AOL Plans to Offer Free Webmail

What they're not? Nah... by grub · 2004-12-23 02:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

Conversely I think AOL is trying to enforce what it is: a portal to their own services and the internet. Once a user is using AOL's mail package then AOL can put whatever it wants on their mail webpage much like MS does with Hotmail. "Want to chat with Britney and Justin? Join AOL for $FOO and be here Saturday night!"

AOL is a business, businesses don't do "free" without some catch. Their free mail offering is nothing more than a hook to get the AOL brandname back into peoples' minds.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

AOL is a business, businesses don't do "free" without some catch. Their free mail offering is nothing more than a hook to get the AOL brandname back into peoples' minds
Ahhh but as a 'free' webmail provider myself, I can tell you the conversion rate from free to "paid something" is quite small. They're going to have to pull in a LOT of free users, or provide something out of the ordinary to get people to pay up.
I wouldn't suggest trying to leverage 'free' into 'paid' as a business model.

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by AKnightCowboy · 2004-12-23 02:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Once a user is using AOL's mail package then AOL can put whatever it wants on their mail webpage much like MS does with Hotmail.
Last time I checked I still had a free Netscape.com e-mail address... which is owned by AOL. So technically I have free webmail from AOL through Netscape already. Not that I ever used it, but I have a 250 meg quota there. Why in the hell would I want something@aol.com as my e-mail address? AOL is for losers.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by koreaman · 2004-12-23 03:14 · Score: 1

I wouldn't suggest trying to leverage 'free' into 'paid' as a business model.

Then again, Red Hat seems to do it quite well.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 03:24 · Score: 1

Then again, Red Hat seems to do it quite well.
True, but do you see AOL certifications? Red Hat does more than sell a collection of free applications, and it took them a while to get this far. I would also suggest that they did better than they should have during the IPO, giving them the freedom to explore other avenues of revenue.
Also note, that Red Hat has changed what their 'free' distribution is. While that's easy to do when you provide a product, turning a 'free' service into a 'paid' service for existing users isn't received anywhere near as warmly.

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Olix · 2004-12-23 03:32 · Score: 1

Wow. The whole Gmail thing must have really buggered up our buisness.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Olix · 2004-12-23 03:35 · Score: 1

spelling #your buisness. I should really check for typo's before I post...
Re:What they're not? Nah... by koreaman · 2004-12-23 03:38 · Score: 1

Red Hat's software itself isn't for pay, only the service of packaging it up nicely is. That's why there are things like White Box Linux.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Petrol · 2004-12-23 03:45 · Score: 1

Financially solvent?

--
...and that's the end of our show. Donk!
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 03:45 · Score: 1

Wow. The whole Gmail thing must have really buggered up (y)our buisness.
No, not really. I just anticipated more people willing to pay than there really are. My domain customers have unlimited disk space, and unlimited #'s of users, but most people seem to look over that for whatever reason. -shrug- I'm surprised more people don't want their own domain names.. I think people are just used to changing their email address.
After discovering that not many people wanted to pay, I wanted to deliver ads based on email content before Google came out with Gmail, but I still haven't thought of a good way to do it yet :(
Though you may be right, I probably would be pissed if this were my only source of income :)

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by AstroDrabb · 2004-12-23 04:30 · Score: 1

Red Hat provides far more then just "packaging it up nicely". Can you get a certification in "White Box Linux"? That might not matter to geeks, but to PHB's it does. Oracle and our other enterprise apps we run on Red Hat are not certified and not supported on "White Box Linux". That means the 10's of thousands we pay every year for 24x7 support goes out the window. Does "White Box Linux" have partnerships with all these big enterprise software providers? Nope. Again, that might not mean much to a geek, but it makes all the difference in the world to the PHB's who approve the software.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:What they're not? Nah... by AstroDrabb · 2004-12-23 04:33 · Score: 1

I should really check for typo's before I post
Nah, just get the SpellBound extension for Firefox 1.0 and then you can right click in any textarea/inputbox and select "Check Spelling". Nice and easy ; P

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:What they're not? Nah... by MMMDI · 2004-12-23 04:50 · Score: 1

Claiming to offer "unlimited space" (or unlimited bandwidth, or any of the other impossible offers) has always turned me off to trying out a new service.

I doubt this would make or break your success story, but maybe you should consider offering a more realistic deal.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 05:00 · Score: 1

Claiming to offer "unlimited space" (or unlimited bandwidth, or any of the other impossible offers) has always turned me off to trying out a new service.
Why is that? I just don't understand that. The domain accounts are pay accounts. For the 'unlimited users', I've never thought anyone should be restricted to a set amount of users. Personally, I hate that. The disk space is just a bonus, and this is merely email. Most people POP their email anyways. After I don't know how many years, I still only have 100MB of email.
Do you have a Gmail account? It seems to me 1GB on a free account would be more of a turn off than no restriction on a paid account.. Oh well.

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by 1u3hr · 2004-12-23 05:28 · Score: 1

>I should really check for typo's before I post
Nah, just get the SpellBound extension for Firefox 1.0 and then you can right click in any textarea/inputbox and select "Check Spelling". Nice and easy ; P
His typo was "our" for "your", so spellcheck would not have helped.
Wouldn't it be great if the "editors" of this site bothered to spellcheck the articles they post?
(With my next system upgrade I'll give Firefox a try and hopefully make fewer dumb typos myself...)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Line_Fault · 2004-12-23 05:35 · Score: 1

I've found that if you have a good product and support it people will gladly pay for it.

Also, there is no "good way" to deliver ads in an e-mail interface, period!
Re:What they're not? Nah... by MMMDI · 2004-12-23 05:35 · Score: 1

It turns me off to the service due to the deceptive offer.

Example:
Me: "Hey Joe User, can you send me that file you mentioned earlier?"
Joe: "Sure, want me to send my_320kbs_cd_collection_and_divx_dvd_collection.zi p through AIM?"
Me: "Nah, just email it to me... bobuser@vfemail.net. I don't have room on my hard drive just yet, so I'll leave it on the server for a few weeks until I get that new drive I've been eyeing."

Would you have a problem with a ninety gig file (or ninety gigs worth of split files if you have a per-email size limit) coming in to my email account if I was a member? You shouldn't, because after all, you did offer unlimited space.

Of course, this is an extreme example. My point is, how do I (the customer) know what the true limit on this account is? I'd reckon that you'd get upset over this ninety gig file, but what about that ten meg my_cat_meows.mpg file? How about that seventy meg babys_first_steps.mpg file?

I would much rather see a solid number (one gig at gmail per your example) and know exactly what my limits are than merely guess with an "unlimited" claim. Unless you have some sort of magical unlimited-space hard drive / set of drives, there is a limit, no matter how high it may be.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by nolife · 2004-12-23 05:41 · Score: 1

something out of the ordinary to get people to pay up

That something may be the capability to "port" your real AOL address over to the web service for a fee. I know quite a few people that keep AOL for the email address alone. The scales may have tipped and the people in that situation may be more willing to abandon the address and just leave. This might be a way for AOL to salvage some form of money flow from those people.

My first internet provider back in 1994 still maintains a limited shell I can SSH into to modify my procmail filters and still allows me tunnel my IMAP in to get and recieve my mail even though I offially quit and stopped paying them almost 8 years ago. I helped them out back in the early days with testing and various things and they are paying me back with that benefit. They don't have service providers like that anymore ;)

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 05:52 · Score: 1

Would you have a problem with a ninety gig file (or ninety gigs worth of split files if you have a per-email size limit) coming in to my email account if I was a member? You shouldn't, because after all, you did offer unlimited space.
Ok you got me.. There would be a problem as I don't have that much disk space, but that's easily alleviated. Unfortunately you would have to wait until I installed a new drive for you.
I would much rather see a solid number (one gig at gmail per your example)
I would be very surprised if gmail allowed you to receive a single 1GB file. The time it would take to spam/virus scan that file (I assume they do that) would be too resource intensive.
..and know exactly what my limits are than merely guess with an "unlimited" claim. Unless you have some sort of magical unlimited-space hard drive / set of drives, there is a limit, no matter how high it may be.
I see your point. I guess my mistake is that I assume reasonable use :P

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 05:55 · Score: 1

Also, there is no "good way" to deliver ads in an e-mail interface, period!
Sure there is. I utilize 'empty' space within the interface itself for Google ads. They're non-intrusive.
I just wish they were relevant to the email that was being read. :(

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by MMMDI · 2004-12-23 06:14 · Score: 1

I would be very surprised if gmail allowed you to receive a single 1GB file. The time it would take to spam/virus scan that file (I assume they do that) would be too resource intensive.

Unless it's changed recently, their limit is ten megs per email. With that in mind, I could tell Joe User to split the zip into X pieces, download each piece individually, and then have the complete file when all is said and done. Since gmail spells out exactly what their limits are, there's no potential for files being returned to sender or killing my inbox (or their hard drive).

