), maybe they could stop doing that stupid crap all together and put the savings towards something else. Oh, say, free IM's or cheaper Internet access? Whadya say?
When I call someone and talk to them, the phone call is charged. When voice transmission itself is not free, why should video conferencing be?
users worried about other features being made into paid service need not worry. Comeptetion will always bring prices down and as long as there is someone else offering the service for free, AOL cannot charge for it.
If you lost your job today, don't despair. You may die tomorrow anyway.
...if they charge for aim... people will either pay, or create an alternative. now, since some people will pay, and a few will create an alternative, they paying people will eventually see everyone going to the one that is free... so people will still have free IM software. problem solved. --macman552
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature to help me spread!
I mean, give me a break. Next thing you know we'll be asked to protest by sending chain IMs around.
And this applies to AOL just how?
So what happens? As audio and video chats take off, I think that AIM will decline in use. Many people love AIM, but I think AOL is overestimating how many people like free things better. They'll find something else. In the end it is only those who already subscribe to AOL that will use those services because they won't have to pay extra. There will be a few, but I doubt many will use it with free offerings out there.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
So... how much will a Jabber-based or Gnome Meeting-based conference call or any of the other open-source IMing/conferencing systems cost?
Looks like AOL is giving us one of many reasons to quit AIM. Cleartext messaging is another big reason. Not that the NSA isn't recording everywhere, including our cell calls and can't break sophisticated communication codes anyway, but some modicum of an excuse for privacy might be nice.
If AIM services begin to be charged, they will alienate their obscenely large user base, and fleeing users will start using ICQ/MSN/Yahoo/etc. instead.
This also might give the guys at Gaim-vv a boost via incentives and volunteer manpower.
Step 1: Offer the service for free initially.
Step 2: Get the customers hooked.
Step 3: Milk the customers.
I wonder if this business strategy has been patented yet.
The article doesn't say anything about charging for video. AOL is introducing a conference call service (like a group chat, only for voice) that they will be charging money for. Now they say you'll be able to integrate video with these conference calls, which sounds cool, but nothing users can currently do free will now cost money
I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads
Please explain the commercial success of basic cable television.
People might actually get some work done again. AIM is the new PowerPoint.
Maybe this will finally open peoples eyes to other IM clients that exist out there - especially open source ones.
Even there isn't something up AOLs standards (AOL + Standards in the same sentence???) then hopefully this will create demand for something different and hopefully open source. Cause you can be assured, as soon as AOL start doing it and M$ start seeing a profit being made then who do you think will join the bandwagon...
Jabber.org.
Okay, fine. Completely switching is hard since many people still use ICQ/AIM/etc, but that's what clients that support multiple protocols, like gaim and trilliant, are for.
But whenever you have a chance, for projects, friends, etc. Use Jabber, the future will thank you.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
From reading the article it doesn't seem to mention anything about charging consumers for this service. Unless I am missing something obly corporate customers who want to pay for a special web based meeting room will pay for the service per minute. Please correct me if I'm wrong...after reading TFA.
I had to laugh about this. I was an early adopter of ICQ back in the day. Remember all the "ICQ is going to charge" trolls that kept getting dimwits to forward that to their contact list? Oh please kill me!
Anyway, the AIM charging for video doesn't work for me. There will always be free services around that don't require fees. What they *should* do is hide the fees in your subscription and only allow subscribers to use VC... that would totally fly. Why these companies announce these fees makes about as much sense as the mass-mailing of registration CDROMs!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The author of this story writes: offering up a free service that generated almost no profit whatsoever
No successful company does anything the doesn't either directly or indirectly generate revenue.
AOL doesn't make money by selling AIM but by giving it away free it does 2 things.
1.Enhances the AOL brand. AOL stays well known and attracts customers. Customers=Money.
2. AIM provides an added functionality to AOL. AOL users who like AIM (because all their AOL friends and some non-AOL friends use AIM). AOL keeps customers. Customers=Money.
