Talk:AOL

AOL CD junk mail

Others view AOL disks as valuable collectible items due to the vast number of CD-ROM design variations released by the company.

Are these others large enough in significant number that they deserve mention? --BlueGlowGuardian 07:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Experienced users of the Internet jokingly call the AOL service "Assholes Online" because they view AOL users as newbies who are not interested in the workings of the Internet and therefore do no not understand the customs and conventions - ie. netiquette - of the Internet.

AOL's part in finishing off WCW

Why isn't this mentioned? AOL helped give Time Warner the extra ability to auction off that wrestling promotion against the will of a helpless Ted Turner. The sale to the WWE made the WWE a monopoly over wrestling, so this sale was obviously a bad idea. Shady_Joe

( EDIT By Shady_Joe: I decided to add that part myself....so...just look at what I bolded. ) "For many Americans through the mid to late 1990s, AOL was the Internet, but the rise of high-speed Internet access from cable and telephone companies as well as the increasing sophistication of the public in handling browsers and other Internet utilities has cut into its user base. In 2000 AOL and Time Warner announced plans to merge, and the deal was approved by the Federal Trade Commission on January 11 2001. This merger was primarily a product of the Internet mania of the late 1990's, known as the Internet bubble. The subsequent massive decline in value of stocks such as AOL resulted in much recrimination over the merger. Also, the merger with AOL allowed for Time Warner to vote off WCW ( World Championship Wrestling )."

AOL company party line bias

Cut this from the main page. Is there a way the same point can be put, er, neutrally? Surely, some such factoid needs to be included in the article, but jeez. --LMS

In the early 1990s, AOL was among the first service providers to give customers from outside academia and the military access to the Internet. They also emphasized a relatively user-friendly, graphics-heavy interface. As such, they were primarily associated with the influx of new users, unversed in netiquette, who came online in that period.

-That was someone's contribution that attempted to NPOV the idea. A start, but not deep enough, IMHO. I'm contributing a rewrite of the para and am preserving the old para here. My rewrite is too long compared to the rest of the article, but I think that's because the rest of the article needs major expansion, not because my rewrite is itself too long.

I feel that the article as it is fails to mention or make obvious the usage of AOL as a derogatory term. I tried to alleviate this by making a disambiguation page on AOL; however, my edits were reverted. IMHO, NPOVing the idea simply obfuscates it. We are supposed to describe, not prescribe.

-- UTSRelativity 21:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, you know some Wikipedians are AOL users? I'd rather have AOL than some plain old dial-up connection ISP. And by no means am I an inexperienced web user. AOL's browser looks better than Internet Explorer/Netscape, has chat rooms, instant messages, newsgroups, billing info etc. in the one place, and has that pleasant 'Welcome', 'You've got E-mail' and 'Goodbye', just in case you need someone to talk to... - Mark Ryan

How about this? You've got no brains. The main difference between AOL and some random dial-up connection is that some random dial-up connection has a significantly greater chance of costing under $10 a month. More to the point, from what I've heard, AOL actually helps you get infected by spyware. Lastly, AOL is not a browser, it's a shell using the IE rendering engine. Frenchman113 00:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you really like AOL because after loading it onto your computer the only way of removing it properly is by formatting your computer completely.

For billing info, use any ISP's web site (which you can bookmark). If you just want the sounds, record your significant other reciting the lines, then Start > Settings > Control Panel > Sounds (or on Windows ME, > Sounds and Multimedia).

The other features seem to suggest adding the following to the article:

Ironically enough, as of early 2002, the combination of a generic ISP and the Mozilla browser (produced largely by AOL's Netscape division) seems to have become the largest competitor to AOL's own service. Mozilla has downloadable "chrome" (visual styles of user interface), built-in mail, news, and IRC software, and a Java interface to AOL Instant Messenger (at http://toc.oscar.aol.com/).

In other words, I agree AOL needs to be an article *about the company*. Since we are an encyclopedia, let us also include prodigy, compuserve (which was bought by AOL)..get the point?

I agree AOL needs to be an article *about the company*. Since we are an encyclopedia, let us also include prodigy, compuserve (which was bought by AOL)..get the point?

Yeah, but all the same, AOL was the first ISP I chose, it costs the same as other dial-up companies, Gives me 7 screen names/email addresses, (which I can check on the web from any computer as well), a search box integrated into the toolbar, automated connections (i.e. you set the time and it will dial-up itself, connect, and download something or send emails you wrote while you were offline), more insider info on Warner Bros productions (like Lord of The Rings), competitions, and I beta-tested AOL Australia 7.0, and in gratitude, they gave their beta-testers AOL free. That's pretty good.

