AOL Confused Over The Difference Between Internet And TV
from the if-anyone-should-get-it... dept
Over the past few years, AOL seems to have made an art out of "not getting it." Whether it was their decision to lock up content behind a pay-wall just as the internet advertising market was ready to be worth billions to their inexplicable and inexcusable failure to figure out how to play in a broadband world -- the company has shown a real knack for missing the real value online. As the internet video space heats up, it looks like they may be doing it again. Just look at some of the comments from AOL head Jonathan Miller's recent speech on the company's online video efforts. He focuses on how the internet is a challenger to TV, but for all the wrong reasons. To him, it's about choice: "the Internet is a mass entertainment medium, very different from TV, because people could watch any of the concerts going on around the world." That sounds nice, but it's missing the point. It wasn't about the massive amount of content. If that were the case, then the various TV providers would just keep adding channels when most have realized that they've reached a pretty useful limit. No, the real difference is in recognizing that the internet is not a broadcast medium where users sit back and watch, but an interactive medium. That doesn't mean broadcast style content isn't important -- it is -- but the user experience is quite different. People go looking for content online. They comment on it and they share it with others. They don't do that on the TV. With TV, people sit back and watch. The content comes to them, which is quite different than how most people view the internet. It's also why broadband, by itself, won't kill TV. They may compete for a person's time, but they serve different needs. If anyone should get that, it should be AOL. Instead, we're told that the internet will simply replace TV by offering more broadcast style content... just on demand. The power of video content online isn't just in having more broadcast content, but in mixing it with any kind of video content and letting users do what they will with it. That's where all the attention is these days -- but, once again, AOL is somewhere else.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WHY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL is for Idiots
I spend $53 a month for 8mb down and 768K up and I still complain about internet lag. God forbid if I had to deal with AOL's lame broadband. My first DSL line was faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOL is for Idiots
I work for an ISP as a helpdesk technician part time... I had a customer call in.. I set them up with internet.. they call me back 10 minutes later "Its not working" so I ask what happens... they say "Well I click this Internet link..then it says I am now connected at 47000bps" then nothing happens... so I ask "Maam have you opened up your internet browswer?" and shes like "Whats an internet browswer" my next question is...
"Have you used AOL before?" and she says yes....
at this point I realize she is an idiot and does not understand what the internet really is....
like he said AOL is for idiots.. and there are a LOT of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOL is for Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOL is for Idiots
Once again: AOL has huge market share. Why? It gives people what they want. At least they're smart enough to recognize that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL just does`nt get it
A person really does not need to pay AOL to enjoy the internet. You would think with all of AOL`s ties to media.
That they would learn this. Oh, and one more thing. STOP
sending everyone those stupid AOL CD`s!! AOL you could save yourself a bundle if you would stop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV Vs Internet
I'm not counting them out yet...maybe they'll read this post and get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Virus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
LOL! That says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: groan
"I use AOL"
an amazing number of business owners think it's the home connection of choice. It's becoming a major red-flag, these clients are usually not worth the hours spent educating or handholding.
The list is too long but optimizing an already lean to the bone site makes it look like crap, being randomly blackballed by AOL because someone in Mexico has spammed your site... AOL is still linked with 14K modems in my mind and always will be!
Albeit, it is still the place to send elderly relatives who need someone to "chat" with at 3am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOHell
All the user has to do is enter login ID and password...
Other ISP is starting to send setup CD and step-by-step setup to users but it's not as easy as AOHell....
god i love my Japan's NTT....fiber optic DSL upto 100Mbps....i download anime fansubs and few TV shows on bittorrent network and i sometimes upload at 2MBps, not bits but bytes, and download at 1.5MBps if i get lots of seeds....
Asian ISPs are so much more robust and better managed than US or European ISP...if they can provide at 50+mpbs to users, then US can do the same....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: money.
Actually its the telcos that want to charge for bandwidth. AOL is one of those the telcos want to pay. However, AOL did want to charge bulk emailers a fee to deliver their email...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL Acronym
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AOL Acronym
AOL = Anit-Christ On Oline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL
AOL's largest problem has always been the fact they identify people who use AOL as standard-faire internet users, when in fact most are simply new users who found a very new-user friendly environment. For those people, they will gobble up broadcast content from AOL.
The rest of us will ignore it entirely.
AOL needs to learn to differentiate between it's user base and the rest of the market, because they are two entirely different creatures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why so angry?
Plus, AOL offers a more pleasant online experience for people (and there are many) who don't understand the difference between spam and content or acceptable downloads and virus-ridden files.
Finally, I'd rather be watching a concert on AOL than reading such angry, inflammatory comments such as these but, alas, here I am -- a glutton for punishment.