There would be a problem as I don't have that much disk space, but that's easily alleviated. Unfortunately you would have to wait until I installed a new drive for you. (...) I guess my mistake is that I assume reasonable use

How can you guess what the average user is going to consider reasonable use? Grandma Jane may want to exchange videos of her grandkids with Grandma Jill like in them thar new-fangled AOL commercials. Jane checks out a few sites, and sees that the limits would seriously burden or prevent her intended use... but then, she stumbles across your site and sees "unlimited space". After the inevitable problems arise, would you be able to tell her that she's at fault due to her unreasonable assumptions about the service she would be getting after seeing "unlimited space" and sending you the cash to receive this?
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 06:26 · Score: 1

How can you guess what the average user is going to consider reasonable use? Grandma Jane may want to exchange videos of her grandkids with Grandma Jill like in them thar new-fangled AOL commercials. Jane checks out a few sites, and sees that the limits would seriously burden or prevent her intended use... but then, she stumbles across your site and sees "unlimited space". After the inevitable problems arise, would you be able to tell her that she's at fault due to her unreasonable assumptions about the service she would be getting after seeing "unlimited space" and sending you the cash to receive this?
You're seriously over estimating the 'average user'. While they may not know that FTP is for file transfer, and email is for text, they're not going to have enough knowledge to split up a large file into sections, retrieve it via IMAP (leaving it on the server), and reconstruct the video.
So yes, 'reasonable' even accounts for businesses who send/receive fat Powerpoint presentations. These users have also understood that disk space is not unlimited, and that if they use it reasonably, I will plenty of time to add more space before it becomes an issue. Hell, if uptime is an issue, I can add a box and NFS mount their domain directory without any noticable downtime to them. 90GB file transfers are not a reasonable use of email. Seriously, How many torrents over 1GB do you see on average?

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Re:What they're not? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 06:37 · Score: 0

Actually, seeing as the OP also typoed on business (spelling it buisness), SpellBound would have had a 50% success rate.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by MMMDI · 2004-12-23 06:53 · Score: 1

Sending a ninety gig file through email was an extreme example, and I pointed that out in the same post. However, it was used to point out the flaw in the unlimited statement. What if said person wanted to receive a five meg video? I'd hope you'd have no problems with that, but what if they wanted to keep it on the server permanently? Later, they received another five meg file... and another, and another, and so on. I personally know a lot of non-techies who switched to gmail just so they could do this (though again, gmail clearly points out when you need to clean up your archives a bit).

FTP & IMAP are far beyond the average users, I'd agree with you there. However, transferring a huge video from a camcorder onto the computer and into an email became commonplace quite some time ago, and the hording of files on the server came into play around the same time that Hotmail and Yahoo raised their limits above a meg or two.

My whole point was that the "unlimited space" deal shouldn't be offered unless you're fully prepared to back it up. Offer a gig, ten gigs, or even a hundred gigs... offer unlimited, and you're going to have some people ending up less than enthused about your misleading claims. Will every user who signs up expect completely unlimited space and attempt to use it? Of course not... but it only takes one or two people who take your claim at face value to put you in a sticky situation.
Re:What they're not? Nah... by koreaman · 2004-12-23 07:10 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right. I stand corrected.

--
Le français vous intéresse?

AOL trying to be good? Haha, by someonewhois · 2004-12-23 02:37 · Score: 1

I see a vision... it's the year 2008... and AOL's bankrupt! Yay! Seriously though, how does AOL expect to compete? They definitely don't have the WOW that Google has, and they don't have the marketing that Micrsoft has. What do they have? I'm more than happy to hear your opinion, 'cause I sure as hell don't know.

Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by nine-times · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 2, Informative

They have legions of customers who sincerely believe that they can't have e-mail or web access without going through AOL.
Seriously.
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by tepples · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

it's the year 2008... and AOL's bankrupt!

Time Warner would have to spin off AOL first for that to happen.

Seriously though, how does AOL expect to compete?

As a loss leader perhaps, in the same way as Microsoft Xbox?
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by Performaman · 2004-12-23 02:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

AOL Instant Messanger. Kids these days think that there is no other way to communicate.

--

I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by Timesprout · 2004-12-23 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well lets see, they have a huge subscriber base already. The rest of the world is currently unaware google will be offering a free email service, and get this, all the non techies I have sent invites to have rejected them on privacy grounds. And lets face it, everyone has a hotmail account and knows its best use is for spam attracting, anonymous junk sign ups. Plenty of room for a quality service if AOL can provide it.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by TrippTDF · 2004-12-23 02:54 · Score: 1

I'll agree with that. I have tried countless times to explain to people that there is an internet outside of AOL, but they don't seem to get it.

This is why AOL still has business. People are not educated enough to know that there is an Internet outside of AOL, or they are too scared to try something new. Why has AOL been plumeting? People are waking UP.

AOL's biggest fault was not growing with the Internet. They were not paying attention to what people outside of AOL were capable of doing. A change to the business model in 2001 or 2002 MIGHT have saved AOL if they come up with a better system, but I think it's too late for them to do anything. Free email is just stupid at this point. Too little, too late.
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by Ironsides · 2004-12-23 03:01 · Score: 1

They have Time Warners abslutely humongus Movie collection that they could stream on demand to people over the internet using their service (if you have a fast connection).

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by monkey_jam · 2004-12-23 03:06 · Score: 1

Why has AOL been plumeting? People are waking UP.

So should we roam the network "freeing" people from this "shell"?

*Runs off to learn kungfu and wear a trench coat*
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by bdbolton · 2004-12-23 03:16 · Score: 1

"don't have the marketing that Micrsoft has"

Maybe Im not understanding what you mean by marketing (I've never had a business class) but AOL has some very funny and smart commercials. Certainly better than Microsoft's commercials.
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by Nephilium · 2004-12-23 03:45 · Score: 1

*Runs off to learn kungfu and wear a trench coat*

Monkey Jam,
We sent the training discs to you under camouflage, didn't you recieve the "100 hours" to "free" Kung-Fu yet? That disc includes two styles: 31337 Kung-Fu, and r0x0r Kung-Fu. You must choose one path to enlightenment. You do remember how to use the training discs, correct?

Nephilium
I went on waltzing while taking another look down her evening formal. Nice view. Not foam rubber. -- Zebadiah John Carter in The Number of The Beast
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:51 · Score: 0

I'll agree with that. I have tried countless times to explain to people that there is an internet outside of AOL, but they don't seem to get it.

This is why AOL still has business. People are not educated enough to know that there is an Internet outside of AOL, or they are too scared to try something new. Why has AOL been plumeting? People are waking UP.

Aol is a content provider now. They provide content that costs money to get individually elsewhere. They do not keep customers based on the idea that they don't know about the "real" internet. This idea is propelled by low-self esteem "techies" who want to believe their intellect is vastly superior because they can double click on internet explorer.

Did you know Aol had a big role in the Mozilla project? You don't do you? An uninformed mob mentality participant, ready to spew bitter hatred against something he little understands.
Re:AOL trying to be good? Haha, by ArtStone · 2004-12-23 22:06 · Score: 1

Wholesale internet access costs less than $4/month at the quantities AOL uses. AOL still is able to get $23.90 a month from a whole lot of people who believe their brand and content add extra value. The average $ per subscriber is $18.81 ("Bring your own access" subscribers pay less and some % of new and people who tried to cancel are paying nothing)

From the latest Edgar 10Q filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/11 05705/000 095014404010346/g91243e10vq.htm

AOL reported total revenues of $6.509 billion (21% of the Company's overall revenues), $1.439 billion in Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization and $814 million in Operating Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2004. AOL generates its revenues primarily from subscription fees charged to subscribers and advertising services rendered.

Other tidbits:
- AOL made $188 million from selling Google Stock... it still holds about 5 million shares that it can't currently sell (worth $659 million)
- AOL was awarded $760 million from the settlement with Microsoft over Netscape, which AOL acquired in an all-stock deal in 1999.

Plus advertising and Google Adwords revenue...

Loss Leader?

--
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0

Answer by daveschroeder · 2004-12-23 02:38 · Score: 0, Troll

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not??

What, something that doesn't suck, as opposed to something that does?

Doubtful.

Re:Answer by Richie1984 · 2004-12-23 02:50 · Score: 1

I think the correct phrase would be: "It both sucks, and blows".

--
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.

....um by FinestLittleSpace · 2004-12-23 02:38 · Score: 1

"Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

What, a half generous, decent company? Yeah, probably.

Hrmmm ... by SlongNY · 2004-12-23 02:39 · Score: 1

They do dialup So Well.. What makes you think they caint do free email :) This should be interesting

--
My Blog

AOL ISP? by isa-kuruption · 2004-12-23 02:39 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

An internet service provider?! YES!

Re:AOL ISP? by donnyspi · 2004-12-23 02:43 · Score: 0

AOL is more than just a plain ol' ISP, such as 550access.com. They try to provide more than just a connection to the internet. That's why they charge $20-something per month.

Wow! by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-12-23 02:39 · Score: 0, Troll

You mean they'll start offering an email service that doesn't allow you to use standard pop3-capable email clients?!?!?!