Aside from the mostly unused, if not useLESS, little bells and whistles that come with it, AOL is still considered a noob program. No offense; it's the truth. While I am sure there is one or two secluded non-noob long-time users, many have moved on to more reliable and noteworthy browsers/service providors. Indeed, you might like the layout, but from my experience, AOL users aren't treated with the highest regard, as so many are noobs. It's always a matter of preference, but AOL is a must-avoid (in most cases) company. I will not press my preference of browser on you, but I do urge you to try some new ones and make a decision based on those. Always remember: simply because it was the first you chose, doesn't mean it's still the best.

I have a problem with this this line:

In the late 1990s and into the early 2000s, AOL began purchasing and supporting many popular software projects and companies. These ventures include Nullsoft's Winamp, purchased in 1999 for $86 million, Netscape, Mozilla (now an independant organization), and ICQ. Some of these projects are open source.

This line interfers that AOL bought mozilla.org the same time they brought Netscape. This is clearly false. mozilla.org started on 23 Feburary 1998. The code was released on 31 March 1998. The NSCP/AOL merger happened at the end of 1998. The Bottom line: AOL inherited mozilla.org and did not buy it.

hoshie 05:33, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No objections from me! :-)

--cprompt 12:40, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

AOL did help fund the project for a number of years, however. [Mozilla Foundation]

--terriblecertainty 06:36:16, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Apple Computers' e-World was one part of the evolution of America On-Line.

e-world

- Sparky 03:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree. EWorld (the handsomest of all the online "communities," if not always the most functional) was produced after AOL had already established itself. AOL didn't take from it, it's the other way around; this is a rare case where Apple followed others' design lead. DavidWBrooks 14:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was working at AOL during the years before, during, and after EWorld coming online. EWorld was in fact a version of the AOL service that was run on separate servers dedicated to EWorld. These servers were in AOL's building. It was the AOL host-side software with minor, mostly cosmetic changes to transform it into Apple's EWorld. The client-side software that EWorld subscribers installed on their computers was the standard AOL client software with minor, mostly cosmetic changes. Subscribers got their tech support by calling AOL's tech support centers. The content published on the EWorld service was created and controlled by Apple. Apple Computers paid AOL something in the neighborhood of $11 million per month for all this, but that's just a ballpark figure from my sporadic memory.

The standing joke among EWorld subscribers and others was that EWorld stood for Empty World, because there were almost no subscribers actually using the service at any given time, despite there being quite a lot of content on the service. This was back when online services were discrete and separate from the Internet. In fact ISPs were almost nonexistent. If you wanted Internet access then you had to work or be a student at an institution that was part of the Internet. I don't recall the exact timeline now, but IIRC, the EWorld deal between Apple and AOL ended very roughly the same time that AOL started implementing gateways to the Internet, allowing at first just email, followed by Gopher and Archie. Within a year or so, AOL started offering Web browsing, but I think that was after the AOL/Apple terminated the EWorld deal.

For fun one day, I spent about thirty seconds hacking the standard-issue AOL client software on my home computer so that it would log into the EWorld service instead of the AOL service. This wasn't a useful hack really, except to demonstrate how little difference there was between the two services. The EWorld service and the AOL service were virtually identical, from the software POV. Except for the stored artwork (similar to what we call 'skins' today) and the fact that very few of the keywords or links between screens were the same on the two services because different content was published on each service.

On paper, the EWorld creation made a lot of sense, but it's hardly the first time that Apple failed to draw enough paying customers to a good idea. OTOH, many people feel that one of Apple's chief goals was to infuse cash into a debt-ridden AOL because AOL was being something of a thorn in Microsoft's side or at least strategic distraction and that was to Apple's advantage.

-I still haven't worked up the initiative to create a wikipedia username 01:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to Mark Ryans comment.

Hello Yes hi to you too.

I shall counterdict your remarks that defend AOL.

I'd rather have AOL than some plain old dial-up connection ISP Get dsl if you dont want some plain old dial-up connection isp. Dsl not available in your area or cable, try satallite. Anything better then the 'ol 56k. But I shall counterdict all of your remarks.

AOL's browser looks better than Internet Explorer/Netscape It does? It looks bloated to me and probably quite insecure. Try Mozilla, it's skinnable and has many features you can add to it with plugins.

has chat rooms, instant messages, newsgroups Yeah them chatrooms you can find on Yahoo Messenger too. Though chatrooms are complete garbage so why someone whos gone through puberty would want to go there is beyond me. Newsgroups you can access with any POP mail account and a mail client(try Mozillas). And standalone instant messenger programs are quite easy to find. Why you can even download Aol Instant Messenger and talk to the people who are foolish to still use AOL.

has that pleasant 'Welcome', 'You've got E-mail' and 'Goodbye Thats quite annoying to me. How someone can actually find that pleasent if amazing.

