{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Eric Peyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 01:20 PM, Russ Kirkpatrick wrote:
> {#} 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'.
>
Probably not. Fire uses the toc protocol (the same as AOL's java
client) which they offered as open source and all. As long as they
continue to operate that we should be fine.
Eric
> rgds, russ
>
> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>
>
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
