AOL ruined yet another fine service, reminds me why I am redrumloa!

[redrumloa]

Who's been on the net for a while? Who knows AOL's history? I'm sure many of us Amigans have issues with AOL, I sure know I do. Today I am yet again reminded why i hate AOL.

Back in the mid 90's I used to listen to a free streaming music service called TheDJ.com. Sometime in the late 90's it became Spinner.com, basically improving on a pretty good service. Then the unthinkable happened, it was bought out by AOL and renamed Radio@Netscape. The interface became an AOL banner, but the programming remained good and it stayed free. Today that all changed, there was a new update(Windows only BTW). I installed it and all seemed good. Unfortunately after an ~hour of listening i get a popup saying "Your daily song limit has been reached. If you want to hear more sign up for AOL, blah blah blah.

Man, can AOL screw up a wet dream or what? :pissed: What sucks is whoever was doing their metal programming was quite good. Oh well, back to only shoutcast :pissed:

[AccyD]

I'm with AOL and don't understand why everyone seems to be always having a go at them??

They've got to make a profit guys - its a business not a charity. How's about giving me some of your auction items for free Red?? Didn't think so.

My experience has been good with them, and on the two occasions I've had to call them (for beta testing issues)they been extermely fast and good at resolving my problems.

Allied with a fast delivery of ADSL modem and kit, and free customer service they don't do bad in my book. The price for this is not too expensive either, only a couple of pounds more than thier competitors, but look at the problems the BT/Yahoo service has had over the past 2 years !!

Cut them some slack guys !! 8-)  8-)

[that_punk_guy]

I haven't subjected myself to their service personally so I can't comment on that, but what Red's describing is anti-competitive. If the music streaming service as it stood didn't suit them, why buy it in the first place?

[redrumloa]

I'm with AOL and don't understand why everyone seems to be always having a go at them??

Hehe, to each his own I suppose. I have a go at them for too many reasons to post here. Their history goes back well past the few years they've been in the UK btw, they've been around since the 80's.

How's about giving me some of your auction items for free Red??

One thing doesn't have to do with another. Put it this way. How would you feel if AOL bought Amiga.org and a year later they made it a pay service for AOL users only? It'd be pretty ugly wouldn't it? Or better yet how about AOL buys the BBC and makes it a service for AOL users only? Then shortly later they convienently raise your rates?

This one move though annoying, isn't illegal. I never said it was. It just follows a pattern set by AOL. AOL very badly wants to be a monopoly like M$. They act like one even though they don't have one.

[Glaucus]

Oh boy, Red is starting to sound like one of those damned socialists! The end of the world must be near! :-D

@Red, I hear satellite radio is really big in the US, and has far better quality then both FM & Internet. Have you considered that? Personally, I'd never pay for internet radio, but digital satellite might be an option (depending on costs). My car's Alpine deck has XM radio capabilities but I've never tried it as one needs to have an American billing address to subscribe to the service :-( (and oh yeah, I also removed the antenna from my car :-D ).

  - Mike

[Glaucus]

Hey, btw, what is AOL anyway? I mean, when it first started, it was some sort of dial-up ISP, was it not? I always used a local ISP for dial-up, and now I use shaw cable. But dial-ups are quickly going the way of the dinosaurs, are they not? What does AOL offer these days? I'm surprised they're still in business!

  - Mike

[redrumloa]

Oh boy, Red is starting to sound like one of those damned socialists!

hahaha I don't think that is happening:-)

@Red, I hear satellite radio is really big in the US, and has far better quality then both FM & Internet. Have you considered that?

As a matter of fact I have been interested in satelite radio since I first heard of it loong ago. Sadly I havn't really owned a car I felt good enough about to make the investment in hardware yet:-) I will probably be getting a one soon, maybe a Sirrius. I'll probably be steering clear of XM since i heard they are owned by CC.

[redrumloa]

Hey, btw, what is AOL anyway? I mean, when it first started, it was some sort of dial-up ISP, was it not?

In a nutshell it started out in the 80's as Q-Link, a massive Commodore 64/128 only BBS service. It was quite good for what it was, kind of expensive but all large multiline BBS services were expensive back then.

