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."
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. AOL subscribers need AIM to be free so they can chat with their non-AOL friends. If AOL suddenly started charging for regular text usage and people started leaving the service AOL subscribers would have less incentive to stay with the service either.
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.
Sorta like.. cable tv and movie theatres.
Was anyone else really pissed to start seeing swiffer wet-jet commercials before feature-length movies at the theatre?
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads
Please explain the commercial success of basic cable television.
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!
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.
It looks like you didn't rtfa (I don't blame you, the original submitter of the article didn't either). Their not going to start charging for anything you can do free right now. They're introducing a new conference call type service which they will be charging money for. It's aimed more at businesses than the end user.
Agreed, it seems to be aimed at business users and all and all it is a good idea. It seems like someone calls a meeting, then the participants are IMed a phone number to call. Finally, the meeting is held over the telephone. Video is integrated into it somehow through the "web meeting" portion. The article isn't to clear on how the "web meeting" portion is different from a normal conference.
Overall, the poster of the article seems to have been going for a sensationalist effect. Perhaps he/she was bored and wanted to get a laugh out of the slashdot crowd who can't RTFA or the poster didn't RTFA him/herself and just formed a gut opinion and posted this in rage. Who knows....
Overall though this is slashdot news since AOL is aiming at taking a slice out of the market for company conference calls, and we all know companies love to meet/conference/do other time wasting activities. AOL may actually find a good source of revenue and we all know they need it....
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.
D'oh! I noticed that right after I had hit submit. I'm surprised it made it this far down the forum before getting spelling-and-grammar-nazi'ed.
But I'm not upset. I actually blame instant messenger for dumbing down the writing skills of Americans (including myself). I actually hope they start charging, because then perhaps I'll spend less time gossiping and finding lame buddy icons. In fact, my social skills have suffered as well as my spelling skills. Anytime someone makes a joke, I yell out "L-O-L!"
While all of this is true, it doesn't address the issue of what codecs and standards each system uses. From what I understand, iChat uses it's own system which allows for higher quality video and audio unless you are talking to an AIM client, in which case it probably negotiates using AOL's standard. I checked Apple's website and they weren't too clear on much of iChat's underpinnings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though iChat uses AIM lists to find buddies and then negotiates the audio and video directly between them.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
- 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....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?