AOL membership tops 30 million.
June 25, 2001 5:43 PM Subscribe
AOL membership tops 30 million. America Online continues to pad its lead as the largest Internet provider, hitting 30 million members — doubling its vast size in just two and a half years.
Microsoft also reportedly wanted AOL to take a loyalty oath of sorts, promising never to sue it or join any lawsuit against it.
Bwa. Bwahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.
Oh, it's like watching business execs fight in those inflatable sumo costumes, only with the possible fate of mainstream personal computing on the line.
Wait, but what's this?
Meanwhile, AOL admitted in April that it was working on a technology that would allow it to switch its membership away from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser and plug its own Netscape into the AOL service instead. Called “Komodo,” presumably as in “dragon” — a nod to Netscape’s original “Mozilla” dragon logo, and to the lizard-named Gecko engine that powers Netscape — the technology will be included in the new AOL 7.0, which is expected to appear in a beta release late this summer and roll out this fall.
Breaking up is hard to do...So how soon until AOL releases its own OS? Maunfactures its own line of PC devices with nothing but AOL software installed, for $199?
posted by solistrato at 6:09 PM on June 25, 2001
Bwa. Bwahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.
Oh, it's like watching business execs fight in those inflatable sumo costumes, only with the possible fate of mainstream personal computing on the line.
Wait, but what's this?
Meanwhile, AOL admitted in April that it was working on a technology that would allow it to switch its membership away from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser and plug its own Netscape into the AOL service instead. Called “Komodo,” presumably as in “dragon” — a nod to Netscape’s original “Mozilla” dragon logo, and to the lizard-named Gecko engine that powers Netscape — the technology will be included in the new AOL 7.0, which is expected to appear in a beta release late this summer and roll out this fall.
Breaking up is hard to do...So how soon until AOL releases its own OS? Maunfactures its own line of PC devices with nothing but AOL software installed, for $199?
posted by solistrato at 6:09 PM on June 25, 2001
At which point I'll hate them too...
Nevemind. Too late...
posted by fooljay at 6:30 PM on June 25, 2001
Nevemind. Too late...
posted by fooljay at 6:30 PM on June 25, 2001
does anyone else find 'aol uk' and other 'aol -insert name of non-american nation-' humorous?
posted by elle at 6:34 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by elle at 6:34 PM on June 25, 2001
Yeah, try calling someone at Earthlink and you are put on hold for more than an hour. I tried last night at 10 p.m and the automated voice said 21 minutes. I hung up after 45. Today at 6:10 p.m I tried again and was told 29 minutes. After an hour I finally gave up. The numbers were 1-800-890-5128 and 1-800-395-6356. With customer "service" that takes unknown days to get through in trying to figure out why the dial up number is not working and to check if the billing is correct, no wonder why people go with AOL. How poor/good is the customer service at the largest provider?
posted by brent at 6:36 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by brent at 6:36 PM on June 25, 2001
No doubt AOL will have a huge influx of members using their free trials on Wednesday when the 2nd Harry Potter trailer is released only on their service. It won't be available to the public until Thursday and Friday it premieres with A.I.
posted by bkdelong at 6:46 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by bkdelong at 6:46 PM on June 25, 2001
does anyone else find 'aol uk' and other 'aol -insert name of non-american nation-' humorous?
Not really, since in those countries they refer to themselves only as "AOL." The letters themselves could stand for anything, or nothing, as far as users in those countries know. (Rather like the TV networks here are only called ABC, CBS and NBC. Nobody calls them by their longer names, and technically "CBS" hasn't stood for anything but "CBS" for decades.) Only in the US does anyone still call it "America Online."
Anyway, I have to say this is a fight where there is no lesser evil. The only outcome one could really root for is for both conglomerates to be knocked out.
posted by aaron at 7:52 PM on June 25, 2001
Does anyone know of an ISP in New York which is Mac-compatible and doesn't cost $20+ month? I'd like to migrate from AOL, but don't see the point unless someone charges significantly less...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 PM on June 25, 2001
Why do you need and what do you mean by a Mac-compatible ISP?
posted by gyc at 8:46 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by gyc at 8:46 PM on June 25, 2001
Why do you need and what do you mean by a Mac-compatible ISP?