No, I don't work for AOL and I don't pay the exorbitant fees, but I do use it on occasion and, while I do think AOL is guilty of many things, I simply do not see even one comment here that is based on anything but pure, outrageous, bitter emotion -- weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so angry?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why so angry?
I'd been 'using' AOHell for years. It was free for me and it still lead to the same internet everyone else was using. I learned a lot and eventually moved on.
I STILL have an AOHell account. My godfather won't stop paying for it... but then he's a 60-somethin year old who barely uses the internet.
It's all about ease of use for that company. They don't have speed, but they're easy. Americans like easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why so angry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so angry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, separate AOL.com the site from AOL the ISP. One really has little to do with the other. Yeah, AOL is a poor excuse for an ISP.
But the wall around AOL.com came down in Oct 2005 and except for subscriber areas like AOL email the site is accessible to all via any browser. Took them a long time to figure that one out, but they finally did.
In Feb 2006 AOL.com had 73.3 million unique users. Only Yahoo, Google and MSN/Microsoft had more. AOL reached almost 50% of all US web users in Feb 2006.
While changes are being implemented slowly and the interface doesn't suit my tastes in many areas, the AOL.com site today is a lot better than it was in Oct '05.
And before selling them short as a content provider, consider the assets they have to work with : all of Time Warner's properties; print, broadcast and everything else.
Some of the entertainment (music/video) areas are pretty well done. Just bear in mind the parent corp also owns a record label and a film studio that also does TV.
Which is not to say they can't blow it, they've done that before, just that they have more to work with than any other property on the web. Time will tell if they can put it to good use.
(NB: I've never been an AOL subscriber, been on the net since '89, have no relationship to AOL other than as a buyer of ad space, which I've been doing for 10+ years.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOHell=true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL & Internet
Don't forget as well that AOL will be charging per Email for massbulk Emailings from companies/corporations so that the bulk mail doesn't get "blocked" by AOL spam servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL users are usually, quite frankly, idiots...but that's still better than having no knowledge of computers at all (though I'm sure tech support would be thanking God if some of the AOL users never got computers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is always that one percent...
First of all, I am not defending AOL at all. I also think AOL is a POS, but that is my opinion. I can imagine however my grandmother wanting to use AOL rather than a regular internet connection using some browser, and since AOL still exists, they obviously do have that user friendly niche covered.
"New World Order" - what a retarded phrase. If you are referring to increased security and some content control such as encryption export restrictions and what not... well, that was the American opinion post 911. Trust me, freedom was everything and most people at the Agency took great care not to observe your domestic transactions. Doing so, unfortunately also overlooks domestic resources that terrorists use. Then what? World Trade center collapses. Of course now, everyone is like WTF? so now you have more security. Of course you need to understand there is this relationship given our current philosophy and ethics between security and freedom. They are inversely porportional to each other. You want more freedom? You have less security. You want more security? You have less freedom. It is common sense. Not some government or corporation taking over people. You are forgetting that the government is: "the people" made by the people, and is for the people of the US.
Now, without further ado... Of course content will be managed on user friendly AOL. How many guys played Fable, Neverwinter Nights, or some really great RPG? You probably noticed that the best ones are actually quite linear, and do not offer to much deviation from the main story (even though they try to make it appear that way). Some even take a step further and allow you to maybe try to take two paths but you still end up folowing a similar scripted story. These are by far (rated not by me, but by the general public) the best games of all times. But... you didn't have freedom, and your content and the story was controlled, but hey, they were entertained.
Now, you have games like Morrowind, or even the new Oblivion by Bethesda. These are very non-linear and in fact frankly, boring to many gamers as they lose track of the big picture. However, for the die hards, or advanced players and RPG'rs, this game was rated incredibly well.
So, no, the government is not going to take over. It will only operate at the current attitude of the current generation of people at this current time in life. Not some New World Order bullshit. That will dissolve just like it did years ago. In fact, you need to thank all those peace loving uber freedom I want to do anything I want attitude of people in 1974, because it was that privacy act that enabled modern technology on domestic lands to be taken advantage of by terrorists. But if you remember history, Americans at the "current time" the "current place" and the "current attitude" feared communism, and feared the "Big Brother is watching you" and that is why these executive orders came to pass later. That's right, the people of the government made it for you. By the people for the people. Read George Orwell's book called 1984 if you still would like to dispute this.
Read your history books and try working on both sides of the fence before you start trying to spam stupid conspiracy theories and company take overs and hi-jacking the internet and the so called "New world order". If you really hate what there is to offer, check out China. I have been there. Then come back and tell me if America is really trying to screw you and your content. Oh wait... if your were to post something political on a blog there in China you would .. well you won't be coming back to the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PodCasts are the Future
No. No. No. VOD requires huge bandwidth for a satisfactory viewer experience - possibly excepting genre content such as live porn - because sound blips and variable frame rate are just too damned annoying when watching normal TV.