AOL is the best! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 0

AOL gets out of the High speed net service and into free e-mail? Sounds like a smart business move!

Re:AOL is the best! by mausmalone · 2004-12-23 03:24 · Score: 1

AOL ....? High speed ....?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That's freaking hilarious. Back in the day when I was on AOL, I used to use another ISP to dial into and then connected to AOL through my already-active internet connection. It ended up being 2 - 3 times faster.

--
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.

It's not what it was by AtariAmarok · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

It's not what it was. When they are hemorrhaging so many users a month, they are no longer succeeding at being an ISP. Looks like they are branching out to see if something else works. Like Apple trying out the iPod "experiment".:Their Newton experiment didn't work too well, but this one by golly seems to be paying off.

However, I don't see this helping AOL that much. I don't think that the webmail field is all that lucrative, and it is very crowded with competitors (even including Hotmail) getting better.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:It's not what it was by Prophet+of+Nixon · 2004-12-23 02:59 · Score: 0

The awesome thing about the Newton was its hilariously bad handwriting recognition... The first one I messed with actually interpreted "Newton" as "Neutered", which was, of course, excellent. Never messed around with one much after that.
Re:it's not what it was by theskeptic · 2004-12-23 03:22 · Score: 1

Is AOL going to succeed in becoming a free webmail service? Not if it offers only 100 MB.

On the other hand, the mailblocks interface is quite user-friendly. I received only 15 spams in 18 or so months. The only reason I stopped using it was the storage limit of 15MB. Too small for my needs. Mailblocks uses Microsoft's IMAP implementation.
But gmail trumps all in space and spam filtering. Just waiting for gmail to implement IMAP.
Re:It's not what it was by gdeciantis · 2004-12-23 06:20 · Score: 1

AOL is no longer an ISP. Their core-competence is the "safe internet" whatever that means.

So I would expect "safe email" is part of that competence.

webmail schwebmail.... by Atrax · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 1

... every two-bit online op can have webmail if they want it.

What's new and innovative here? that's the real question. Or are AOL continuing to play the Wal-Mart of ISPs?

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub

Re:webmail schwebmail.... by JorDan+Clock · 2004-12-23 02:51 · Score: 1

Actually, Walmart already is an ISP. Judging by the performance my friend gets, it manages to be worse than AOL.
Re:webmail schwebmail.... by Atrax · 2004-12-23 02:53 · Score: 1

I have little more to say than this.

eeeeeeuuuwwwwwwwww!

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:webmail schwebmail.... by vrtladept · 2004-12-23 03:03 · Score: 1

Actually funny enough, the walmart ISP is owned by AOL ...
Re:webmail schwebmail.... by krymsin01 · 2004-12-23 03:04 · Score: 1

You are underestimating the hipness of having a @aol.com email account. People will sell them for hundreds of dollars on EBAY!

Oh wait...

--
stuff
Re:webmail schwebmail.... by JorDan+Clock · 2004-12-23 03:06 · Score: 1

Really now? I thought Walmart had enough money to set up their own ISP. Learn something special everyday...

Uh by MrNonchalant · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

Has AOL ever stopped trying to become something it is not?

That which it is not? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:40 · Score: 0

That does not make any sense. The AOL of yester-year is not the AOL of today. I suspect that are trying to emulate the major portal companies' (Google, Yahoo, etc) business model while retaining the cash from their 20 million members. Don't hate because you're a /. troll and have nothing else better to do but bitch about computer stuff.

Re:That which it is not? by mausmalone · 2004-12-23 03:29 · Score: 0, Troll

We don't hate aol because we're slashdot trolls. We hate aol because their dumbed-down kiddie network for members only encourages some of the most ridiculously stupid behavior and poor netiquite which we all have to deal with when one of their troglodite members grows legs and crawls out of the primordial ooze and washes up on the beach of the larger web.

--
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.

Oooh! Free webmail! by Xpilot · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Wow, wouldn't you love to have a free webmail address with the AOL brandname attached to it, so you can email your friends with? Nothing says class, prestige and superior social status like a free webmail AOL address! Where do I sign up?

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:Oooh! Free webmail! by klang · 2004-12-23 03:08 · Score: 2, Funny

..oh, for this one you can't just sign up, you have to be "Invited" by somebody else!
Re:Oooh! Free webmail! by Chief+Slapahoe · 2004-12-23 03:15 · Score: 1

Personally, I find it very easy for employers to take me seriously when I send out my resume with an AOL email attached. I mean, cmon, EVERYBODY in the computer industry uses AOL...right?...right?!

--
No one ever on their death bed ever says: "My regrets in life? ... I wish I worked more..." -Anonymou
Re:Oooh! Free webmail! by slashfun · 2004-12-23 04:10 · Score: 0

I can see it now:
Content of spam-filtering rules on new AOL email service: '*aol.com'

--
Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Company"
Re:Oooh! Free webmail! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-12-23 04:57 · Score: 1

Nothing says class, prestige and superior social status like a free webmail AOL address with a name like Jason2354695, because every decent user ID is already taken.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Oooh! Free webmail! by westlake · 2004-12-23 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow, wouldn't you love to have a free webmail address with the AOL brandname attached to it, so you can email your friends with? Nothing says class, prestige and superior social status like a free webmail AOL address! Where do I sign up?
Even in decline, AOL has 23 million solidly middle class subscribers, none of whom has ever given a damn what a Geek thinks about the service and could care less if you have a Gmail account.

AOL E-mail by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 0

Even if the service is free, won't an "@aolmail.com" address have the same stigma that every other aol.com address has on the web? Once people have left AOL for other ISPs, cartainly they would not wish to go back.

On the other had, it would provide a "safety blanket" for those who still want some familiar hand-holding in their internet experience.

Not necessarily a bad thing.. by Haxwell · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

I think it would be good for most people to become something which they are not.

--
http://www.haxwell.org

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing.. by aussie_a · 2004-12-24 00:54 · Score: 1

Unless they want to become a serial killer.

Uh... by empee · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Uh, so I can get a webmail account on a domain where there are already 20million+ usernames taken?

Great! I get to be Mike86554319234@aol.com.

Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:15 · Score: 1

We're sorry, the user name Mike86554319234 is already taken, please consider other similar choices:

Mike86554319235
Mike96554319234
Meki86554319234

Sincerily, AOL Mail
Re:Uh... by Mike86554319233 · 2004-12-23 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny

You insensitive clod!
Re:Uh... by nbert · 2004-12-23 04:36 · Score: 1

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the headline.

I haven't found it in TFA, but maybe they will use a different domain for the address. Something like @aim.com (since they want to link some of the functions of both services this somehow would make sense).

Or they could use an idea from Compuserve - in the good old days they *only* allowed numbers in your address. So you had something like 49823749823@compuserve.com. That used to be extremely handy and nobody complained that their name was already in use ;)

--
I don't read replies by ACs.
Re:Uh... by NAvAP · 2004-12-23 07:13 · Score: 1

now what was his email....54588321863321@aim.com? no wait, that was his sister...54588321863311@aim.com maybe?
Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 12:17 · Score: 0

Yes, but imagine the prestige that comes with having an "@aol.com" email address!

Me too!
Re:Uh... by adpowers · 2004-12-23 16:00 · Score: 0, Troll

Mike86554319234@aol.com
Mike86554319233 (843031)

I don't see the problem.

Maybe you should be more careful when signing up to make a joke :)

Features by Gryftir · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 2, Informative

The beta doesn't even go public to non-aol subscribers until later in 2005. Currently it is limited to the 100MB given to AOL users, and they haven't given any indication that will change.

Considering Hotmail and Yahoo mail have upgraded to 250MB, about the only thing going for it is the AIM integration.

--
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp

The Free Internet Is Over? by saterdaies · 2004-12-23 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I remember when Apple started charging for its .Mac stuff. Steve Jobs said that the free internet was over. Well, it seems to have rebounded. Gmail now offers 1GB of storage and everyone else seems to be going that way too. The problem is that AOL is becoming less useful. They were offering their subscribers a tiny email box and dial-up access for $24 per month. At the same time, they could get nearly identical service - often better - from others for less than half that price. Heck, you can get it from AOL for less than half the price under their Netscape brand. This has led AOL to loose, I think, 4 million subscribers recently.

AOL never came up with a good broadband strategy and they never came up with content or tools that the internet didn't match or better. Put that together and AOL just doesn't look like a good value. With this strategy, AOL is trying to correct that mistake and leverage the AOL brand to offer things on the same playing field as its competitors.

Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by Atrax · 2004-12-23 02:50 · Score: 1

Heck, you can get it from AOL for less than half the price under their Netscape brand.

Two different products. AOL offers playpen interweb for the technically illiterate, or did when I last ran a trial disk (a while back now).

Other ISPs don't have the sandbox thing going, so I guess that's AOL's selling point.

BUT, they are kind of abandoning it here, in the sense that they're going to be 'adulterating' the brand. I'm trying to look at this in terms of branding and not seeing the logic. maybe AOL have gone nuts after all?