Although I have nothing against ya Mark I just cant stand someone defend AOL since I think it's a terrable ISP.

Is the Wikipedia really a place to tell someone you think their ISP "SuXx0Rs"? Both sides of that debate belong somewhere besides an encyclopedia.

Personally, I think old Mark is an abusive sockpuppet. These look like straw man arguments too. Frenchman113 00:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

>> Sorry, counterdict isn't a word. Try contradict. Then again neither was 'interfer' up above. Man this chat has some rough language skills.

AOL owned by Time Warner?

I thought that AOL and Time Warner merged. Is saying Time Warner owns AOL any more accurate than saying AOL owns Time Warner? They are one company. Thoughts objections...? [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 23:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No objection, per se. Here's a more detailed answer to your question, but it contains significant chunks of non-neutral POV. Cut, paste, and edit as you like for inclusion in the article proper. :->

When the two companies initially began talks, both sides were open to almost any configuration of the final deal, according to the earliest participants. They were equally comfortable with TWX acquiring AOL or vice versa. Or various forms of "strategic partnership agreements", or just about anything else you can think of. They decided on AOL acquiring TWX and that was the deal that was implemented.

Accordingly, on the merger's effective date, TWX was no longer traded on the stock exchange, only AOL was traded. The now-merged company paid all owners of TWX stock using AOL stock as payment. The former AOL boss was one notch higher on the organization chart than the former TWX boss, and the two boards of directors merged into one.

Sadly, there are a great number of people on the Internet whose perception of AOL is governed by an angry bias towards AOL subscribers and lack of information about how the thing really works. A similar angry bias against the merger began dominating much of the public discourse about the AOL/Time-Warner merger even before it was completed. By the time that federal and shareholder approval finally came through for the merger and it was implemented, the stock market was on the brink of going south from "the dotcom craze" to "the dotbomb crash". Shareholders in the now-merged company were angry and looking for someone to blame, and of course, the favorite scapegoat for the merger was AOL's brass instead of Time-Warner's. My personal guess is the shareholders should have been most angry at the stockbrokers who made all kinds of extremely improper -- but only implied -- promises that the new stock was going to make them rich.

With the zillions of small shareholders (who are typically less sophisticated and informed investors than the big shareholders, who invest as a full-time profession) just wanting someone to blame, the stage was set for the top management structure of the old Time-Warner to start taking over full control of the company by displacing any top AOL management from positions of influence they had within the company. In the space of eighteen months or so, this was accomplished, with old AOL brass being kicked out of the company or keeping their jobs but having the job responsibilities changed to only control the AOL division of the company instead of the entire AOL/Time-Warner company.

The process was complete; AOL had paid for the merger and "acquired" Time-Warner, but it was now the Time-Warner management who controlled the company. Some months later, the final seal was put on this fact by announcing that the new company was changing its stock symbol from AOL to...drum roll please..to TWX.

It seems clear to many close observers that the company is now in the process of stripping most of the portable assets of the AOL division and killing any major new investments in it, in order to sell off the division to whomever is willing to buy it. That whomever may well end up being small investors on the stock market, if they spin the AOL division off to become an independent company with its own publicly traded shares of stock. Presumably traded under the AOL ticker symbol.

If, at that point, any CompuServe employees survive from the years when CompuServe was owned by H&R Block, before AOL bought it from H&R, who can blame them for seeing irony in how the tale ends? Or call it karma, if it pleases.

-I still haven't worked up the initiative to create a wikipedia username 01:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this article isn't that much bigger than a stub, considering the importance of AOL as a business story, as a significant part of tens of millions of lives, and a significant and ongoing part of the evolution of this Internet that we're using right now. We need more sections. And its already obvious that NPOV is harder to come by specifically because AOL is a significant part of so many lives and a of the Internet. I'll add some seeds and maybe a suggested outline later, but it will probably be a few days. --I still haven't created a wikipedia user account :-<

Hardly NPOV

It is also ironic that so many of the unprovoked and vitriolic attacks flames written against AOL users are in themselves violations of the spirit and letter of netiquette. Despite these ironies, there remain a large number of persons using the Internet who adamantly promote the point of view that AOL users are somehow both inferior and a problem and many who will vigorously attempt to persuade people to abandon AOL for this reason alone, and switch to some other provider.

