AOL will charge for AIM rumor

[Scootin159]

What's with this rumor? I've had 3 people ask me about it in the last 15 min? It's obviously false considering that it would make no sense for AOL to do it. Especially with MSN Messenger (their #1 competitor) now comes FORCED in windows XP.

 

[Ionizer86]

Good, then everyone will stop using AIM

It's really annoying that all these people say that they use AIM when I ask them what messenger network they use. I think the AIM client sux, personally. In addition, if ppl stop using AIM, that's one less network for Trillian to connect me to

Why do I use AIM, you ask? I have Trillian connect me to all four networks because I have dial-up, and I need to be readily available when I'm online.

 

[audiophan]

msn, and also yahoo messanger and icq

 

[LuNoTiCK]

ICQ sucks also. I think MSN is the best messenger though. Who honestly would pay for aim if they charged for it.

 

[element]

<< Good, then everyone will stop using AIM >>



Actually, the opposite is true. Even if they charged, more people than ever will use it.

AOL is like the lottery, a tax on stupidity. Fortunately for AOL stupid people abound.

 

[CStroman]

They need the money to replace the stuff they're going to lose in their lawsuit against microsoft.

 

[Ionizer86]

msn, and also yahoo messanger and icq

AOL-Time Warner owns ICQ, lol :rolleyes;

 

[brxndxn]

I love getting charged all-of-a-sudden for things I used to get for free. I love it when stupid executives think the average consumer will allow himself to be raped.

 

[Scootin159]

<<

<< Good, then everyone will stop using AIM >>



Actually, the opposite is true. Even if they charged, more people than ever will use it.

AOL is like the lottery, a tax on stupidity. Fortunately for AOL stupid people abound. >>



unfortunatly all those stuipd people are the ones I want to talk to on AIM, so I have to keep it around . Either way the client doesn't bother me too much, AIM+ helps a lot though.

 

[Ionizer86]

I remembered something else also: AOL says that Instant Messaging is a feature in AOL 7.0 (or whatever the latest version is). I was wondering, "but aren't people without AOH3|| dial-up using it for free already?"

Maybe they are going to make it an exclusive feature, only to see people go to MSN IM and Y! IM.

I prefer Yahoo! 5.0 because it's owned by neither Macroshaft or AO|-|3||, and it is loaded with all the cool features that an IM client shoud have, and more

 

[Jen]

i like my ICQ so many of my friends use it. I do have AIM as well some on there as well



Jen

 

[murphy55d]

How many of these rumours will it take for people to realize they are just that...RUMOURS.

Remember the email tax??? How many of you believed that?

AOL will not start charging for AIM.

 

[AreaCode707]

Now, is the title of this thread AOL-will-charge-for-AIM rumor or is is AOL will charge for AIM-rumor? Just occurred to be that it could be read both ways.

[Edit] Tell the people that pass on the rumor that AOL will charge them for passing it on. See if they believe you. [/Edit]

 

[Jerboy]

I don't like where ICQ connects to.

Whenever ICQ it is connected to something like:


ibucp-vip-m.blue.aol.com:5190

 

[chickenhead]

It makes absolutely no sense for AOL to charge for its Instant Messenger services.

There are literally tens and tens of messaging services which are basically identical. In each of them, you can exchange text messages, HTML messages, emoticons, transfer files, and indicate your status. Some examples are AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, Everybuddy, Odigo, and many, many more. None of these are superior to any other, except for some advanced features (voice messaging, videoconferencing, encrypted chat) that nobody EVER uses.

So one Instant Messenger service starts charging, we move on to the next one. What's the big deal. They are all the same.

 

[Ionizer86]

What's the big deal. They are all the same.

I agree that the basics are the same, but some clients are designed better than others. For example, I dislike ICQ because every time I want to send text, I have to hit ctrl+enter to send; simply tapping enter moves me to the next line. And as of yet, I haven't been able to config the send button on the keyboard.

Also, MSN and Y! have a feature to let you see when the other person's keyboard is active, which is a very nice addition that AOL and ICQ lack. And Y! has IMvironments, which, although not of much use, is very nice looking In addition, I've found the file transfer of ICQ to be unable to send my bytes to the other side; similar situation with AOL.

<---Likes Yahoo! 5.0, but nobody else has this recent 5.0 version of the client ;(

 

[chickenhead]

<< Also, MSN and Y! have a feature to let you see when the other person's keyboard is active, which is a very nice addition that AOL and ICQ lack. And Y! has IMvironments, which, although not of much use, is very nice looking In addition, I've found the file transfer of ICQ to be unable to send my bytes to the other side; similar situation with AOL. >>



This is all style-over-substance stuff.

If a client can exchange text and files in realtime, it is good enough.

Who cares which hotkey you press or which shiny spinning thing the client shows you while your messages are being transferred.

You honestly sound like you need to go buy yourself a Mac.

 

[TheVrolok]

Bah... what's so wrong with AIM? I still use it because most of my friends use it(they being non-technical people who are mostly on AOL, or find AIM easy to use) and with the way I have it customized, I'm also using AIM+ which rocks, it looks just fine. I don't mind it whatsoever.. But.. I'll take Gaim over the actual AIM client anyday.

 

[MeanMeosh]

bleh, somehow i doubt i'm going to convince the 170 people on my buddy list to switch.

 

[murphy55d]

I use AIM as well.


BTW you CAN see when someones keyboard is typing on AIM if you're directly connected. It'll say "Buddy is typing".

 

[Ionizer86]

If a client can exchange text and files in realtime, it is good enough.

Not good enough for me. AOL and ICQ can't even send files reliably for me. I expect all IM clients to do at least the basics. THEN, it's nice when they come with more, such as the feature in Y! that tells you when the other person is responding to a message.

You honestly sound like you need to go buy yourself a Mac.

Yes, I do know that all the clients use have the same substance, but on top of that, style is nice. Why use a color monitor when all us geeks need are monochrome screens?

 

[gopunk]

i actually don't want people to see if i'm typing or not... i find that kind of creepy.

 

[randomlinh]

nothing is really wrong w/ aim... i use the chat clients to chat.. and aim+ picks up the history feature i like so much. Altho, if i had to pay for it... screw it.. msn/yahoo here i come.

 

[worth]

I don't know about you, but AIM is the simplest, cleanest instant message program, especially if you remove the ad

I don't need to send files over AIM (except VERY rarely), I don't need to see if the other user is typing, I don't need to see if they reply or not, I don't need to play games with them, nor I don't need to talk live with them. All I want my Instant Message program to do is, send instant messages.

I *used* to use ICQ, about 4 years ago, when it wasn't bloated with useful features. AIM has one of the best, easiest to use interfaces out there.

 

[chickenhead]

<< Why use a color monitor when all us geeks need are monochrome screens? >>



Color encodes useful information, especially for games. You can tell apart your friends (blue ships) from the enemies (red ships) or similar.

Knowing when the other person is typing is NOT useful information. It will not tell you when you are going to receive your message. You get your message when the message appears.