For example, when I called AT&T all excited about their $7 ISP/Long Distance offer, I was told there was no software for a Mac. Earthlink is around $20, so what's the point of switching to them, for example?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 PM on June 25, 2001
For example, when I called AT&T all excited about their $7 ISP/Long Distance offer, I was told there was no software for a Mac. Earthlink is around $20, so what's the point of switching to them, for example?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 PM on June 25, 2001
One of the phone companies ought to wake up and realize that a sizable # of people will defect for the right price and quality of service. I really believe there's a market which is not being tapped....
posted by ParisParamus at 9:48 PM on June 25, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 9:48 PM on June 25, 2001
Rather like the TV networks here are only called ABC, CBS and NBC.
ah yes, the nbc in cnbc does not stand for what nbc stands for. am i right?
doesn't cost $20+ month?
i thought i saw a tv ad from att, unlimited modem access @$7/m. (<--the previous string looks like cartoon cuss words.)
posted by elle at 10:08 PM on June 25, 2001
ah yes, the nbc in cnbc does not stand for what nbc stands for. am i right?
doesn't cost $20+ month?
i thought i saw a tv ad from att, unlimited modem access @$7/m. (<--the previous string looks like cartoon cuss words.)
posted by elle at 10:08 PM on June 25, 2001
I've been using Earthlink for a year and I've always gotten what I needed in a fairly timely fashion.
It ain't perfect, but for 20 bucks a month, I'd say I get my money's worth.
posted by dong_resin at 10:41 PM on June 25, 2001
It ain't perfect, but for 20 bucks a month, I'd say I get my money's worth.
posted by dong_resin at 10:41 PM on June 25, 2001
Why do you need and what do you mean by a Mac-compatible ISP?
Simple enough: if customer service will tell you at sign-up what the dial-up number for your area, DNS address, and login script (or if you know another user you can rip them from), you can use most ISPs on a Mac.
However, many ISPs these days are using custom-configured scripts and services that attempt to access your MS/Netscape PC browser. When they hit the Mac versions of those browsers, they give your comp the ol' corncob up the tail-pipe. Non- MS, non-Netscape browsers like iCab handle it better, but ultimately the server's requests can crash your Macintosh hard-core.
And most customer-service types can't tell you jack, and it's hard to get tech support if you aren't a customer (and frequently they tell you "Run the installation disk we gave you." Drek.
Yes, I have been twice burned, thanx. AOL at least works, if not in all the ways I would want in my ISP.
posted by the biscuit man at 10:45 PM on June 25, 2001
Simple enough: if customer service will tell you at sign-up what the dial-up number for your area, DNS address, and login script (or if you know another user you can rip them from), you can use most ISPs on a Mac.
However, many ISPs these days are using custom-configured scripts and services that attempt to access your MS/Netscape PC browser. When they hit the Mac versions of those browsers, they give your comp the ol' corncob up the tail-pipe. Non- MS, non-Netscape browsers like iCab handle it better, but ultimately the server's requests can crash your Macintosh hard-core.
And most customer-service types can't tell you jack, and it's hard to get tech support if you aren't a customer (and frequently they tell you "Run the installation disk we gave you." Drek.
Yes, I have been twice burned, thanx. AOL at least works, if not in all the ways I would want in my ISP.
posted by the biscuit man at 10:45 PM on June 25, 2001
elle: CNBC = Consumer News & Business Channel.
And, of course, AOL sucks. My father & sister use it, much to my dismay, and I've tried to convince them that they DON'T NEED IT to surf the web & use the internet, but they just can't seem to grasp the concept of not using *keywords*. (sigh). I understand that AOL provides "ground-level" usability for newbies, but after a few months (years?), why don't these users move on to something cleaner, simpler, and (admit it) better?
posted by davidmsc at 10:53 PM on June 25, 2001
And, of course, AOL sucks. My father & sister use it, much to my dismay, and I've tried to convince them that they DON'T NEED IT to surf the web & use the internet, but they just can't seem to grasp the concept of not using *keywords*. (sigh). I understand that AOL provides "ground-level" usability for newbies, but after a few months (years?), why don't these users move on to something cleaner, simpler, and (admit it) better?
posted by davidmsc at 10:53 PM on June 25, 2001
I am completely entrenched in cable modem snobbery. I wasn't even aware that anyone at all was still using phone lines. How quaint.
posted by shinji_ikari at 5:15 AM on June 26, 2001
posted by shinji_ikari at 5:15 AM on June 26, 2001
So how soon until AOL releases its own OS?