Don't you agree? I admit AOL's stigma is worth discussing, but whoever wrote this engaged in a relatively biased disparaging of the people who dislike AOL. This seems less of an Encyclopedic declaration and more of an Editorialized Ad-Hominem Tu Quoque. America Online does have some faults, such as its proprietary log-on method which does not use the standard Dial-Up Networking Protocol. - Kade

AOL and Legal Issues

I think there should be a section on the amount of legal stuff that AOL has been involved in. I use the word 'stuff' deliberately because AOL has helped to make and shape laws as well as defending themselves in a court of law. I'd start writing this section myself except that I just can't remember the specifics very well. The only thing I can remember with any clarity is the class action lawsuit filed by Observers.net against AOL in the name of AOL's community leaders. The beef was that AOL should have been paying the Community Leaders because they were doing the same sort of work expected of paid employees.*Kat* 02:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps further discussion of the legal actions by the New York Attorney General would be appropriate. [[1]]

As well as a discussion of their ongoing legal action against spammers.

--terriblecertainty 06:40:51, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Pop culture

I just started the America Online and Pop Culture section. I intend to expand it to be much more than what it currently is. As a teenager who never had a social life, the Internet was a Big Deal when I first signed on and I took to it and its chatrooms like a fish to water. So most of my contributions will deal with the chatrooms, message boards, and Community Leader program.*Kat* 02:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

The Internet is a "Big Deal" to me, too, but I've never regarded "the Internet" as having anything whatsoever to do with the cheesy, proprietary online service that is the subject of this article. Dtobias 16:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AOL was/is the first/only Internet experience for millions of people - all of whom are much less cool than the previous poster, it seems, or at least it seems that way to the previous poster - and so its influence on many areas, including pop culture, is certainly worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definately not is, was maybe... Frenchman113 00:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have never used AOL and probably never will. Cable is so much better than anything dialup that I would do without rather than go back to it. The computer that I recently bought to replace my stolen 2000 came loaded with it. I am still finding traces of it. Uninstall is a joke. It takes forever to completly delete it from the registry. My advice: use the AOL discs to make art or recycle in some way but don't stick it in the drive. Dakota 03:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of your love/hatred for AOL, it is undeniable how HUGE it became during the internet boom. "You've got mail" and "Welcome!" almost became synonomous with the internet. At the very least, it should be mentioned that a movie by the name of "You've got mail" was made, and was about the use of AOL's email and IMing, etc to foster a relationship. --Gidge 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Hello everyone, here it says that AOL is owned by TimeWarner but in TimeWarner article it sais that AOL purchased TimeWarner! Which one is correct?

AOL purchased Time Warner, but then people realised AOL's business was screwed, so Time Warner, the stronger partner, subsumed its purchaser. Ironic, but true. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The software, not the service

Is anyone going to write about the actual software used to connect to AOL, you know, the client? I'd like to see the features introduced in each version - 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0... what have you. Might be nostalgic for those who miss the "good ol' days" of AOL, when it wasn't so much just newbies that used it. (You've Got Mail! - ha, classic.) --JoopREE (Geoffrey) 03:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded?

However, this reputation doesn't stop aol.com addresses from being widely used, even in serious business contexts; it is still commonplace in advertisements in non-computer-related publications to see lines like "See our website at www.whatever.com, or e-mail us at whatever@aol.com," to the puzzlement of those who believe an address in the company's own domain would be more logical and professional.

I'm not sure this is needed. It's rather inaccurate at this point. Can anyone provide any kind of recent anecdotal evidence proving this?

I agree that it may no longer be relevant. I do think it's an interesting note, however; perhaps we could change it to indicate that "at one time" or "in the late '90s" companies were doing this? --Birdhombre 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ban all AOL'ers from Wikipedia

A damn good idea, most anonymous vandals use AOL since their IP changes every time. Look at most AOL IP's talk pages on Wikipedia and you'll see they're full of warnings for vandalism.

For this reason AOL IPs should be banned from editing unless they make a user account. It's the same as using an anonymous proxy, which are already banned. --Chaosfeary 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Also, does anyone know what the range of AOL IPs are? --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Ranges, Wikipedia

This is absurd. Just because somebody uses AOL does not mean that they are a hopeless vandal. Why would you say something so foolish? - Michael Goonan"mjg0503"_talk

17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic should we ban all dialup ISPs? Earthlink? Netzero? (Disclosure: I sold my company, [Weblogs, Inc.] to AOL and work for AOL right now).

Keywords

This article needs something about the ubiquitous "AOL keyword", which seemed to be pushed heavily in cross-marketing efforts around 1998-2002. I just noticed an AOL keyword on the cover of a National Geographic issue from a few years ago, and am somewhat surprised they put something right there on their cover that had carried an advertising/marketing influence. -71.2.177.157 11:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That has now been done.

