>Yeah, I knew that... but I don't see the worth >of it all. In other words, both sides are taking >a huge PR hit on this. I'd be interested in >knowing how much revenue AOL generates from AIM. >If it were like millions of dollars in >advertising, then I could understand. But I've >run AIM from my PC's before, and all the >advertising was for AOL. I've seen little other >advertising, but I haven't used it in the past >month. *shrug*
As for the AOL ads in AIM, it sounds like cheap advertising to all those people that are not yet AOL users.
I hadn't thought about it, but it would appear to be similar to the portal thing. You want as many people as possible to visit, or in the case of IM use, your service so that you can flash the ads.
In the case of third party ads its money in your pocket. In the ads for your own 'additional' services it is a 'cheap' way to get exposure.
As for PR since when did either of these companies really care about bad PR. If they did they wouldn't do so many 'stupid internet tricks'. Most people that use AOL or MSN have probably not even heard about this little flak and I am sure very few none connected people have. Also of those that have many couldn't care less, they will just go on using what they use. Just like I use ICQ because that is what the people I want to chat with use, even though there are other methods I would prefer.
The original filming may have cost $30,000, or even $3,000 as I have read elsewhere. Word is however by the time the film was ready for copying and ditribution over a million dollars was spent. Apparently there was a lot of post production work that needed to be done to make it ready for 'prime time'.
Now even a 1-2 million total this is a cheap film, that made a ton of money for someone, and will launch the careers of some new young film makers.
Just like anything that really takes off in film, much of it's success is due to hype. Whether it be paid advertising, word of mouth, internet grapevine, TV appearances, etc.
Personally I thought is was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. But then again I have never been scared by a movie and I am thus note particualry a horror fan. Except for the old stuff by Boris Karloff, Peter Lorrie, Vincent Price, etc. that make great roll your own MST3K.
>Here's what I don't get, though. Why do they >need to win the IM wars? Why is there a war in >the first place?
Simple, money!
Every time you connect to AOL with their software you see one or more ads. Every few days when you start ICQ you see one or more ads. I'm not sure if AIM works this way, but would not be surprised.
Millions of users that you can send out instant advertising to whenever you like and Microsoft wants a cut. The biggest cut of course.
Check out professional organizations like the IEEE Computer Society. I know that IEEE used to offer insurance to their members. I don't know any details however.
>Don't they realise that most people technical >enough to want to install their own operating >system (especially linux) would know enough >about getting support from free sources (no pun >intended).
That's just it, thier ultimate target market is NOT the technically savvy user, it is 'joe average' business user. That's why they have been, and will make more deals to get their distro pre-installed by PC manufacturers.
Similar to Microsoft they want the cut of every PC that Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc. ship out the door If they can get it. Any off the shelf sales are just gravy. The big bucks are in volume, i.e. tens or hundreds of thousands of units per month.
Note that these are _Sales Offices_, not development or production sites.
I would say they are being opened because that is how things are done in the business sales market to penetrate more markets. By that I mean the PHB's want to have 'local' sales and support staff to talk to.
I would also guess that these will become support hubs for 'large' support clients. So that they can do the "next day, onsite support" thing eventually.
It's a matter of pressure
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
The simple reason that kids kill is the exact same reason that anyone kills. The 'pressures' of the situation reach that persons 'breaking point'. This 'breaking point' is different for everyone and is determined by a myriad of factors in a persons life.
The other question is why are we seeing more 'postal' incidents? The reason here is population growth. There are just plain more people ina a given geographical area. The more people the more people there are that reach their 'breaking point'. The more people that are around when that 'breaking point' is reach the more victims there will be.
There have always been acts of violence in human society. The specifics relate to circustances at the time. We had gangsters in the 20's and 30's. Cowboy outlaws in the 1800's. Pirates before that.
I have no cure to the problem of why some people are less 'stable' then others and are thus more likely to 'crack' under pressure. Heck I don't even know the causes. The real sad part in how these situations are addressed is that people want to be able to assign blame to a single source, and definitely not themselves, when there is no single reason.
We must remember that we are all just a few incidents away from the circumstances that would make use kill. Maybe it is to protect someone, maybe out of rage, maybe out of vengence, who knows, but the possibility is always there.