My point? Companies don't have to charge money for a product to profit from it.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
And even if all the other IM services start charging money, it does not matter to me. I could bang out a simple java program which uses sockets to send IM's back and forth with my friends. Anyone that wants to be added to the list can get the program emailed to them, no problem with platform. I know it sounds simplistic, but it is so simple to write in java. I bet there would be a ton of free open source alternatives within a few days.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
More than likely, regular usage will be part of the basic subscription fee and the add ons- video and voice, the charges seem to be fashioned after basic communication fee models already in popular use.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
Jabber.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
What does this mean for Jabber?
Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
What, exactly, are they planning on charging for? The only resources that are really important to make chat systems work are connections at each end, and some sort of directory to tell you what computer to contact to reach a given person.
Now, I already pay for my connection, and my ISP thanks me for it once a month. The directory service can be implemented any of a bunch of different ways, including using existing protocols.
AOL cleverly inserted itself into instant messaging by designing AIM to make the AIM servers a sort of middleman (at least according to my limited understanding of AIM workings). They did a lot to make instant messaging easy to use and popular, and in return they got a lot of influence in that sector. But if they're going to charge, they're going to have to add some sort of greater value than what I see right now.
I suspect they will simply cost-roll these services so they can control how much they charge/budget internally without disclosing the value of the services to end-users, but they will publish the value to advertisers, and inflate for AOL.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
In the absence of a "viable" OSS (GNU) alternative, I think it will work. Even voice chating has not progressed beyond the capabilities of SpeakFreely.
Peace
Congratulations America - Antitrust law is now as worthless as the paper it's printed on!
A provision of the original terms of the AOL/Time Warner merger was the AOL would have to open it's AIM protocol before it implemented voice/video services:
In a January 11, 2001 statement by FCC Chairman William E. Kennard, upon AOL's merger with Time Warner, the FCC noted that "We require AOL to interoperate with competing instant messaging (IM) providers before it can offer videoconferencing and other streaming video over IM. This condition guards against AOL's ability to leverage its existing dominance in current IM into the broadband IM marketplace."
The FCC never followed through on this - and now AOL is officially offering voice/video and charging for it to boot. So go ahead enormous corporations! Merge to your hearts content! Merge up and down the supply chain, across competitors, whatever you want - Its all good! We'll slap provisions on you to pretend we're protecting the marketplace but won't enforce them!
Remember last week's column on abolishing the FCC? Maybe it deserves a second look at this point . . .
Why should we even worry about this? Lots of previous AOL subscribers found out that they really only wanted plain Internet access, and moved on to cheaper alternatives. Either AOL will find a new source of revenue, or their subscriber base will shrink even further.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Occasionally, the free/very cheap software model works by spreading a brand name further. iTunes is a prime example of that. Even though Apple makes virtually no revenue from their music store, it has become such a mainstay that it seriously drives sales of the iPod. It's common now to see people in Best Buy pick up a Napster gift certificate, carry it over to a salesperson and go, "Will this work with an iPod?" The salesperson says no, and the person puts it back. iTunes and the iPod are in a state of total dominance and are reaping the rewards.
Similarly, most people use AIM over any other service. However, targeting businesses seems to me like a bad idea. Regular users tend to spend their money on whatever is the most popular, but business users always look at the bottom line. Sharp budgeters handling company finances are going to see other messenger services with free video and voice as a simple way to trim some fat. I think that AOL will fall flat on this one. Although it doesn't surprise me - I'm sure they're getting desperate now that their primary service is becoming a bigger joke every day.
But I do agree with the previous posters who hope that AOL does begin to charge for instant messenger. It'll help our nation's youth to stop using such stoopid sPeLLiNg 'n gramer jus 2 type fstr.
Oh, my god! Being asked to pay for something that you use?! Who'd've thought! What a travesty!