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by saterdaies · 2004-12-23 03:12 · Score: 1

Well, I think that there are a lot less users who need such a kiddy pool now-a-days. The internet has become much easier to use than it used to be and users have become much better at using it. Plus, with the connection speeds that people have today, the AOL program itself has become a bottleneck rather than a speed up - the fact that the graphics for its interface were stored on your computer used to be a big gain for AOL.

AOL's market just isn't there anymore.
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:13 · Score: 0

Just to make things clear, you pay 99$ for .Mac stuff. Seems expensive for an email address and 250Mo disk space? Well here is what you get for free then:
- Free homepage, no big deal ok, but you don't have it with Yahoo and Gmail
- Free bookmarks storage. Deli.cio.us is so much better, riight.
- Free Calendar publishing. Getting better now
- Free Anti-virus, useless on the Mac ok
- Free incremental backup software. Now that's good news
- Free iCards, no big deal but handy for Christmas!!
- Free Access to the iTunes Music Store (which is free I know, but you don't have to repeat the whole subscription part...)
- Free Access to get your digital pictures developed (same as before)
- Free AIM account (same as before)
- Special offers: you get about 30$/month of free stuff or discounts and that is what makes the difference for me.

My 99$ has usually a very quick return on investement: 2-3 month!!
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by timmyf2371 · 2004-12-23 03:21 · Score: 1

Free in terms of money perhaps, however as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
Looking at Gmail, sure it's free of charge but there is the cost of privacy invasion in some people's eyes. I don't personally have a problem with that myself as Gmail is a nice little tool and worth the "cost" involved. And it really is the same with the high majority of services and products.
Using an offline example, commercial Digital Radio in the UK is completely free of charge, but the cost of broadcasting the stations is funded in the most part by advertisers.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by Atrax · 2004-12-23 03:28 · Score: 1

SO you're saying adapt-or-die is AOL's new path?

can't we just have the second part?

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by Rod+Beauvex · 2004-12-23 03:48 · Score: 1

The sure aren't acting like they're able to use it better. :/
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by generic-man · 2004-12-23 04:41 · Score: 1

I have friends who used iTools (before .Mac) and they told me that before Apple started charging, it was the largest corporate warez distributor in America. Lots of users were simply abusing their 100 MB of free space to post warez, serials, etc., and Apple was too overwhelmed to fix the problem.

Now that Gmail can be used as a file system, I expect lots of people to abuse their 1 GB of free storage. Then Google will clamp down and impose limitations or (gasp) start charging! Remember, it's BETA so it can change at any time!

This could be the greatest trojan horse since AOL began charging for AIM and ICQ! (BTW STOP AOL FROM CHARGING FOR AIM AND ICQ CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION PLS DO IT NOW!!!)

--
For more information, click here.
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 06:02 · Score: 0

"My 99$ has usually a very quick return on investement: 2-3 month!!"

heheheh.

I'd love to figure out a way to make money off you guys. The type that thinks that by spending money on one thing, and not another, that they're getting a "return on investment" (the difference). There's gotta be a way!
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by saterdaies · 2004-12-23 06:04 · Score: 1

When did AOL start charging for AIM? I'm using Gaim and I haven't been asked for any money. Wouldn't my account be shut down if I wasn't paying. Also, your link didn't show up in your post. You might want to repost the petition link.
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by generic-man · 2004-12-23 06:38 · Score: 1

There's a common urban legend that AOL is going to start charging for AIM (or, in some cases, ICQ). It spreads through fake announcements propagated through people's buddy lists. I couldn't find a link on Snopes, though.

--
For more information, click here.
Re:The Free Internet Is Over? by drinkypoo · 2004-12-23 07:56 · Score: 1

gmail cannot be abused like drivespace or .mac because you have to have full access to have any access and people would simply change the password to be dicks.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Business is business by snoyberg · 2004-12-23 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I hope you're not trying to put a negative spin on that. Frankly, I think it's great that AOL's involved. Look what happened when Google entered the market: competition drove the quality of all the other products way up. Capitilism at its best.

I really don't think AOL will catch on to be nearly as big as the other three mentioned, but I don't begrudge them doing what's in their best economic interest.

--
Thank God for evolution.

Re:Business is business by rmccann · 2004-12-23 02:56 · Score: 1

The thing that made the entry of Google into the webmail market special was that they offered something completly new and different. It wasn't just like all the others. AOL would only have the effect if they did something similar.
Re:Business is business by realdpk · 2004-12-23 05:57 · Score: 1

1) Isn't gmail invite only still? I don't see a way to sign up on their page.

2) What is new and different that they're offering, other than tons of storage?
Re:Business is business by DA-MAN · 2004-12-23 10:34 · Score: 1

Click here to find out:

http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-820036f041-e9b5f 0c 61f-179ec98d47

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Re:Business is business by rmccann · 2004-12-26 12:06 · Score: 1

1) Yes GMail is still invite only, but I think a person would be able to get one easily enough. And lots of people already have one. You don't have to pay to get it. 2) Lots of storage space is something new and different. When most people were giving about 5 MB, 1,024 MB was something new and different.

And the point is? by Richie1984 · 2004-12-23 02:44 · Score: 1

Ok, AOL is launching the service to compete with Google, Hotmail and Yahoo but I can't see any incentive to sign up. It doesn't seem to offer anything new or innovative as there's nothing mentioned that can't be gained from any pre-existing service and, from my own personal experience with AOL, I'd be hesitant to sign up for any service. Their pre-existing customers wont really be affected, and I doubt anyone else will be too bothered about it either.

--
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.

One problem... by koreaman · 2004-12-23 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If any of you got banned from aim, you will remember that AOL's DB admins are all idiots. I wouldn't want to trust my email to that.

--
Le français vous intéresse?

Re:One problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:55 · Score: 0

I am really curious as to why/how you got banned from AIM, I have many friends that are asshats that have been using it for years, but I have never heard of someone getting banned.
Re:One problem... by koreaman · 2004-12-23 03:03 · Score: 1

I was referring to an error a while back, in which they inadvertantly banned a bunch of accounts.

They have since fixed it.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
Re:One problem... by IANAAC · 2004-12-23 03:19 · Score: 1

... you will remember that AOL's DB admins are all idiots.

Refresh my memory again... was it a database administration problem, or a programming problem?

AOL has webmail for members by acomj · 2004-12-23 02:44 · Score: 2, Informative

This isn't such a strech. They already have AOL available from the web (with a decent client). And Pop3/Imap for aol mail.

This will be like IM which is free for non AOL members, this will make paying for there service much less Desirable. I guess the AOL Everywhere initiative isn't panning out.

We used to use aol at work for a second "on site email" address. It had these things going for it: local numbers everywhere, a 1-800 number to dial in when all else fails. It was the travelers friend. Now with web mail and most hotels having some limited wifi, its much less usefull.

Good for consumers though

Re:AOL has webmail for members by rizzo420 · 2004-12-23 03:03 · Score: 1

do they actually offer pop3 mail for subscribers now? the biggest issue i had with using aol was that i had other email addresses that i couldn't send mail from when i was connected to aol. they don't have an smtp server that i could use to send mail (actually they did at one point and turned off access to it to send mail from outside addresses). i no longer use aol, this was years ago. i haven't seen it in a long time.

--
please me, have no regrets.
Re:AOL has webmail for members by nuggetman · 2004-12-23 03:29 · Score: 1

do they actually offer pop3 mail for subscribers now?
No
It's IMAP

--
...and that's all there is to it.

Article Short on Features by CMiYC · 2004-12-23 02:44 · Score: 2, Funny

So what innovative features will AOL WebMail Support?

1) Advanced URL that allows you to access your email from any computer in the world! No extra software required (*).

2) Up to and over 100 Megabytes of Lightening Fast Mail Storage! (again, no real details in article)

3) Your own personal email address, which is yours and yours alone. Allowing your friends and family to easily remember it and send you email!

4) Super-duper spam blocker. Prevents 90% of the email originating from AOL from leaving AOL! (this WAS discussed in the article)

5) Weekly AOL spam with software attachments. The ZIP file will be a nicely decorated tin.

Re:Article Short on Features by Jabolio · 2004-12-23 03:37 · Score: 1

The sad part about this is that someone actually got paid to sit down and crank out that tripe.

The WORSE part about it is that some people are actually going to buy into what they're selling.

Oh well, in a country that re-elected Bush, anything can happen!! :)
Re:Article Short on Features by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:52 · Score: 0

Being such a big leftie, I am surprised you didn't try out to be a pitcher.
Re:Article Short on Features by CMiYC · 2004-12-23 04:45 · Score: 1

Well no, not really.

I kinda made them all up.

My point was there were no details in the article, so I tried to imagine what they might be....