Lack of connection circa 1997

I was surprised to see that nothing was mentioned about the massive consequences of the unlimited plan offering in 1996. I remember in very early 1997, it was almost impossible to connect to ANY AOL number since people were just online all the time. Flyerhell 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding chatroom battlers?

I feel that AOL battler should be mentioned on this page. But where? The AOL chatrooms are rarely mentioned as well as being scattered in the article. --Zeno McDohl 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameline

after von Meister's idea of buying music on demand was rejected

music? according to Gameline's article, it was used to download games.

The CVC GameLine was a cartridge for the Atari 2600 which could download games from a phone line.

What am I missing here?--Martin925 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill von Meister had the idea to stream music over what eventually became the Gameline modem, but it was never actually implemented. The second paragraph of Gameline mentions this. Microtonal 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More formal tone, please!

I added an {{inappropriate tone}} tag to this article. Much of this article is written in a tone that's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. For instance: it is still commonplace in advertisements in non-computer-related publications to see lines like "See our website at www.example.com, or e-mail us at example@aol.com," to the puzzlement of those who believe an address in the company's own domain would be more logical and professional, for instance.

Also, Claims are that these rules are too strict to follow, do not allow swearing, or a very flexible rule called room disruption seems like a highly unencyclopedic sentence. Whose claims would these be? --Ashenai 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL users' reputation

Well, I'll grant you that it's not a particularly encyclopaedic topic, so it shouldn't be given a great deal of space in the article, but I'm very suprised to see no mention whatsoever of the appalling reputation AOL users have on the Internet. Surely this ought to get a mention somewhere? Tyrhinis 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, only noticed your entry after I posted my own on the same subject - I agree 100% with you that this should be mentioned, I wish someone with less POV against AOL users (I used to help run an online game that was pestered by AOL users) would write the section though. TH 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The client software

Please, someone write about the actual client software (AOL X.x) in the same vein as the related AOL Explorer, not just only version numbers. A screenshot would be nice. --Geopgeop 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to AOL

This page should be moved to AOL per yesterday's announcement. I have listed AOL for speedy deletion so I can move this page there. Any objections, please let them be heard or I will carry this out. GT 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL users

Aren't we missing a section about the (perceived?) notoriety of AOL users for breach of netiquette, trolling and generally causing mayhem wherever they appear on the Internet? I'm pretty sure no other ISP has had their users banned from so many websites, services, and online communities, partly because of their proxying policies and random assignment of IP addresses, but also because mostly newbies use their service, since people who "graduate" as netizens tend to shun them and move away to more serious providers whenever possible... Ok, I realize that some would call this POV but just do a google for "AOL users banned" or something similar if you want to see the tip of the iceberg, I'm not the only one with this notion but since I'm pretty biased against AOL users I won't start writing something, hopefully someone else will :) TH 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is something notable about AOL, and should not be removed, although care should be taken to ensure the information is presented in a NPOV manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Untrue" Note

Why is "Note: Before you read this, please remember that AOL is heavily criticised, so many or some statements are probably untrue." at the top of the page rather than one of the standard templates flagging the article as potentially NPOV or unfactual? What's special about this article? - Chris Wood 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT has removed the non-standard warning. Thanks - Chris Wood 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Regardless of whether those allegations might have been true, that thing was hideous. — GT 10:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Links to Deleted Articles

Unfortunately, I missed out on the debate for deletion of articles on the Black Bayou role playing game ANTAGONIST, inc. However, if these articles are permanently deleted, please remove the links the them; I was halfway through writing a new page for Black Bayou when I realized it had existed and had been deleted. Having a dead link only serves to frustrate those who'd like to see the article exist.

And this is relevant to AOL, how? *Dan T.* 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Software Release Timeline

There is a software release timetable for PC's but not for Mac's. Could someone do it please?

Thanks for doing it. Some mistakes I have found, I will try my best to fix them, but it would help if others could too.

WCW

Also, the merger with AOL allowed for Time Warner to vote off WCW (World Championship Wrestling).

Huh? Off of what? For what reason? Context?

MSTCrow 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL google deal

I think the AOL - Google deal shud be updated - http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051221_533090.htm

oh and maybe aol.com >> since its all free now and not only part of the subscribers experience.

Spliff99 06:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worst invention ever?

I'm not sure where, but if someone wants to put a new criticisms category up (since someone wants to mention how AOL users tend to lack netiquette), they could add this reference by PC World calling AOL the worst tech invention ever.

article on yahoo