Don't know about that. If they did, you wouldn't be able to multitask and it would be riddled with modal forms and pop-up advertisements. (if AOL is anything like I remember it)
posted by samsara at 5:54 AM on June 26, 2001
Don't know about that. If they did, you wouldn't be able to multitask and it would be riddled with modal forms and pop-up advertisements. (if AOL is anything like I remember it)
posted by samsara at 5:54 AM on June 26, 2001
I haven't known most of the ISP's to be much better than AOL. But that's just me. Right now I get dial-up internet access from my college, which is only better in that it's free (I can't wait until I go back out there and get on the ethernet.)
posted by dagnyscott at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2001
posted by dagnyscott at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2001
I haven't known most of the ISP's to be much better than AOL. But that's just me. Right now I get dial-up internet access from my college, which is only better in that it's free (I can't wait until I go back out there and get on the ethernet.)
posted by dagnyscott at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2001
posted by dagnyscott at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2001
My parents use AOL too, and don't seem able to stop. Most people that use AOL seem to confuse it with the internet itself, or believe that there are multiple internets (i.e. do you use the yahoo internet or the AOL?). I think that these misunderstandings are encouraged by the interface.
posted by xammerboy at 7:42 AM on June 26, 2001
posted by xammerboy at 7:42 AM on June 26, 2001
solistrato: AOL may well be considering building its own operating system.
A facile reading of that article suggests that Microsoft's .NET threatens AOL's proprietary and partner services so directly -- offering an AOL in pieces, delivered directly to users' desktops -- that the idea of a Microsoft-free AOLPC has to be intriguing. And they have a deal with Be that could be the starting point.
xammer: the line on AOL, years ago, was "it isn't on the internet". Then it was "but you can only e-mail". And so on (often with the objector speaking out of ignorance and months behind whatever upgrades had been made). I eventually began asking what "being on the internet" really meant, and then flatly stating: For N million people, AOL is the internet. At some point, we're going to have to get used to it.
posted by dhartung at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2001
A facile reading of that article suggests that Microsoft's .NET threatens AOL's proprietary and partner services so directly -- offering an AOL in pieces, delivered directly to users' desktops -- that the idea of a Microsoft-free AOLPC has to be intriguing. And they have a deal with Be that could be the starting point.
xammer: the line on AOL, years ago, was "it isn't on the internet". Then it was "but you can only e-mail". And so on (often with the objector speaking out of ignorance and months behind whatever upgrades had been made). I eventually began asking what "being on the internet" really meant, and then flatly stating: For N million people, AOL is the internet. At some point, we're going to have to get used to it.
posted by dhartung at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2001
I haven't known most of the ISP's to be much better than AOL.
What ISPs have you tried?
The very idea of being able to a.) have unfettered access to the web via the latest browser b.) use a real mail client that can handle POP3, properly imbed URLs and *filter* c.) only make my online presence known at my own discretion, so that I'm not barraged with instant messages, URL bombs, chat requests, etc. d.) use other 'net services without being hamstrung by an overclogged network would make just about any decent ISP preferential to AOL.
The question to any serious 'net user to me would never be "AOL or not AOL?" it would be "What's a good, national ISP that will allow me to dial-in from just about anywhere I go in the US?" (The non-responsive phonemail hell that is Earthlink need not apply.)
posted by Dreama at 11:35 AM on June 26, 2001
What ISPs have you tried?
The very idea of being able to a.) have unfettered access to the web via the latest browser b.) use a real mail client that can handle POP3, properly imbed URLs and *filter* c.) only make my online presence known at my own discretion, so that I'm not barraged with instant messages, URL bombs, chat requests, etc. d.) use other 'net services without being hamstrung by an overclogged network would make just about any decent ISP preferential to AOL.
The question to any serious 'net user to me would never be "AOL or not AOL?" it would be "What's a good, national ISP that will allow me to dial-in from just about anywhere I go in the US?" (The non-responsive phonemail hell that is Earthlink need not apply.)
posted by Dreama at 11:35 AM on June 26, 2001
AOL, where do I start.
The best summary of AOL I can think of is:
Give up features, better speed, better privacy, and configuration for ease of use, bad speed, and chat rooms.
I have free AOL when I bought the computer and I still PAY 21.95/m for another provider.
AOL feeds off the misconception that you need to be a wizard to learn how to use the computer. Many people just don't want to try to learn and prefer to have everything handed to them on a platter.
Ugh.
posted by andryeevna at 10:35 PM on June 27, 2001
The best summary of AOL I can think of is:
Give up features, better speed, better privacy, and configuration for ease of use, bad speed, and chat rooms.
I have free AOL when I bought the computer and I still PAY 21.95/m for another provider.
AOL feeds off the misconception that you need to be a wizard to learn how to use the computer. Many people just don't want to try to learn and prefer to have everything handed to them on a platter.
Ugh.
posted by andryeevna at 10:35 PM on June 27, 2001
« Older | The Road to Springfield hits the second round! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ktheory at 6:03 PM on June 25, 2001