AOL Mail Invites by jamesbuko · 2004-12-23 02:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Ok who wants AOL Mail Invites?...I have 6 to give out...

in a crunch... by bpuli · 2004-12-23 02:47 · Score: 1

AOL is in a serious crunch - they were losing the low cost ($9.95 and below) dialup business (so they got into it - don't they own both Netscape and peoplepc?). Their ad revenue is falling so they get into the free email business - make sense (sorta). Their foray into broadband failed. They are just grasping at straws at this point, I think.

--
BP http://www.card-central.com

Re:in a crunch... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:54 · Score: 0

I think PeoplePC is owned by Earthlink...
Re:in a crunch... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:36 · Score: 0

AOL is in a serious crunch - they were losing the low cost ($9.95 and below) dialup business (so they got into it - don't they own both Netscape and peoplepc?). Their ad revenue is falling so they get into the free email business - make sense (sorta). Their foray into broadband failed. They are just grasping at straws at this point, I think.

I think the keyword here is: "think." But you have no clue. You're a moron who doesn't realize that Aol had a pivotal role in the creation of mozilla (check at wikipedia) and that it is a content provider. They do not offer broadband because they don't own phone companies, and they only are a part of one cable company, which already has internet customers.

You win the "I don't know what the F I'm talking about" award today.

What a dumb lead-in. by GoofyBoy · 2004-12-23 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

1. AOL is a Internet technology compnay. Email is part of it. AOL is a customer service company. Email serves customers.
2. Who cares if AOL does something different. Does it really matter? Or is this where we all bash one company (MS, AOL, Walmart, **AA) for doing something, yet praise another company (Apple, RedHat) for doing the exact same thing.
3. You don't need to have the stupid lead-in questions that can be answered with a Yes or No. People will still not read the article and post comments. Even in duplicate stories.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Re:What a dumb lead-in. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 05:35 · Score: 0

Uuuh... welcome to Crashpot?

Maybe it Can Hire Back Some People! by Evil+W1zard · 2004-12-23 02:47 · Score: 1

They can hire back some of the folks they laid off to develop this and then they can lay them off again right before executive bonus time next year.

--
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!

AOLTW already offers free webmail by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:49 · Score: 0

...via netscape.net. Anyone with an AIM screen name can get aim_name@netscape.net. So, in a way, they already offer free webmail.

Yes by ThogScully · 2004-12-23 02:49 · Score: 0, Troll

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?
Yes. Relevant.
-N

--
I've nothing to say here...

software... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:50 · Score: 0

Would I need an installation CD to get one of these email accounts? And if so, where could I find them?

Subject of patdown? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:51 · Score: 0

Go here to tell them all about it.

But how to make $$ without the adware and spyware? by motika · 2004-12-23 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

This makes no sense. How will AOL benefit if it can't install enough spyware and adware on your computer to bring it to a crawl? I had to install the demon on my work computer, since AOL users were not able to keep sessions on our server due to its proxy farms. It tries to run 4 background apps, one of which eats 11M of memory which claims to be a spyware blocker. Right. Due to the proxy farms browsing with AOL over DSL is like going back to 1994 over 14.4 dialup. It took 30 seconds to get pages which should have taken 5. Then again, I wish them a hearty does of failure!

new business lines by N3Z · 2004-12-23 02:51 · Score: 1

AOL must expand into new business lines as the dial-up market is shrinking. Broadband services are stealing customers from the dial-up ISP's.

With free webmail AOL is attempting to bring back some of the advertising revenue it has been loosing as customers move away.

--
.signature not found

Ho well by GrAfFiT · 2004-12-23 02:52 · Score: 1

Sure it would be a good idea to get an @aol.com mail account. They block my mail. I block their mail. After all, spam for spam is a good trade.

What is Netscape Mail then? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 02:53 · Score: 0

... if it isn't a free webmail service from AOL?

They're too late to the game. by MtViewGuy · 2004-12-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Especially now with Yahoo! Mail offering 250 megabytes of storage for free and 2 gigabytes of storage for paid members. Not to mention what happens when Google Mail finally goes out of beta test. Even smaller portal sites like MyWay.com are offering 125 megabytes of email storage for free.

Easy on the cynicism. It's almost Christmas! by Retrospecter · 2004-12-23 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

This reminds of of when that crazy search engine Google said they were gonna do webmail. Nice try Google! We all know you're just a search engine!

Hmmm.... by macthulhu · 2004-12-23 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

As an employee of The Death Star... errrr... Time Warner, I think it's safe to say that the only way this thing will work, is if they outsource their IT jobs. If the clowns running it now are the ones they rely on to keep it up and running right, it will die a quick embarrasing death. I mean, these are guys who remotely access everyone's computers at night and remove printer drivers for the printers they shipped us... Or disable all of the audio hardware on laptops used for presentations... Then they get all peeved when their phones start ringing. I realize that's a small issue, as long as it's not your printer, but it's indicative of the sharpness of the tools in our shed.

I have to go now... there are some men here to escort me to the re-education chamber for speaking out about our hard working, highly skilled IT workers.

--

Someday a real rain is gonna come...

Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 13:04 · Score: 0

We should all sleep better then knowing that the IT staff has absolutely nothing to do with operations and running any of the customer-facing content. Two completely different organizations. I don't let the internal IT staff touch any of my equipment because they generally do a good number on it but I do have a pretty high respect for the operations group that keeps the actual service running (most of it on linux mind you)
Re:Hmmm.... by macthulhu · 2004-12-23 16:30 · Score: 1

I agree. I work in the cable unit, and I've met many refugees that left AOL to become our IT people after the merger. Where their grubby paws tend to really mess things up is on the average desktops that the people who actually pull the oars for the slave ship have to use for their day to day work. Thankfully, I've managed to keep all of their creepy remote software off of my production machines... Unfortunately, our plant department has not been so lucky. It's not so much that they can barely keep the machines free of viruses and the like... It's more about the way they can slow people's work down to a crawl by doing weird things like reassigning IP addresses for every printer on the network without telling anyone. Our internal email is so unreliable, that many of us use additional screen names from our Road Runner accounts!
Maybe it's less about incompetence than it is about creating job security... It's hard for me to say, but I don't think having that sort of crew could be good. More importantly, AOL/TW really can't afford too many more public embarassments. Competition is stiff, many of our brands are laughed at, internal morale is at its lowest point in the ten years I've been here... We need a win pretty bad at this point, so I hope they execute this thing well.

--
Someday a real rain is gonna come...

They're already doing it, aren't they? by MozLoki · 2004-12-23 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

AOL owns Netscape, which already has free webmail - granted, it isn't the greatest and doesn't have the AOL branding, but it's still in existence.

Re:They're already doing it, aren't they? by SimonShine · 2004-12-23 03:31 · Score: 1

Chances are that, in spite of them owning netscape mail, they probably never touched the code.

--
Take off every 'ZIG' !!

Ooooh! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:05 · Score: 0

All the prestige of an @aol.com e-mail address, but for free? Where do I sign up?

hotmail uppedtheir storage by SkunkPussy · 2004-12-23 03:05 · Score: 1

"Both Yahoo and MSN Hotmail upped their storage limits to 250 megabytes for free accounts and 2 gigabytes for paid accounts. Yahoo also acquired e-mail startups Oddpost Inc. and Stata Laboratories Inc. earlier this year. "

my hotmail account is still at 2MB. There is a banner advert at the side of the page proclaiming the upgrade is here. Apparently I now have free virus scanning. When's the real upgrade coming?

It pisses me off how it gets repeated online that hotmail offers 250MB. I have seen no evidence to back this assertion.

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!

Re:hotmail uppedtheir storage by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:10 · Score: 0

I have 250 MB in my hotmail account. They have been rolling it out to people. I knows some who had the upgrade to 250 mb a while before i did. I wouldn't think it should be too much longer before you get upgraded. Their site says for new accounts you start off at 25mb then after 30 days the up it to 250.

Why not a NewPod? by AtariAmarok · 2004-12-23 03:06 · Score: 2, Funny

"The awesome thing about the Newton was its hilariously bad handwriting recognition"

Why not a device that combines the best features of the Newton and the iPod?

You put in your Pink Floyd AAC files, and listen in the little white headphones: "We bone need oh education. Flea don't bead no cough control"....

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

hey now by Ambient_Developer · 2004-12-23 03:09 · Score: 1

AOL doesn't suck! Do you know how many free coasters they send me each year? They even gift wrap them in a wood box!

Re:hey now by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:16 · Score: 0

Those aren't coasters. They are parts for a throne.

Here are the instructions on putting it together

http://stupidco.com/aol_throne_intro.html

What happened to Internet time? by fuzzy12345 · 2004-12-23 03:09 · Score: 1

Jeepers. What kind of clown announces that -- in six months -- they will roll out a web based service that was state of the art eight years ago?

Do they think people will hold off getting a Hotmail account so they can have those three little letters that say so much instead?

If there's a stock analyst covering this sector who doesn't really understand this 'internets' thing, that's who this announcement is directed at.

--

Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.

This is ODD since they already are.. by jlrowe · 2004-12-23 03:10 · Score: 1

They have been a webmail provider for years. Ever since they bought Netscape. I have an account there at www.netscape.com.

