AOL To Charge for AIM Videoconferences

gwoodrow writes "In some of my college computer classes, we discussed the necessity of some sort of profit to be made eventually from major software. AIM was often sited as a rare example of a large company offering up a free service that generated almost no profit whatsoever. Well, that's all changing. It seems that AOL will begin charging for both voice and video conferencing services via the buddy list. Some AIM addicts are surely getting worried that AOL may eventually charge for regular usage."

Competition should keep this from spreading.

[EoRaptor]

AOL will probably be able to charge for this and get away with it, but charging for the basics won't ever work, there are too many free competitors.

They better improve the software a whole lot though.

But then you can only talk to other suckers..

[eliza_effect]

The problem with a business model like this is that you then your subscribers can only talk to other subscribers. If you essentially ARE the market for instant messenging, the case of AIM, then you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot as you scare away the vast majority of your users. Even if they did charge for any AIM usage (not just voice/video), and I signed up, what would be the point? I can't imagine anyone else I know paying for AIM. Buddy lists will only be filled with fools that have recently parted with their money. I can't imagine that they'll be able to make back in subscribing fees what they'll lose in advertising from the mass exodus..

Good

[wandernotlost]

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

Ads

[shadowkoder]

Doesn't AIM get some money from advertisers since they get their adds put in front of millions of people? I dunno how much $ this would pull, but I would guess its enough to at least break even? Either way, I could see the justification for the more bandwith intensive parts of AIM being paid for, especially if the bandwith strain on the AOL system increases along with it.

too much

[Anonymous Coward]

why would anyone pay that much?

Re:No they wont' charge for AIM

[insecuritiez]

Agreed. AOL subscribers need AIM to be free so they can chat with their non-AOL friends. If AOL suddenly started charging for regular text usage and people started leaving the service AOL subscribers would have less incentive to stay with the service either.

I've Wondered

[MBCook]

I have wondered in the past why AOL put out AIM for free. I obviously understand letting AOL members use it, but allowing non-members always confused me. I guess they thought that by letting users use it for free, they would discover they like AOL and switch to it or some such. They couldn't have been dumb enough to think that the ads would cover it (I don't think much of AOL, but even I don't think they are that dumb). I'm not suprised that they will charge for video and audio chats. Text is one thing, but video and audio are bandwidth monsters compared to "lol u kil me". I assume that AOL will still be routing everything through their central server instead of doing the video/audio conferencing straight from one PC to another.

So what happens? As audio and video chats take off, I think that AIM will decline in use. Many people love AIM, but I think AOL is overestimating how many people like free things better. They'll find something else. In the end it is only those who already subscribe to AOL that will use those services because they won't have to pay extra. There will be a few, but I doubt many will use it with free offerings out there.

Re:Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you would think that serving dozens of ads to each of about 100,000,000 people per day, to the tune of several billion impressions, would get you some sort of revenue. Even at 1/1000th of a cent per impression, that's $50,000/day.

They're not going to make any money with videochat because nobody even uses it. Who in the hell sits in front of their computer staring at a stupid webcam talking to other people like some goofy fucking dating service? I use instant messaging when I need to communicate with someone and text is just fine for me. Audio might be nice, but even that is a pain in the ass to hook up and then you have to attach the headset and make sure everything is working and deal with bandwidth, etc. It's easier to just click on a name and say "Hey, email me those documents we were talking about this morning."

*yawn*

Besides, who the hell uses AIM, Yahoo, MSN or any of the others anymore now that you can use Jabber?

Re:What about iChat?

[akeyes]

You're still using their servers, right?

Re:No they wont' charge for AIM

[skraps]

I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads, at least anyone with some sense.

Sorta like.. cable tv and movie theatres.
Was anyone else really pissed to start seeing swiffer wet-jet commercials before feature-length movies at the theatre?

It's like basic cable

[tepples]

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

Please explain the commercial success of basic cable television.

Re:Good

[MP3Chuck]

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

Re:Hmmm...

[mblase]

AIM and iChat don't use the same videoconferencing systems -- AIM video chat allows Windows XP and iChat does not; AIM allows USB cameras while iChat requires a FireWire camera (or a special non-Apple driver). So I'm sure iChat users are safe.