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
From working at a computer repair business/ISP, I've noticed most novice or inexperienced users are totally unaware of other IM service other than AIM. AOL could start charging for basic AIM service, and there's a good chance they could keep the less experienced portion of their user base. If the users are unaware of an alternative, are unable to install/configure one themselves (trivial for /.ers, but software installation scares off many users), or simple do not want to/fear using new software, many would stick with AIM. Doing this on the logic that for them there is no other way to message on another. The lucky ones with geek friends/family could straighten them out, but the "unwashed masses" would be stuck with paying to message.
I personally don't use video AIM because it only runs on Windows XP, and I am exclusively Win2K on my home PCs.
I use Yahoo Internet Chat video and audio. I've done chats with people in Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan.
ICQ video chat is still free (and is owned by AOL). Not to mention yahoo video chat is still free.
-Valiss
AIM was often sited as a rare example of a large company offering up a free service that generated almost no profit whatsoever.
And it would seem that those classes have not included english yet.
AIMGod7412: OMG WTF AOL?!?! DON'T STEAL MY LIFE STREAAMM!!11one1!1!!
::kicks AOL in teh pants::
BasementGuy312: Noooooooooooooo!!
jUsTiNlUvEr: rotflmao @ U!!!
cited
There is no Mac AOL for broadband client. Thusly, if one did happen to use a Mac and wanted to use, oh say, AIM for videoconferencing, folks cannot. Thusly, the musing about cross-platform iChat support does come into play.
If they charged for captial letters then they could make some real money off those aol users since they all write in caps like they're yelling and you can tell them that over and over but they never seem to learn. And read a faq? Sheesh they don't even know what one is. I think aol lusers should be banned from the internet. Just cancel all their posts and ignore any email coming from that domain.
(sorry I had a flashback to 1995 Usenet)
Just go back using IRC. At least that is free.
That should read AIM was cited...
- MSN Messenger
- Yahoo! Messenger
- Jabber
They currently have the Lion's share of the IM Market, but doing something like charging for use would put the kibosh on that REAL quick.no one will use that OSS pile of shit. they will stick go with something that acturally works.
so much for your little OSS jacj-off session.
Recently AOL changed their policy to lock out the AIM accounts of people who created those accounts while they were paying AOL members. These AIM accounts used to work fine, even after cancelling your AOL account (as you would expect, since AIM is a "free" service).
Unfortunately, now you need to sign up again (and pay $$) to "rescue" your AIM account (and your AIM id, which everyone knows you as). And you need to remain paying, or else.... Yes, you get locked out again.
Brilliant plan AOL.
Aq
from other articles on the subject, the person initiating the conference is the one who pays, not the other participants.
It's called a loss leader -- and why would they stop now when they've got enough critical mass among their captive market to launch a pay service within the free service?
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
If you ask me, AOL starting to charge is great news. It'll be an incentive for people to switch to open source alternatives. Bye, bye, AOL!
Google offers gIM based on jabber with the launch of gmail. A custom client that could interface with gmail like MSN messenger does with hotmail, but based on an open standard would be great, and google has the recognition to draw people from AIM or Yahoo Messenger. It'd be even better if they offered add ons to services such as GAIM or trillian that combine all the major IM services. *sigh* Wishful thinking...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want. It's been their longterm goal for a while now. They've got a whole site dedicated to it. companies want control and security so AOL is trying to get them to buy stuff like encryption, identity verification, domained screen names, and i think they've got a version of aim that allows network admins to control who talks to who and logs conversations. everyone is familiar with their basic product so it allows them to make a pretty good pitch once they add in the extras.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
With something like 300 million users now, even if 10 % stays to pay, that's still like 30 million users. Per month, say, 10 $, that's 300 million per MONTH.
So of course they're going to charge money!
Since win98, NetMeeting has been available and supports videoconferencing, chat, and even shared applications. It's also *free* to download.