So, just what is new? Not webmail. Features maybe...

what AOL is/is not by SuperBanana · 2004-12-23 03:10 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

AOL has always been trying to become something which it is not. Fast. Reliable. Relevant.

They gave up- now their commercials just sell AOL as easy to use and "the 'in' thing".

--
Please help metamoderate.

Something it's not... by Dracolytch · 2004-12-23 03:11 · Score: 1

Meaning what, a viable company?

~D

--
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.

Are there really any web apps as good as client? by tjstork · 2004-12-23 03:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've yet to see a web application as good as a comparable client application.

--
This is my sig.

Relevant by dbfruth · 2004-12-23 03:14 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not? You mean relevant?

Tautology alert by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:16 · Score: 0

"Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

You cannot become that which you already are, grasshopper.

AOL already offers free webmail: Netscape mail by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:16 · Score: 0

If you already a Netscape.net user, you know you have free 250 MB of webmail from Netscape.

Re:Are there really any web apps as good as client by TrippTDF · 2004-12-23 03:17 · Score: 1

I normally agree. However, Gmail is an exception. I was really excited when they started to offer POP3, and I could use Outlook, but after a few days, I just found myself using the web interface again. I like it too much.

Aol uses Imap by acomj · 2004-12-23 03:17 · Score: 1

It does work. I've set up it for family members to battle spam.

http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/imap/

Sticky Business? by hhawk · 2004-12-23 03:20 · Score: 1

The question is really, why does someone stick with a service. Any service from an Amex card to AOL. If you have a paid AOL with the "paid" email account, and then you go and buy Broadband some place else... and then you quit AOL do you get to convert your previously paid email/screen name to the free account. (I assume you can't).

As long as you can't convert paid accounts to unpaid, they have no risk. Your hotmail or google account is only taking away from their brand "power" (% of market share).

If they can kill off any of the free email systems they have helped themselves.

The question remains, if you can convert paid accounts to free ones why do you stay a member? (I think they could try to make the case that the reason will be Spam blocking, virus protection and AOL Radio). On the other hand if your leaving AOL anyway, and they can keep their "hooks" into you by letting you keep your email address does that help you (yes), does it help them (maybe not). Plus I would assume giving you the ability to keep your old AOL email address would make your choice to leave AOL much much easier.

--
http://www.hawknest.com/

AOL already has free webmail by ModernCelt · 2004-12-23 03:20 · Score: 2, Informative

AOL owns and operates netscape.net, which offers webmail and other services. Every AIM account has a corresponding netscape.net email account. If you register the Netscape browser, you create an AIM screenname and therefore a netscape.net email account.

GMail? by Quixote · 2004-12-23 03:21 · Score: 1

Well, seeing that GMail is down and AOLMail is not yet available, I guess AOL has already caught up with GMail ;-)

Re:GMail? by NAvAP · 2004-12-23 07:17 · Score: 1

GMail is down and AOLMail is not yet available gmail is down? as of when..wasnt 5 seconds ago when I checked it last

Another Email Address by drewzhrodague · 2004-12-23 03:22 · Score: 1

Hm, I probably could use another email address...

--
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.

Pure Marketing by sunsrin · 2004-12-23 03:24 · Score: 1

Its the same funda as in a FMCG marketing war, one cuts the price, everyone else has to. There is no other way. So its natural that we will have big and small players wanting a share in the pie.
To add to this, There is book called the The Rule of Three - which says, amongst a number of companies, only three will dominate. More on it at Rule of Three. My three will still be Google, M$ and Yahoo

--
>> Techflock-flock onto the best bits of technology

To quote jwz... by netsharc · 2004-12-23 03:26 · Score: 1

My friends keep saying ``jwz@aol.com'' and then laughing uncontrollably...

So who wants @aol.com invites!? Ask me!!

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!

Can we stick to "Release" not "Plan to Release" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:28 · Score: 0

AOL has a new plan every week. Next week it's "AOL plans browser based on Opera".

The only interesting plan they ever had was to make a Mozilla-based the default for their customers. That plan never happened.

Get real by gnuguru · 2004-12-23 03:29 · Score: 1

AOL have been fucking good at mail for a while now.

Innovation by unixfun · 2004-12-23 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny

I can hear it now -- AOL's innovative feature that separates it from the rest is..... "You've got Webmail!". Groan....

--

Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Com

The first thing I thought of... by Uteck · 2004-12-23 03:32 · Score: 1

when I read this was, "Now Tom can get off AOL dial-up and get DSL, and keep his e-mail address." How many users will they lose to this? Or will they not allow people to keep their e-mail? Will the free e-mail become spam magnets like Hotmail's and Yahoo's? How many places will they sell your personal info?
Overall I think this will mark AOL's doom.

--
no .sig found Please restart your browser.

Erm... by MoogMan · 2004-12-23 03:35 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

Well, it'd be kinda silly to try and become something that it already is, wouldnt it?

They have found a method to make it profitable by gone.fishing · 2004-12-23 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most companies look at things from the perspective of "Will it make us money?" I'm sure AOL is not different. I'd say that someone came up with an idea, researched it and presented it to the managment team and was able to convince them that somehow, someway there was enough potential there for them to make money so they decided to do it.

Frankly, I kind of like the idea of an AOL email account. I can give people an address I'll never check!

Re:They have found a method to make it profitable by killbill! · 2004-12-23 06:49 · Score: 1

Most companies look at things from the perspective of "What is the latest fad that that we could we could belatedly join (and obviously, utterly fail to understand)?" I'm sure AOL is not different. I'd say that someone noticed everyone else is doing it, quickly came up with a few shiny Powerpoint slides right before bonus time and presented it to the managment team and was able to convince them that if everyone is doing it, somehow, someway there was enough potential there for them to make money so they decided to do it.
Re:They have found a method to make it profitable by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-12-23 09:34 · Score: 1

Funny how it took them 8+ years to figure this out, and only after most of their competitors have started offering it.

More like, those greedy Aohell basturds were forced into it.

--

eTrade SUCKS
Re:They have found a method to make it profitable by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:57 · Score: 0

Funny how it took them 8+ years to figure this out, and only after most of their competitors have started offering it.

More like, those greedy Aohell basturds were forced into it.

Wow, an internet service you used 7 years ago caused you that much emotional trauma. There's a name for people like you. And it would get me banned to use it.
Re:They have found a method to make it profitable by gone.fishing · 2004-12-24 05:32 · Score: 1

You are pretty close to right. I've been in the position where I've had an idea that showed a great deal of promise. I sold the idea to my bosses and had the opportunity to present it to managment. The idea was obvious and stood a great chance of working; the risk to the company was utterly zero, and the profit potential was very high.

The first question the managers asked me was: "Why isn't anyone else doing it?" The second question was: "Can you show us real numbers?" They actually looked for excuses not to do it.

They didn't adopt the idea. They laid off salesforce and eventually went out of business. Their closest competitor now does exactly what I proposed and is quite successful.

their webmail provider is mailblocks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 03:35 · Score: 0

they recently purchased mailblocks. in my opinion, the best web based email, by far. i'm not affiliated with either in any way, except a very happy customer of mailblocks. i really cringed when aol bought them.

I used to use by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-12-23 03:41 · Score: 1

Compuserve in 1980? whew, I'm old. Then I found out about BBS's and direct modem to modem chat and file transfer (I think I first got Ultima III over teh modem). After that, all I needed was a modem and a phone line (well cable now). Who cares about the 'services' AOL offers, I tell anyone I know not to use AOL.

Unless of course they say they want to be uber lazy and not worry about setting up a firewall, virus protection, etc. In that case, I just tell them how easy it is and show them how. Or point them to other options (like Earthlink) or something.

Profit and Reinvention by MSTCrow5429 · 2004-12-23 03:52 · Score: 1

"Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?" Do you mean profitable? Seriously though, AOL has lost it's main reason to exist; massive amounts of newbies who are willing to use dial-up. Many of these newbies have, technologically speaking, grown up, and dial-up isn't desirable compared to broadband for most regions and applications. Any business that expects to survive long-term must constantly adapt to consumer preferences, which necessitates that the business constantly reinvent itself to pursue new markets and opportunities, and extricate itself from unprofitable and dying markets. Or we could all be driving Ford Model As and using behemoth vacuum tube-based computers.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

AOL became what it was not. by jellomizer · 2004-12-23 04:04 · Score: 1

AOL was origionally just a glorifed Paid BBS. Like Prodigy, or Compuserve. Then to stay competive it Added Internet Email Support then With more and more internet access until it became reconized as being the internet by most. Then it began to push in the instant messageing direction after success with ICQ. And now it is pushing its web mail. It is a way to keep people interested in using AOL and not switch to something else while allowing them to comunicate eaislly with non members.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

AOL was better when... by __aamcgs2220 · 2004-12-23 04:09 · Score: 1

...it was still called Quantum Link, or Q-Link for the most part. It worked great with a 300 baud modem that connected to the "user port" on the back of a C-64, and People Connection only cost $0.08 per minute! Anyway, on the free web mail topic, they're trying to capture the "I don't want to pay that much for the Internet" crowd with the Netscape service, and the "free" web mail service will capture people simply on name recognition. Are they trying to be a better AOL? Unlikely. The ghost of Steve Case's ego still haunts the boardroom, and that's a particularly nasty one to get rid of.