Then in the early 90's AOL killed off Q-Link while it was still a pretty viable service and focused only on AOL, which was PC only. You can find many websites on the evils behind this closure, most have to do with the pleas from users to allow the backing up of the file databases which had many one of a kind software. Those pleas went unanswered and the software is lost forever.

AOL as we now know it has historically been known as 'The internet for Dummies', and that label is still pretty accurate for the most part. Your typical AOL user does not know the difference between AOL and the internet, they think it's one and of the same. The typical AOL user needs technical support for such things as how to operate the on switch.

Bleeding heart liberals should hate AOL for all the enviormental disregard the company shows. How many trees have they killed off printing the mailers for their junkmail CDs? How many thousands of tons of waste CDs get thrown into landfills every year from their junk mail campaigns? How much productivity is lost ever year by people forced to continuously delete unwanted AOL links from their desktop, start menu etc?

Ooops, i am getting started.. Must shut up now :-D

[Bobsonsirjonny]

DOH! AOL MURDER...

Its just hit me like a brick.. In the 7 - 8 years I have been coming here, I just didnt see it. Im sure its been mentioned in the past though.. It has been. Maybe I forgot.


/me goes back to sleep :-D

:pint:

[weirdami]

@that_punk_guy

...what Red's describing is anti-competitive.

No, it's not.

If the music streaming service as it stood didn't suit them, why buy it in the first place?

Why do they need to keep it the same? It's theirs, so they can do whatever the want to. Besides, your comment makes no sense. He said that all they did when they first got it was to make it an AOL banner thing but the service was the same. Only recently did they make it a free-preview thing, and why not? Free don't make money.

[redrumloa]

Only recently did they make it a free-preview thing, and why not? Free don't make money.

And why not? I never said they couldn't. It's been a billboard for banners since the TheDJ days, so theoretically they could have been making money on banner ads.

Funny how people take what i said as "How dare you deny them to make money". I never said that, and I never said there should be regulation to block it. My point is only a listener who will certainly NEVER be an AOL customer, it's a shame to see AOL kill off another fine service. IMO most listeners will simply uninstall the program. Not the end of the world, there are other free serevices out there.

BTW Grady, just a question. How would you like it if Clear Channel bought your favorite local radio stationa and made you buy special hardware and pay a subscription fee to listen to them? Would that not be annoying? it would probably be in their right to do so, but you'd still be annoyed eh? :lol:

[KennyR]

So Red, you're beginning to see at last how the liberalisation of capitalism infringes on the rights of the individual?

[Glaucus]

Its just hit me like a brick.. In the 7 - 8 years I have been coming here, I just didnt see it. Im sure its been mentioned in the past though.. It has been. Maybe I forgot.

heh...  And remember Red's handle when watching Kubrick's the Shinning (oh, did I just give something away?!? ;-) ).

  - Mike

[Glaucus]

I haven't subjected myself to their service personally so I can't comment on that, but what Red's describing is anti-competitive. If the music streaming service as it stood didn't suit them, why buy it in the first place?

They bought it because they COULD make it into something profitable. From a capitalistic point of view, it makes perfect sense to start charging for the service, especially now that so many people are hooked on it. Sorta like how CompuServ decided to start colecting royalties for the GIF file format well after it was accepted as the standard free format of the internet and everything else. Both companies ended up pissing off their costumers for some quick cash.

Well that's the ugly side of capitalism. The good side is that the customers don't need to keep using those services. GIFs were replaced by PNG files, and the AOL service will eventually be replaced by another (hopefully better) service.

  - Mike

[weirdami]

@redrumloa

I didn't direct that comment at you. that_punk_guy asked why they'd buy it if they were going to change it. So, I pointed out that they had it for a while, so it was essentially the same until recently when they decided it would be a good pull-in for new customers.

Anyhoo, radio stations change hands all the time. What they do with the station is their business. There's plenty of stations to go around. I don't think your analogy is analogous :-). You already need special equipment to get streaming audio. But, lets say my favorite station went XM only. Sure, I'd not be happy about it, but it's still their perogative to make whatever decisions about whatever they own. That's the whole point I was making. If they wanna change it, it's theirs to change.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Clear Channel already owns all the stations in town anyway. heh.