{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Russ Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 9:48 AM -0700 1/31/02, Colter Reed wrote:
>{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>{#} To reply to the author, write to Colter Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 1/31/02 09:15, "John Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> "There are no technical reasons they can't open up IM, but there are a lot
>> of business reasons not to," Gartenberg said. "They're not going to unless
>> they're forced to."
>
>Right. If people use third-party clients, AOL can't claim the banner-ad
>audience for its advertising fees.
>
>Colter
If they don't get the advertising fees, how will they pay for
operating the servers? 'Out of the goodness of my heart' doesn't
work for any of us (see MacFixit's new 'Pro' fee-based setup, for
example), why is it supposed to work for AOL? As long as fire is a
minor drain on their user statistics (on which their fee structure to
advertisers is based), and/or it's completely transparent to them,
it'll probably not be worth devoting resources to eradicating (my
hope, anyway). If it gets as big as Trillian did, I expect we'll get
'noticed'.
rgds, russ
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