Re:AOL was better when... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:45 · Score: 0

...it was still called Quantum Link, or Q-Link for the most part. It worked great with a 300 baud modem that connected to the "user port" on the back of a C-64, and People Connection only cost $0.08 per minute!

$0.08 per minute = $4.80 an hour, which would be $115.20 in 24 hours?

Wow, a terrific deal!

You were being sarcastic right? Right?

I'm not sure this will work. by spisska · 2004-12-23 04:12 · Score: 1

My folks still use AOL mail for business. The logic when they signed up in the mid '90s was that it was a recognizable name, and therefore had more value than mail@joesflybynightisp.com.

This is also why they still use AOL mail even though they have switched from AOL dialup to cable access, and have switched to using Firefox to access the mail rather than AOL's (POS) built-in browser.

They've been using this address for so long that it's completely inundated with spam, but they'd rather not go through the hassle of changing addresses.

But what this means is that they'll still be able to keep the AOL addresses, but now will no longer have to pay for it.

This is a great thing for them, but I don't see how AOL will be making money out of it.

I imagine that there are many more people who keep their AOL accounts out of inertia than there are people who want an AOL address but can't or don't want to pay for it.

I don't see a mass migration from free Hotmail, Yahoo, or Gmail to AOL, but I do see a mass migration from paid AOL to free AOL.

Even assuming they increase the number of users, do they expexct future ad revenues to be larger than current monthly fees?

Re:I'm not sure this will work. by jci · 2004-12-23 06:03 · Score: 1

AOL did allow creation of AOL screen names to become AIM names, which allowed some people to escape AOL but keep their popular IM. They didn't expire when the AOL account was canceled as well.

What I am thinking is: why would they screw up again? As a few surmised, why would free webmail necessarily have the same domain as current AOL mail?

Keeping people locked in via an e-mail address is much more effective than IM.

The first thing earthlink asked me when I was canceling was "what about your e-mail addresses?"

I would be very surprised if the free webmail would allow for @aol.com.

@aol.com by Rytsarsky · 2004-12-23 04:13 · Score: 1

My parents had AOL for years. I finally got them onto road runner (as a Christmas gift :). They're still paying $4.00/month, the cheapest AOL service plan, so they can keep their aol address, which they get through imap/smtp. Does this mean that they'll be able to finally drop the aol plan completely and keep their free address? Even so, they wouldn't be able to use Thunderbird to check it anymore. :(

--
God became man to enable men to become sons of God. -C.S. Lewis

Wow Wow Wow! by Kylow · 2004-12-23 04:15 · Score: 1

A FREE webmail account when you sign up for 50 FREE HOURS!

RTFA? by dantheman82 · 2004-12-23 04:24 · Score: 1

Why should I RTFA if there is no interesting news here? When the train has left the station already, do we really have to look out the back window to see who (cough, AOL) was left behind? Oh, in related news, did you know that ILoveSpam.com is offering free email as well? I'm going with AOL@ILoveSpam.com - with a side order of AOL 9.0 CDs in the mail.

--
This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.

Re:RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:16 · Score: 0

Why should I RTFA if there is no interesting news here? When the train has left the station already, do we really have to look out the back window to see who (cough, AOL) was left behind? Oh, in related news, did you know that ILoveSpam.com is offering free email as well? I'm going with AOL@ILoveSpam.com - with a side order of AOL 9.0 CDs in the mail.

Let me guess, you fancy yourself an intellectual because you know how to double click on internet explorer? It's no longer the late 1990s, you wouldn't even recognize the Aol service if you saw it today. I can't stand people who don't research what they gripe about.

AOL already has a free Webmail service... by levitater · 2004-12-23 04:39 · Score: 1

It's called Netscape Webmail and it sucks even more than AOL's own service. Yes, they upped the storage limit to 500mb, but the interface is still so late 90's. Alas, in desperate attempts to get something to stick, AOL seems to be releasing two or three versions of every service, all which compete against each other... Netscape browser vs AOL Browser; Winamp vs AOL Media Player; AOL vs Netscape Online vs Compuserve; Radio@Netscape vs Radio@AOL Poor AOL, it has multiple personality disorder.

something it's not? by syle · 2004-12-23 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

No more than Google is. Remember when it was a search engine? AOL has been doing email for years.

--

/syle

Hah, easy! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 04:53 · Score: 0

> Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

The hard part is becoming something you already are.

the Hook... by SeaFox · 2004-12-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

That's the discussion (joke) hook, right?

Let me try...
A company expanding and growing rather than a giant in its twilight years?

A company that knows what it's doing?

An innovator?

No it means.... by AviLazar · 2004-12-23 05:04 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?"

....that AOL is changing part of its business model in an attempt to increase its ad-supported client base and hopefully its paying client base. There is nothing wrong with this. Why is the author trying to downplay AOL because they are evolving, or should we have AOL go out of business? Remember, they did help a great deal to get people on the net. They may not be the best service, but for the longest time they were.

Just a note - I do not subscribe to AOL, and except for a three month period (was waiting for comcast to setup highspeed in a new place that I moved) I have never subscribed to AOL...even back in the dial-up days.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.

Analogies. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 05:33 · Score: 0

Hotmail::msn internet access
yahoo::sbc/yahoo! dsl
AOL webmail::AOL
Gmail::________

This is a sign of desperation from AOL... by pappy97 · 2004-12-23 06:39 · Score: 1

AOL now all of a sudden is promoting free web based e-mail?

That makes me think one thing: AOL is getting desperate. AOL has been fading for the last few years (since 2000).

AOL is having a hard time keeping people, because now even their usual base of idiot customers have realized that AOL does not equal the Internet. (Remember when people though AOL and the Internet were the same thing? [Shudders])

Less and less people want to pay for a glorified BBS with Internet Access, when for less money (on other the dialup or broadband side) you can get what you really want (Internet), without the AOL crap.

Re:This is a sign of desperation from AOL... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:13 · Score: 0

Before continuing your rant, read this:

http://www.mozilla.org/stevecase.html

Aol was a big supporter of the Mozilla project, in case you use Firefox.

And Aol is now a content provider more than an internet service provider. Pull your head out of the late 90's, and wake up. People like you think Aol users connect on 28k modems and don't understand internet concepts just because they like the content you get under that service.

I guess you fancy yourself an intellectual because you can double click on internet explorer?

Re:Simple solution... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 07:07 · Score: 1

Honestly, I'm far more concerned with keeping spammers off the system. IMHO, what you're suggesting so so impractible that it's just not usable. Someone who attempted to mount their IMAP drive to use as a disk store would be sorely disappointed with my available bandwidth.

Sorry, I see your point, but 'unlimited' is well within practical limits.

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)

Great. by Muttonhead · 2004-12-23 07:11 · Score: 1

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not?

Oh thank God. Finally.

Company quietly offers 1TB webmail account by dep01 · 2004-12-23 07:17 · Score: 1

This website currently (quietly) offers 1TB webmail accounts, which is pretty impressive.

--
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"

Uh, I thought that AOL already had free webmail... by cjmnews · 2004-12-23 07:18 · Score: 1

It's called http://webmail.netscape.com/

Ok, so it's under the Netscape name, but you use your AOL screen name to log into it. I have a relative that uses AOL for IM, so I have to have an AOL screen name to use with Gaim

I used it for my junk email account (address for ordering products, New York Times subscription, etc) until it got unrealiable at forwarding email with embedded graphics. I have recently abanonded the address now in favor of a Yahoo account that I can forward any message to my family account, plus I get free SPAMGuard at Yahoo. A feature Netscape does not have.

That reminds me, Netscape used to be my personal account for years until they "updated" (read: broke) their front end and removed message filtering (primitive SPAM removal) decent folder traversal and address aliases. That's when it became a junk email account.

I hope the developers for Netscape webmail had nothing to do with the AOL webmail because the number 1 pastime for most people (forwarding messages) won't work if they have embedded graphics.

--
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.

Don't they already have webmail? by slappyjack · 2004-12-23 07:20 · Score: 1

Can't AOL subscribers already get their mail from a web based client?

Either way, a free AOL mail account would be really sweet, and by really sweet I mean it will completely suck ass.

I already have a free webmail account that gets flooded with spam every day.

--
s'wut i sed.

Re:Don't they already have webmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:20 · Score: 0

Can't AOL subscribers already get their mail from a web based client?

Either way, a free AOL mail account would be really sweet, and by really sweet I mean it will completely suck ass.

I already have a free webmail account that gets flooded with spam every day.

The great thing about it is: You don't even use it. So how would you know it sucks ass?

Keep paying Mcafee for your updates, and keep thinking that Aol is a dialup apologist.

Ignorance comes in many forms, and some of it is criticism that is not even up to date.