The future is in podcasts and "video-almost-on-demand" where the content is stored locally and the viewing/listening experience is perfect.
But I also disagree when Mike says "the real difference is in recognizing that the internet is not a broadcast medium where users sit back and watch, but an interactive medium". I think it's both.
Techdirt is already available on RSS. From here it's a small technical step to providing podcasts. Even though podcasts are very like a "broadcast medium where users sit back and watch", I bet you have them by the end of this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question of Target Demographics
Also, AOL clearly demonstrated knowledge and preparation for the REAL risk to ISP's. By merging with Time-Warner Cable, AOL is already prepared to its next serious threat. The Future of Cable TV and Internet as forms of mass media/entertainment isn't about the conflict/competition for market share. Instead the next real threat to AOL is the ---- MERGING ---- of the two media forms.
This merger is not only inevitable, but has already started. Tivo and DVR both update programming information through there parent cable companies pre-existing high speed connection. This will only evolve as the difference between a PC and TV cease to exist. More importantly to this attack on AOL corporate strategy is the pre-emptive merger with Time Warner that will in time have AOL uniquely placed to merge the product with TV media. AOL already has access to the important market setting demographic that must be conquered to propulgate a new technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question of Target Demographics
Also, AOL clearly demonstrated knowledge and preparation for the REAL risk to ISP's. By merging with Time-Warner Cable, AOL is already prepared to its next serious threat. The Future of Cable TV and Internet as forms of mass media/entertainment isn't about the conflict/competition for market share. Instead the next real threat to AOL is the ---- MERGING ---- of the two media forms.
This merger is not only inevitable, but has already started. Tivo and DVR both update programming information through there parent cable companies pre-existing high speed connection. This will only evolve as the difference between a PC and TV cease to exist. More importantly to this attack on AOL corporate strategy is the pre-emptive merger with Time Warner that will in time have AOL uniquely placed to merge the product with TV media. AOL already has access to the important market setting demographic that must be conquered to propulgate a new technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A question of Target Demographics
My goodness. Your ignorance is absolutely profound. Time Warner Inc. owns AOL. AOL doesn't even have representation on the TW board.
Most of the facts and strategy you cite exist only in your imagination. Sheesh. Do some homework.
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/aboutus/fact_sheet.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL is so lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply to AOL Confused Over The Difference Between
I watch alot of TV and curise the Net quite a bit. I look for online content with either system, have you never heard of channel surffing? I don't surf the TV to the extent of the Net but that is a limitation on the number of channels and capability of the device.
I have watched movies over the Net and there is no comparison to a TV. A picture that can fill my 56" TV is only a few inchs in size on a monitor due to the resolution difference. Most people when watching the TV are in a group setting or just relaxing. Watching a small picture in either case just don't cut it. Try to imagine 3 or 4 guys huddled around a 17" monitor watching the Superbowl, not gonna happen. People watching TVs only settle for small pictures becuase a big one is not avail. such as watching a movie on your laptop durring a long flight. Simple differences in the display quality of the two and cost of the display device will keep the TV around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tricky Bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) you are NOT limited by screen size, with normal pcs (or media center pcs) its easy to hook your pc up to your TV as the source monitor (u guys never heard of tv out huh?)
2) with high definition media starting to hit the shelves its only a matter of a few years until PC media goes the same way (vista with its ever increasing needs for high spec monitors and support for HD is just the start)
3) media center PC's offer the ease of a remote control and a PC box as small as a friggin VCR, your telling me that people wont ditch a DVD player for a media center PC which not only allows them to watch TV via broadband streams (rather then through conventional ariels (which btw can get hit by poor reception where as IPTV doesnt)
im sorry but people why say TV via PC's wont overtake are being pretty dumb.
A) in the UK digital streams are taking analogue streams over completly
B) granted broadband tv isnt big yet but why would you want a sky dish or cable box when u can just have everything (internet, tv, radio, etc) all through your PC, media center stuff is being eaten up by the masses.
C) personally i cant find fault in media via broadband, its going to be efficient (when the ISPS get decent speed lines up), its going to be unpixelated eliteness when HD meets the PC industry (only a matter of months / years) and its going to be dirt cheap (with no limit or governing body (the internet has no official governing body) IPTV is alike, not limited by who wants to buy air time (look at the free to view internet tv streams already out there)
fact is, AOL may be a crappy ISP but you look at their video they offer, full length tv shows from timewarner, possible movies online, u can see music videos from over 5,000+ artists, turns out in the internet wars AOL may be stupid but they certainly are less technophobic then disney or other related providers of entertainment.
granted this is the future but look right now on google for "Internet TV", theres thousands of channels and streams (either video on demand or live streaming via IPTV and or real, quicktime, WiMP streams. the stuff is there, its just missing a little HD magic and a little more bandwidth for breathing.