:)
A quick way to it if you don't see an icon is to run conf.exe
I had some fun with this one by talking a family member into sharing their AOL client. It had me laughing for the rest of the night after I signed him off
In order to have a video chat or voice chat with someone on AIM, you direct connect to them, i.e thier IP. That is why you can send any limit text IM when directly connected, but using AIM's servers, you are limited to 1024 characters. Why are they charging when you aren't using their bandwidth (aside from your buddy list updating and such) to chat via video or voice?
With single screennames going on ebay for $100+.... i mean come on..
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
That doesn't sound so bad. I've met so many nice people on AOL. Why just last night, right out of the blue I got an instant message from sEXycHiK6969 who wanted to show me her webcam. Imagine that! And AOLs online help instant messages me everyday day asking about my credit card number. They really care about their customers!
This is just another reason to move to Jabber (or some other alternative). If there isn't already a voice/video conferencing extension i don't know about, I'm sure there will be in short time.
Many of the bussiness-level services AOL is trying to offer could even be implemented with Jabber on a per-server basis, allowing everything to be free still, but businesses could pay for extra services or more reliability (dedicated lines and servers and such) or what-not.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
Isn't a video conference established by a direct connection between the two users?
So there will be no stress on their servers from the use of video conference.
So what service will they be charging for? use of the software? (pay to continue using that which you already have?)
Less look fast, more go fast.
MSN needs to get these ideas too, we need to topple big business IM so as to cause the emergence of a single open standard with open clients. The greed of the current 3 major players could be exactly what we need to bring about a revolution resulting in good software anyone can use!
And Internet users often cite AIM as a site at which to enjoy the sight of cute and fuzzy emoticons wielded by fellow lonely chat buddies.
The beginnings of many romances have been sited in the virtual space between AIM's colorful chat windows; and many rueful addicts cite AIM as a site at which to waste inordinate amounts of time sighting and sizing up new candidates for "companionship".
A/S/L??? (Anybody??)
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
I use Jabber via Miranda-IM. I find it specially useful whenever MSN's servers are down. But I have a question, related to the topic of the article: does any Jabber based client supports some kind of videoconferencing and/or voice chat? I'm too lazy right now to lookup for this (I'm not asking for cross-platform videochat -- even if such a thing exists).
...or at least it's becomming more and more visible how it's going too. It's too damn hard to get a screen name that isn't taken, because you have all of AIM and all of regular AOL to compete with, and accounts don't ever disappear. Eventually that namespace is going to be used up.
Charging for voice and video is an injustice because AOL is not bouncing the stream off it's own servers; it goes P2P, so to speak. So what are they charging for? You're effectively renting software as you use it, and that's not going to fly, for the same reason charging micropayments by the IM is a bad idea.
Looks liek it's time for me to get started on that IM client project I've been meaning to start for years, everytime I get fed up with being booted off AOL. I'll make millions while AOL crumbles beneath me! MUAHAHA*ahem* sorry.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
why don't we just reverse engineer AIM and create our own AIM Oscar servers that can be run with a regular AIM client... huh? it makes sense... why haven't we done it already? that way we can have any screen name we want on those servers (like IRC) and just have small groups of friends use them... AIM is the main IM client now so why not create our own AIM server like BNetD project? someone want to start this with me?
red rocket... red rocket..
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
The IM infrastructure, whether text, voice, or video, should never have become centralized--there is no technical reason for it. And companies like AOL and Microsoft have been poor stewards of the IM infrastructure they have created anyway.
As long as it was "free", it didn't matter much to most people. Now that they have to pay, hopefully they will have an incentive to move to decentralized, non-proprietary systems, and IM will become what it should have been since the start.
content delivery.
And lest you say that the delivery is merely the means to get the content, don't forget that you can get the same content via satallite, and in many cases, on DVD (both by purchase and through blockbuster/netflix).
paintball
That's like saying the big problem with charging for cars is that only people who buy them will buy them.
AOL has made the determination that given the choice between providing video conferencing for free and not providing it at all, they'd rather not provide it at all - especially if that allows them to also charge other people for it.