Re:Simple solution... by MMMDI · 2004-12-23 07:26 · Score: 1

It's your service, so you can obviously do what you like with it. I was merely pointing out how bad of a decision it was to offer this, but you're well within your rights to do so.

On a side note, it would only cost me $10 per month to get one of those unlimited space accounts? And just to be certain that I'm clear here, as long as I don't exceed the 200 meg per month bandwidth limit on that plan, I'll have unlimited space to do with as I please for as long as I continue paying the $10 per month? Do you offer an X day money back guarantee if I feel that the service doesn't live up to the claims? If so, I think I may take you up on this offer.

360 on AOL by np_bernstein · 2004-12-23 07:30 · Score: 1

It used to be that I would tell my less than technical friends "Oh, don't use AOL, it's a ripoff." Now, it's what I recommend, and I think AOL offering free webmail is a great idea.

I don't like the fact that AOL is HUGE, or that it started the snowball that destroyed the mom-and-pop ISP industry (the admins at shore.net taught me unix when I was 12) but I do like the idea of a private network that seperates users who are not technical users from the internet at large. I want someone to hold users hands - if all ISPs offered thick client programs that pushed out the newest (and patched) browser release, gave antivirus & spyware, and hell OS UPDATES (why does no one do this) - I think it would be an amazing boon to the computing community at large.

Take my parents for example - they still use Mac OS 9 (think windows 98) - at the company where I work 75% of our clients (small realestate agents and companies) use windows98. If AOL, or another competing vendor were to not only provide a connection to the internet, but automate all of the things you need to do in order to actually /use/ the internet safely, I think it would be a wonderful thing.

In my opinion, anything that gets more users to start using AOL and other thick-client ISPs, is great.

--
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979

Webmail makes them become something they're not? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 07:30 · Score: 0

How is free webmail anything new for AOL? Isn't the Netscape brand still owned by AOL? Netscape has been offering free webmail for a long time. Anyone with an AIM username already has a Netscape email account in the same name at his or her disposal.

Worst Email Ever! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 08:15 · Score: 0

AOL's current client is one of the worst email solutions for a newbie user ever created. No warnings on messages without subjects, no automatic inclusion of text from the previous message on replies, etc, etc.

I can't wait until AOSmell folds....

The difference between AOL and Google by sabNetwork · 2004-12-23 08:43 · Score: 1

The difference between AOL and Google is that Google just does it. They don't send out press releases, generate hype, and create vaporware.

--

Re:The difference between AOL and Google by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:01 · Score: 0

The difference between AOL and Google is that Google just does it. They don't send out press releases, generate hype, and create vaporware.

So free webmail (that they already have according to many here) is vaporware?

Have you ever used it? Or do you just bash it to be with the in crowd?

AOL already has free webmail: Netscape.net! by BinaryOpty · 2004-12-23 08:58 · Score: 1

AOL's already been giving free webmail service out for a while now, only it's netscape.net webmail. Whenever you sign up for an AIM account you get [accountname]@netscape.net, you just have to go activate it. I've abused this in the past (because of the AIM one-email-per-account rule) to essentially make an infinite amount of AIM accounts. Plus, the account's tied to AIM so AIM puts up a new mail message whenever you get something in your inbox. And since no one knows about it, I get no spam!

but... by bdow · 2004-12-23 09:06 · Score: 1

you mean they'll offer free webmail under the aol brand. I've had my netscape.net account since the mid-90's.

Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 09:06 · Score: 0

Hey... could we get an insightful moderation over here for the parent? That would be great... thanks.

Huh? by Ilgaz · 2004-12-23 09:09 · Score: 1

mail@netscape.net , is IMAP over netscape 7.x, does have spam filter via program itself (netscape 7.x).

Thank you.

something which it is not? by imthatguy · 2004-12-23 09:41 · Score: 0

One word:

USEFUL

--
Did you know you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...

No thanks! by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2004-12-23 09:41 · Score: 1

From what history has shown Aol to be, I could care less what they offer.

Aol is the king of shameless advertising. Back in the 97-98 I had Aol. Every time I logged on there would be popup ads. Everywhere I turned I would get more of the same, ads ads ads. With a 28kbps modem, it was pure hell having to wait for their damn ads when all I wanted to do was check my mail.

Then there was Netscape, after Aol bought them out. I used to like their browser, but then it turned to crap fast. I couldn't use the Netscape browser for more than 2 minutes without seeing some lame link to netscape.com. It was all over the place, links in my bookmarks, links in the main browser window, links in the menu, links in many functions, etc.

Aol is one annoying adware company just like Real.com. At least with the Real Player I see they've gotten the hint. Aol? I don't think so.

--

eTrade SUCKS

Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 15:51 · Score: 0

Aol is the king of shameless advertising. Back in the 97-98 I had Aol. Every time I logged on there would be popup ads. Everywhere I turned I would get more of the same, ads ads ads. With a 28kbps modem, it was pure hell having to wait for their damn ads when all I wanted to do was check my mail.

You're clearly living in the past, your information is at least 6 years old, how you can post about it as if it is relevent is interesting. Furthermore, they have no more ads than any other service including MSN. And their "pop up ads" (if any, I haven't seen them in years) can be easily disabled. I love how people like you who quit using Aol in 98 assume that it is the same way you left it.

I'll give you an update:

The business model has changed from service provider to content provider. It's got a lot of content, that you cannot get elsewhere without separate charges. For example, www.cnn.com, want to read articles? Good luck, some will demand a subscription. Not so on Aol. Same thing with Wallstreet Journal, ABC news videos, etc etc, teeny bopper magazines, whatever. Gotta love corporate contracts.

You can watch music videos before they come out on MTV. CD quality radio without commercials. See many movie trailers and such before they are available elsewhere.

Free Mcafee VSO updates (no reminders to pay for a new Mcafee subscription). Content such as this is available for $14.95 per month if you have a broadband connection.

Clearly, you think that just because you used a 28k modem in 98, that Aol is still doing the same.

You're stuck in the past, not Aol.

Re:Simple solution... by Havokmon · 2004-12-23 10:14 · Score: 1

On a side note, it would only cost me $10 per month to get one of those unlimited space accounts? And just to be certain that I'm clear here, as long as I don't exceed the 200 meg per month bandwidth limit on that plan, I'll have unlimited space to do with as I please for as long as I continue paying the $10 per month?

That's correct. Technically, the first month would be $25, as there is a $15 setup charge. Do you offer an X day money back guarantee if I feel that the service doesn't live up to the claims? If so, I think I may take you up on this offer.

No, there is no guarantee. You're welcome to open up a free account and see if that meets your needs before you upgrade it or get your own domain. (LOL, back to square one. I really only provided free accounts for domain owners to test the service. Free users started 'flocking' to the service, so I had to adjust my plan to try and get them to pay in some way :)

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)

Some of you are out of date by philwx · 2004-12-23 11:38 · Score: 0

Those of you who think that Aol is the same company it was in the early/mid 90s, resting on it's laurels at having many dial-up subscribers are using out of date thinking yourselves. Years ago Aol changed it's business model to be a content provider more than an internet service provider. Want to read a CNN news article at www.cnn.com? CNN wants you to get a news pass? You don't need one with Aol. Want to watch an ABC news video. ABC wants you to subscribe? You don't have to on Aol. Same with Wall Street journal, etc, etc. You can see music videos before they come out on MTV, due to lucrative agreements. Many online magazines are available free of charge. CD quality radio stations, etc. If you have a broadband connection this is $14.95 for this type of content. There has been a lot of changes with it, it is far from the company lost in the 90s without a clue. But keep on thinking what you need to to make yourselves feel better.

Stupid answers for stupid questions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 12:15 · Score: 0

Does this mean AOL is trying to become something which it is not? Yes. They are trying to become profitable!

Hey Aol bashing morons, do you like Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 16:30 · Score: 0

Read this article from wikipedia.com, not from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla

Aol had a very large role in making the Mozilla project work, period.

But keep on bashing a service you used once in 1997. We know that double clicking on Internet explorer makes you a certified computer genius.

You wouldn't even recognize Aol today, it's a content provider more than anything. Not, as you assume, a dialup provider dedicated to hiding the "real" internet (an internet that involves double clicking IE) from their users.

Cheers.

You've got... by Hobadee · 2004-12-23 20:09 · Score: 1

"You've got ma...."
WOOHOO! No more voices in my computer!

(Hopefully they don't know how to embed sounds into web pages....)

--
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.

Good. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-12-23 20:11 · Score: 1

Because that's what I look for in a technology product. I don't want soemthing functional,usefull, or practical unless its got some bling. You know, something extra that will make people thing that I'm an amazing person when they look at me. Its like my car, I could just drive a ford, but I prefer driving a Jaguar. Sure its just a label, but people need to know how much better I am then them in a quick glance. In fact I soon plan on enscribing my name on the moon with a giant laser, just so everyone down here knows what the score is.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Slashdot Mirror

AOL Plans to Offer Free Webmail

211 comments