also... the BBC are using IPTV to stream their media online so u can watch bbc channels via the net, you calling them stupid too? even though they have already got a few million ppl who are willing to subscribe.
sky allow you to watch content free (if your a subscriber to one of their packages) through the internet too.
oh and to the author of this article...
when im sitting in a few years with a high high definition TFT monitor (not long to wait) with a media center pc (ahh remote control and already avaliable), the possibility of tuning into digital tv stations on my 8mb line (BBC and sky already going live) with almost perfect quality, and thousands of worldwide stations i can either subscribe too, or tune into free (which already exist), will i have any use for a traditional tv set?
when my pc offers all the usual digital channels via a tv tuner card, online tv via streams on a hefty internet connection (which my isp is gunna have to 8mb in my local area by next year) and be able to pay and download, music, video, or stream tv... all on a high spec pc with a decent quality large monitor...
HA yea right whos kidding who, i love my tv tuner card and being able to browse the net, and watch TV, it saves me time, allows me to multitask and the only threat i can see of your tv solution going down the toilet is if we are unable to record or replay streams like our faithful DVD-R or VCR could give us.
DRM is the only thing which may put people off of IPTV but other then that, as mentioned above, you can wave goodbye to your traditional tv set.
the technology exists, its only a matter of time before you'll wonder how you lived without it.
look at iTunes, their making a FORTUNE in downloading TV shows via the net, offering up streams for free (advert supported) or paid is just around the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a different system has already been developed which people have used in tune with their TV systems and PCs, its called TiVo if you've possibly heard of it :)
also: it hasnt been put into major production because at this stage there isnt the bandwidth or internet framework to support it, but with the next generation of ADSL which brings speeds of 8mb exceeding up to the insainly fast 24mb connections, average users will be able to benefit from the system.
also: if you actually did some market research you could find out that ISPS (at least in the uk) are already bringing forward the technology...
Wanadoo and Tiscali are examples who use video on demand and basic streaming until they can provide IPTV (which the BBC and microsoft are working with several groups on)
to finish off, freeview (free digital tv) has exploded in the UK with millions of users taking up the offer of one extra piece of hardware (set top box) to get better quality content to their tv sets.
if broadband offers more channels, same quality and with the use of DVD +/- RW's and high definition then why wouldnt that 80% you mentioned want to use it.
i mean i know as a PC user i would rather be able to put the money i would spend on TV, set top box, VCR, DVD player, cables etc all towards a higher spec PC with a large monitor which i can do a lot more with.
ps: did you know the superbowl in the usa was broadcast free over the internet and became extremly successful? loads of people got told off for watching it at work, lol
either way, my points were justified entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hate aol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hate aol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
123456789
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aol is a resources stealer!
The code is purposefully written this way and creates processes that stay running all the time . even if you close aol.
AND even if you disable it on start up.
It just keeps popping back up and reloading itself and changing YOUR settings back to itself. the only way to disable it is to go into system control tools like msconfig and costume configure your start up settings which of course most people are not educated enough to do and scared to screw something up. And then if you don't do that correctly it will circumvent your efforts and reload itself anyway. As well reconfigures your setting again if you use it again and without asking YOU on YOUR computer! THIS IS SPYWHARE! Plain and and simple. AOL could easily make there software give up using your computers resources when shut down like most other programs do and stop running background processes. but why don't they? because they want to keep creating attention to themselves so you will be prompted to view there content and advertising. they put stuff in your start bar and system try and wont let you have any option to disable it. unless you know how to get around them and most people do not and they exploit this fact. this is scummy to say the least.
they are basically suffering from narcissism.
Sort of like a Paris Hilton. they don't make anything productive just draw attention to themselves. its the typical corporate mentality and sickness that has been fed to us for years. and yes maybe not an outright conspiracy per say but a cultural phenomenon with an insidious under hidden agenda. that of selling you crap! that's AOL motivation pure and simple, follow the money! but the problem is they are DISHONEST and do all this under everyones nose and behind your backs. and yes old people and uneducated people have no issue with it cause it babysits them. but for me spending hours trying to get the infection off my computer and seeing how fast it got after the fact was prof enough its a virus! period! And another example of corporate GREED infecting us all psychologically and technically and HURTING people. and thus the current financial disaster we are in as example. And to Invoke 911 or "terrorists" whenever anyone confronts the government misuse of its charter is just like AOL's Abuse of your computer. Its abuse of power and ITS WRONG! And taking away a persons choice in the matter is fascism period. and if you advocate that mentality then you too must have fascist leanings just like AOL does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when i started my pc suprise it dint uninstall and i had a f****** virus sorry for my bad english but im from puerto rico
[ link to this | view in chronology ]