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."

17 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Competition should keep this from spreading. by EoRaptor · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

  2. But then you can only talk to other suckers.. by eliza_effect · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..

  3. Good by wandernotlost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they do start charging for it. Perhaps then people will finally move to an open standard such as Jabber.

    1. Re:Good by MP3Chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As ideal as that would be, you'd probably see a move to MSN Messenger or Yahoo Messenger before they move to something they've never heard of.

  4. Ads by shadowkoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:No they wont' charge for AIM by insecuritiez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:No they wont' charge for AIM by skraps · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads, at least anyone with some sense.

    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)
  7. It's like basic cable by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads

    Please explain the commercial success of basic cable television.

    1. Re:It's like basic cable by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Premium cable channels like Showtime, HBO and pay per view have no ads.

      This is just like the difference between basic and premium cable. It's worth it to AOL to keep basic AIM features like text IM free. They might break even or make a little money on the ads, as long as most people don't use an ad blocker like Deadaim or a 3rd party client like Gaim or Trillian. What they're charging for is premium services like video conferencing and voice calls to POTS phones. People will pay money for these services.

    2. Re:It's like basic cable by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With cable you pay for content

      you're not paying for content if you paid for AIM, you would pay for the service. You provide the content, they provide the service to get it to the people who you want to get it to

  8. Time to switch -- seriously by MikeCapone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. No Profit? by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Looks like a rumor to me. by (startx) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:I've Wondered by skraps · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I obviously understand letting AOL members use it, but allowing non-members always confused me.
    Their members will value the service more if they can talk to anyone on the internet with it. If it wasn't available for free, then a lot of AOL users would have skipped AIM and gone for something that was free, thus defeating the lock-in.
    --
    Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
  12. Re:spellcheck4u@hotmail.com by gwoodrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"

  13. Three things make me think they won't. by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. MSN Messenger
    2. Yahoo! Messenger
    3. 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.
  14. AIM is dying. by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Insightful


    ...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?