Time to switch -- seriously

[MikeCapone]

Jabber.org [jabber.org].

Okay, fine. Completely switching is hard since many people still use ICQ/AIM/etc, but that's what clients that support multiple protocols, like gaim and trilliant, are for.

But whenever you have a chance, for projects, friends, etc. Use Jabber, the future will thank you.

Re:RTFA, as usual

[Titchener]

Yes, exactly. Not the same thing. Speaking from experience, this is not unusual. As part of a former job, I was asked to find a good video-conference call-whiteboard solution. I looked high and low for free services, and came up with nothing. This was a while ago, so things might have changed, but the service talked about in this article is one that brings together several services that would be a pain to set up individually into a single package, and no single free, open source solution exists AFAIK.

No Profit?

[Doc Squidly]

The author of this story writes: offering up a free service that generated almost no profit whatsoever

No successful company does anything the doesn't either directly or indirectly generate revenue.

AOL doesn't make money by selling AIM but by giving it away free it does 2 things.

1.Enhances the AOL brand. AOL stays well known and attracts customers. Customers=Money.

2. AIM provides an added functionality to AOL. AOL users who like AIM (because all their AOL friends and some non-AOL friends use AIM). AOL keeps customers. Customers=Money.

My point? Companies don't have to charge money for a product to profit from it.

Re:Looks like a rumor to me.

[(startx)]

It looks like you didn't rtfa (I don't blame you, the original submitter of the article didn't either). Their not going to start charging for anything you can do free right now. They're introducing a new conference call type service which they will be charging money for. It's aimed more at businesses than the end user.

Re:Alternatives...

[p0rnking]

Ya, ads are annoying as hell, but what do you sugegst that they, and other companies do to make $$$ without charging the customer?
The services, although pretty basic (IMs) aren't cheap when you have a few million subscribers.
So the only other thing they could do, is pass the bill off onto some other services (I'm not just talking about AOL here, but most companies who offer free services).

Piece of advice .... "Suck it up princess" ... ads aren't the end of the world, and the world doesn't revolve around open source.

Re:I've Wondered

[skraps]

I obviously understand letting AOL members use it, but allowing non-members always confused me.

Their members will value the service more if they can talk to anyone on the internet with it. If it wasn't available for free, then a lot of AOL users would have skipped AIM and gone for something that was free, thus defeating the lock-in.

Re:RTFA, as usual

[cervo]

Agreed, it seems to be aimed at business users and all and all it is a good idea. It seems like someone calls a meeting, then the participants are IMed a phone number to call. Finally, the meeting is held over the telephone. Video is integrated into it somehow through the "web meeting" portion. The article isn't to clear on how the "web meeting" portion is different from a normal conference.

Overall, the poster of the article seems to have been going for a sensationalist effect. Perhaps he/she was bored and wanted to get a laugh out of the slashdot crowd who can't RTFA or the poster didn't RTFA him/herself and just formed a gut opinion and posted this in rage. Who knows....

Overall though this is slashdot news since AOL is aiming at taking a slice out of the market for company conference calls, and we all know companies love to meet/conference/do other time wasting activities. AOL may actually find a good source of revenue and we all know they need it....

Re:It's like basic cable

[homer_ca]

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

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

They could get away with charging for AIM.

[ChiaKemp]

From working at a computer repair business/ISP, I've noticed most novice or inexperienced users are totally unaware of other IM service other than AIM. AOL could start charging for basic AIM service, and there's a good chance they could keep the less experienced portion of their user base. If the users are unaware of an alternative, are unable to install/configure one themselves (trivial for /.ers, but software installation scares off many users), or simple do not want to/fear using new software, many would stick with AIM. Doing this on the logic that for them there is no other way to message on another. The lucky ones with geek friends/family could straighten them out, but the "unwashed masses" would be stuck with paying to message.

Re:[e-mail]

[gwoodrow]

D'oh! I noticed that right after I had hit submit. I'm surprised it made it this far down the forum before getting spelling-and-grammar-nazi'ed.