Slashdot Mirror
>Yeah, I knew that... but I don't see the worth
>of it all. In other words, both sides are taking
>a huge PR hit on this. I'd be interested in
>knowing how much revenue AOL generates from AIM.
>If it were like millions of dollars in
>advertising, then I could understand. But I've
>run AIM from my PC's before, and all the
>advertising was for AOL. I've seen little other
>advertising, but I haven't used it in the past
>month. *shrug*
As for the AOL ads in AIM, it sounds like cheap advertising to all those people that are not yet AOL users.
I hadn't thought about it, but it would appear to be similar to the portal thing. You want as many people as possible to visit, or in the case of IM use, your service so that you can flash the ads.
In the case of third party ads its money in your pocket. In the ads for your own 'additional' services it is a 'cheap' way to get exposure.
As for PR since when did either of these companies really care about bad PR. If they did they wouldn't do so many 'stupid internet tricks'. Most people that use AOL or MSN have probably not even heard about this little flak and I am sure very few none connected people have. Also of those that have many couldn't care less, they will just go on using what they use. Just like I use ICQ because that is what the people I want to chat with use, even though there are other methods I would prefer.
John
The original filming may have cost $30,000, or even $3,000 as I have read elsewhere. Word is however by the time the film was ready for copying and ditribution over a million dollars was spent. Apparently there was a lot of post production work that needed to be done to make it ready for 'prime time'.
Now even a 1-2 million total this is a cheap film, that made a ton of money for someone, and will launch the careers of some new young film makers.
Just like anything that really takes off in film, much of it's success is due to hype. Whether it be paid advertising, word of mouth, internet grapevine, TV appearances, etc.
Personally I thought is was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. But then again I have never been scared by a movie and I am thus note particualry a horror fan. Except for the old stuff by Boris Karloff, Peter Lorrie, Vincent Price, etc. that make great roll your own MST3K.
John
>Here's what I don't get, though. Why do they
>need to win the IM wars? Why is there a war in
>the first place?
Simple, money!
Every time you connect to AOL with their software you see one or more ads. Every few days when you start ICQ you see one or more ads. I'm not sure if AIM works this way, but would not be surprised.
Millions of users that you can send out instant advertising to whenever you like and Microsoft wants a cut. The biggest cut of course.
John S. Fetzik
Check out professional organizations like the IEEE Computer Society. I know that IEEE used to offer insurance to their members. I don't know any details however.
>Don't they realise that most people technical
>enough to want to install their own operating
>system (especially linux) would know enough
>about getting support from free sources (no pun
>intended).
That's just it, thier ultimate target market is NOT the technically savvy user, it is 'joe average' business user. That's why they have been, and will make more deals to get their distro pre-installed by PC manufacturers.
Similar to Microsoft they want the cut of every PC that Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc. ship out the door If they can get it. Any off the shelf sales are just gravy. The big bucks are in volume, i.e. tens or hundreds of thousands of units per month.
Note that these are _Sales Offices_, not development or production sites.
I would say they are being opened because that is how things are done in the business sales market to penetrate more markets. By that I mean the PHB's want to have 'local' sales and support staff to talk to.
I would also guess that these will become support hubs for 'large' support clients. So that they can do the "next day, onsite support" thing eventually.
Oh no real live Teletubbies!
The simple reason that kids kill is the exact same reason that anyone kills. The 'pressures' of the situation reach that persons 'breaking point'. This 'breaking point' is different for everyone and is determined by a myriad of factors in a persons life.
The other question is why are we seeing more 'postal' incidents? The reason here is population growth. There are just plain more people ina a given geographical area. The more people the more people there are that reach their 'breaking point'. The more people that are around when that 'breaking point' is reach the more victims there will be.
There have always been acts of violence in human society. The specifics relate to circustances at the time. We had gangsters in the 20's and 30's. Cowboy outlaws in the 1800's. Pirates before that.
I have no cure to the problem of why some people are less 'stable' then others and are thus more likely to 'crack' under pressure. Heck I don't even know the causes. The real sad part in how these situations are addressed is that people want to be able to assign blame to a single source, and definitely not themselves, when there is no single reason.
We must remember that we are all just a few incidents away from the circumstances that would make use kill. Maybe it is to protect someone, maybe out of rage, maybe out of vengence, who knows, but the possibility is always there.