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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
If it were the standard voice/video conferencing AIM provides now, the clients negotiate direct connects through the server, so AOL could simply keep track of when direct connects are started.
However, according to the article, this won't be the same as what they're doing now. Instead, AOL's partnering with third-party companies for [telephone] conference calls and videoconferencing services.
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.
Jabber.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
D00d, what are you talking about?!
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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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!"
- 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.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
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
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."
...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?
red rocket... red rocket..
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
some links:
3 -January/002541.html
http://www.myjabber.net/
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-jabber
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jabber-VoIP_Client/
http://www.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/200
The beauty of Jabber/XMPP tho is that there is the possibility of gatewaying to things such as SIP, so you can have the best of both worlds while maintaining a single protocol on the Jabber/XMPP side, so there is no need to worry too much about what will become the dominant voice protocol since there is the possibility of interoperability.
I wrote this the other day, if anyone is interested:
It's time for an international standard on Instant Messaging