But I'm not upset. I actually blame instant messenger for dumbing down the writing skills of Americans (including myself). I actually hope they start charging, because then perhaps I'll spend less time gossiping and finding lame buddy icons. In fact, my social skills have suffered as well as my spelling skills. Anytime someone makes a joke, I yell out "L-O-L!"

Re:Hmmm...

[TimmyDee]

While all of this is true, it doesn't address the issue of what codecs and standards each system uses. From what I understand, iChat uses it's own system which allows for higher quality video and audio unless you are talking to an AIM client, in which case it probably negotiates using AOL's standard. I checked Apple's website and they weren't too clear on much of iChat's underpinnings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though iChat uses AIM lists to find buddies and then negotiates the audio and video directly between them.

Three things make me think they won't.

[geminidomino]

1. MSN Messenger
2. Yahoo! Messenger
3. Jabber

They currently have the Lion's share of the IM Market, but doing something like charging for use would put the kibosh on that REAL quick.

Re:Alternatives...

[spectral]

Ya know, I'd agree with you. But the first time aim played one of those flash ads and I found out what the hell just made my speakers make noise without me requesting it, I fucking uninstalled it. That's just rude and retarded, and I'll never go back.

Re:It's like basic cable

[strictnein]

With cable you pay for content

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

Re:But then you can only talk to other suckers..

[MntlChaos]

right, but one customer won't stay and pay. The usefulness of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users. Lose enough users, and it becomes not worth it for those left to stay and pay.

Re:Hmmm...

[Goldfinger7400]

I'm pretty sure there's two formats, one for iChat mac-to-mac (it's been around longer than the AIM one, and is better quality) and one for iChat to AIM on PC. I would see mac to mac videochat working still, but possibly some trouble with the mac to PC.

AOL's Real Plan (tinfoil hat free post)

[Samari711]

this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want. It's been their longterm goal for a while now. They've got a whole site dedicated to it. companies want control and security so AOL is trying to get them to buy stuff like encryption, identity verification, domained screen names, and i think they've got a version of aim that allows network admins to control who talks to who and logs conversations. everyone is familiar with their basic product so it allows them to make a pretty good pitch once they add in the extras.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

iChat is P2P. This is most likely referring to AIM-Enterprise servers.

AIM is dying.

[Tokerat]

...or at least it's becomming more and more visible how it's going too. It's too damn hard to get a screen name that isn't taken, because you have all of AIM and all of regular AOL to compete with, and accounts don't ever disappear. Eventually that namespace is going to be used up.

Charging for voice and video is an injustice because AOL is not bouncing the stream off it's own servers; it goes P2P, so to speak. So what are they charging for? You're effectively renting software as you use it, and that's not going to fly, for the same reason charging micropayments by the IM is a bad idea.

Looks liek it's time for me to get started on that IM client project I've been meaning to start for years, everytime I get fed up with being booted off AOL. I'll make millions while AOL crumbles beneath me! MUAHAHA*ahem* sorry.

Re:Competition should keep this from spreading.

[cgenman]

AOL will probably be able to charge for this and get away with it, but charging for the basics won't ever work, there are too many free competitors.

Unlikely. It has been proven time and time again that trying to milk people who are drawn to a free service is like trying to herd cats. If you charge 15 cents per person per minute for a conference call (an outrageous price, I might add), why not just call eachother? Or for that matter, why not just AIM? or walk over and talk? The draw of AIM is that it is persistent, easy, and free. a 30 c per minute call is neither.

Even videoconferencing is a difficult sell, as Yahoo already offers said functionality for free.

Re:No they wont' charge for AIM

[markxz]

In the UK cinema adverts have been around for a long time (with Pearl and Dean [pearlanddean.com] being around for over 50 years). Depending on the cinema the adverts and trailers last for 5-20 minutes. Some cinemas have slide / powerpoint adverts before that.
In virtually all cinemas these adverts arrive on a reel of 35mm film that is spliced on before the main feature.

Two cinemas in the region have to show longer features with an intermission (since the tower film handleing systems can only hold the equivelant of 12,000 feet of acitate film). Neither of these cinemas show adverts during the intermission, although one of them does get good consession sales.
Most cinemas can't do intermissions with good showmanship since that requires the curtains to close on the intermission tag (a blank screen should never be seen)