Yeah, losing "customers" is bad, but giving away product at less than cost is worse.
paintball
if aol starts to charge for IM (it will not be long before msn and yahoo try it too, monkey see monkey do) maybe SMS will finaly take off in the US.
Email your idea to Google, please!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
My boss ...
Microsoft?
-ashot
If AOL decides to charge for hosting AIM Service, then people will switch to yahoo chat, MSN, or jabber. Such is the free market. If they only charge a little, and the software is good, and the servers are good, and people want to pay for it, great. If they don't they'll go elsewhere. Jabber is getting along very well. There are a few issues with some jabber v. 1 add ons being moved to jabber v. 2, but those will get ironed out, so there is at least one alternative; this isn't something to worry about.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
This is a good move for AOL. Offering premium business services with their messanger may well be a good way to make money off their near monopoly over instant messanging. Though I'm not sure if AIM is secure enough today for legitimate business use.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
This is kind of off the IM topic, but services that are limited to people with accounts (eg. members) that are free annoy me. In the blogging community, Xanga is like this. You must be a member to post. Same thing with Blogger, although they offer an 'anonymous' posting. They could at least let you put in a name, or keep it like the 3rd party commenting systems. I guess it boils down to AOL offering an IM service, and the reason why they extend it to non-AOL users is to capture market share and to promote its service. Also, some people _might_ start subscribing to AOL because of this... *shrug*
I have to pay 2.95 a month for AIM just because I want to keep my same username. I unfortunatelly at one time had linked my aim name to my aol screenname. When I went to cancel my AOL account I lost my AIM account because it's SOOOOO difficult to split the two into seperate databases. So I have to pay 2.95 a month now for an AOL account just so I can keep my username. :(
...if you have market leverage, what good is it if you don't use it for something? Whether it is to promote another product (MSN/Windows) or service (iTunes/iTMS), a premium version of the product (Realplayer basic/premium) or the entire product itself, to prevent interoperability or destroy your competitors market, the goal is always to exercise that power in some form.
Corporations offer stuff for free to obtain market powers they can later use. It is all an investment in something. They don't just blow money because they feel like it (Even though PHBs may waste money on the most ridiculous things, in their bizarre logic there's always a reason).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I wouldn't send anything unencrypted.
http://www.safetalks.com
Pork is not a verb
MS netmeeting is kinda old... how long ago was this?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Nothing will happen to iChat, since this article has nothing to do with anything iChat, or current AIM users on any platform, can do. One-on-one text, audio, and video chat are not affected. This is a NEW service, for "business", that would be targetted at multiple-user videoconferences, integrating meeting technologies from Lightbridge and WebEx. They'll simply be using the AIM buddy list and presence system to initiate contact. Perhaps a new version of AIM will even integrate the feature. But it does NOT affect anything you can currently do with iChat and/or AIM.
Whether you think this is a sign of things to come - that AOL might start charging for formerly free AIM-related services in the future - is a different story...but that's extremely unlikely, since people currently use AIM from all sorts of devices, and would bail from AIM in droves. This proposed charge is for the NEW business-targetted conferencing and meeting services ONLY.
According to the article, AOL partnered with WebEx for this. WebEx has been doing Multipoint Video and Audio conferencing for years. Their service lets you schedule meetings and send out invitations to schedule mainly business meetings. The key word here is Multipoint.
Point to point video and audio conferencing isn't mentioned in the article, but SHOULD stay free, seeing there are so many other options available if AOL were to decide to charge for them. When I want multipoint scheduling of movies among friends, I'll stick with an AIM chat room. Video just confuses the situation if nobody is leading the meeting. There's nothing to fear here. AOL is just trying to find another source of revenue, and if it keeps the AIM service free for most users, I'm all for it.
there was a recent fork of gaim to add videoconferencing functionality into gaim - what will become of that? will it be a free way round, not work or become illegal (trying to get round paying for a service?
will AOL change the protocol for this?
Use GnomeMeeting !
The wonderful thing about the Internet is that so long as bandwidth is essentially free you'll always be able to find a free replacement for a pay for service.
