AOL in trouble?

[Zyte]

Thought some of you would like a look at this short article.

NOVEMBER 02, 2005

11:30 AM –- AOL's got problems. Even with a huge boost in ad revenues, the online service can't stop people from heading to the exits. The new VOIP services and other fancy add-ons aren't even making a dent in the mess that AOL has become.

AOL revenues declined by $100 million, to $2 billion for the quarter, even though it saw a $71 million increase in ad revenues. The company saw its subscription revenues fall by $175 million. From the press release:


As of September 30, the AOL service totaled 20.1 million U.S. members, a decline of 678,000 from the prior quarter and 2.6 million from the year-ago quarter. In Europe, the AOL service had 6.1 million members, a decrease of 98,000 from the previous quarter and a decline of 170,000 from last year's quarter.

For a business of any size to lose 678,000 customers in three months -- that's more than 300 subscribers an hour -- you have to be doing something wrong. Maybe everything.

— Phil Harvey, Numbas Editor, Light Reading


Originally posted on:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=83507

[dave87]

Perhaps its the insistance they route all of their traffic through america? It puts online gaming in the things not doable with AOL category....With so many wanting to play online games or use VOIP which is as sensitive to pings, then they are doing something wrong....

[badass]

Maybe its the fact their antispam doesn't let any legitimate emails through either

[Carlh]

I would say that it also has something to do with the buggy software that you have to install to use the service, as well as limited networking support.

Maybe with the exodus of users from AOL they will finally scrap there software and the AOL adapter that gets installed.

[peterb]

AOL touted itself as being easy to set up for the computer illiterate, as well as 'family friendly'. As people become less computer illiterate, they realise that they can get equal or better service for less, without the clunky software!

[XA04]

About time people are seeing the light

[bertoli]

i detest the fact I have to install their intrusive software on my system.

They're only good for their 2 month free trials, nothing else.

[Spud1]

AOL have always been a 'poor' provider in my eyes, the one that only idiots who didnt have a clue what a computer really was signed up for because of the free mug coasters that came through the post twice a day 10 years ago. I didn't like them then, and nothing has changed since

They still rank as the ISP i would least like to use, even after my shocking experience with UK online...BT's crappy service with stupid bandwidth caps is even a more appealing prospect

Let em burn I say The parent company won't die, they own enough stuff to keep going...

[mark19632]

AOL have always been a 'poor' provider in my eyes, the one that only idiots who didnt have a clue what a computer really was signed up for because of the free mug coasters that came through the post twice a day 10 years ago.

I'm not an idiot and know exactly what a computer is for thanks and I use AOL at home, so I'd rather you didn't make stupid generalising comments about people.

I've been using AOL for a few years now as my wife like the browser (each to there own), I don't use they browser or any of the other crap on my PC as you don't have to install it.

I have never had any problems with connectivity, speed or customer service from them, which is more than I can say for some other ISP I've dealt with.

I can understand why people don't like them, and they are a bit on the pricey side, but I've never found a problem with the service or restrictions on my connection.

[Spud1]

I wasn't making a generalisation, it was my opinion, that is how I see AOL and my view on that isn't likely to change.

I wasn't staying that people who use it are stupid etc etc, so please don't take it that way, as I said it is just how I see AOL.

Fair enough if you like their system, but I don't I think AIM is a horrible IM program (it gets on my nerves for some reason) and it was a pain when they took over ICQ, I switched over to msn at that point as ICQ turned into an AIM clone, it looked and functioned almost identically to AIM ;/

Each to their own I guess

[mark19632]

No problem Spud1, I dislike most of there stuff myself, hence I don't AIM or the browser either!

It's just not as bad as everyone makes out :-)

[Zyte]

I must say that my opinion of AOL is very similar if not the same as Spud1's. I've never heard or seen anything good sbout AOL, and when i used it, it was with their browser which i found to be very poor.

[Vibein]

Yes the early days branded them AOL noobs.

[FunkyT]

AOL users have traditionally been known as a******s online

The problem I have with AOL is the bloated, intrusive, proprietary software that you *have* to use. I find this causes more confusion for the novice user. What's wrong with a "pure" connection where the user looks at exactly what they want, how they want?

Also, AOL are a known favourite domain for spamming.

I might be mistaken but wasn't AOL originally a closed network with Internet access "tagged on"? I'm assuming this is still the same?

[Shane5578]

i'm an aol user, just to let you know you dont need to install their software.

[TheAnimus]

guys, its not the really early days that branded them as newbs.

In '93 eara, my parents had moved to cornwall (i don't know why... i wish i could of said it was a drug abuse problem effecting them or something).

But anyway, the only dialup you could get was compuserve. who were, rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish.

It used to cost £10 a month, plus a £1 for every hour u use, and you dialed a LOCAL number, not a LOW-CALL, i dailed truro. problem was truro was only on 2400 baud (been in the stix n all). Now AOL moved over to the UK, and introduced an 0845 number, which was very competative price, for £16 a month you could dial that 0845 number as much as you wanted. Even at 33.6k (which had just come out, and forced an expensive upgrade from our 19600 baud), before i had to dial bristol to be able to use my full 19.6k, thus a long distance call charge. But with AOL, i didn't have to. That was good.