The terrible thing about the Internet is that is companies can't make money from value added services they will need to charge more for bandwidth....
Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
But if you forward the message to everyone you know we all get a free trip to disney world from AOL owner Bill Gates..
oh wait a second...
> Because theres probably a law against taking peoples money without asking you know theft or something.
No, there's no law against fee increases. It's always been whatever the market will bear. Rolling the fees in, is a fancy way of saying increasing the budget to pay for video conference logistics.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I wrote this the other day, if anyone is interested:
It's time for an international standard on Instant Messaging
I'm probably the only one who actually looks forward to that corny advertisment ;-).
;-).
;-).
"Fanta! Fanta! Don't you want a Fatnta Fanta?"
"You look hot in all that plaster. Drink some Fanta! Faster! Faster!"
"You're the hottest crowd in town. We have just the drink to cool you down!"
How can one see that ad and not think of just how FABULOUS they are
Of course, on a low-carb diet, I probably won't try Fanta any time soon with all the sugar it has. At least the music is catchy
I hope they do charge for it. Then open source systems such as Jabber will become more popular. I'm sick of having to use AIM just because it's all anyone knows about...
Who is going to pay to run the server? The login servers do cost money to build and maintain. ( and don't forget bandwidth costs either. Sure a simple authentication scheme isn't a lot of traffic, but multiply that by 100's of thousands of users it goes up rapidly..
To be effective there needs to be a common login server that just 'magically' works.. Remember most people using these services are not techies..
At least with the 'commercial' IM networks, they are being subsidized by the parent companies, and their clients allow people to connect with a bare minimum of skill..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What's keeping you from hacking up ircd-hybrid?
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
I was with you until there.
-Dave
It would be the death of them. Everyone I know has an AOLIM account. They have the majority of users in the IM area. If they would start charging for normal usage the would see a mass exodus of users moving to yahoo or msn messenger. It'll never happen.
> Any way my point wasn't about increasing fee's it was if they can can do this and take the customers money without telling them.
Well you could but it would be evil to do so. I agree with you on that, but a shrewd business always does things behind the scenes, even if they are not being forthright about it. I think AOL has made many many many mistakes in the past and announcing this is just another mistake, in the long run. In the short run, investors will look at this as a positive, but in the long run they will lose out on market share.
What they SHOULD have done was announce a NEW service and offered upgrades to that. That would have been much smarter than saying they were going to start charging for a free service... that was just Darwin.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I have done some coding even down at the assembly level, but I'm not sure about the logistics of this...
What about a distributed server? a GPL'ed chat program without a central server. Seems like a good idea to me... maybe I'm missing something though. use each client to handle server tasks... intelligent load balancing code...
why does GAIM not display AOL's adverts? That is, not even have an option to? It uses AOLs servers, doesnt it?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Someone needs to invent a different paradigm for IM and open source it. Of course, it has to have the same or better user adoption levels as AIM to make it worthwhile.
Is anyone out there in the ether doing this already?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
didn't the us require that aol open its protocols in aim due to the merger with timewarner? assuming it is opened (which i think right now it isn't,) then other clients may be using the same functionality probably as free service.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
and source of infection....installation of AIM or AIM betas also installs Wild Tangent and other spyware engines onto the users' machines...kinda like DivX. Problem is much of this software propogates through the IM space and infects others' computers also.
So now, instead of just being a MAJOR source of spam and viruses, AOL/AIM is also a major arena for testing of spyware/malware and Trojans.
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
Jump To Conclusions Mat
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
I know this because I read my SOCKS server logs. :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
These intermissions aren't made for the purpose of showing ads. They're there so that viewers can have a little break to grab some snacks, make a visit to the toilet, and chat with their friends about the movie, or whatever, in the lobby. Most people leave the theater so they don't see the ads anyway. (At least from my experience in Europe that's the way it is). It's really a great way of doing things as opposed to the three-hour-movies-with-no-bathroom-breaks-for-you! system.