 | | AOL will shed a third of its staff Could this be the beginning of the end for AOL? Their numbers have been declining quarter after quarter. They only have 5.4 million subscribers left, down from 7.5 million subscribers last year.
If they continue to shed 2 million subscribers a year and layoff significant numbers of workers, it won't be long before they disappear entirely.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|  |  Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: AOL will shed a third of its staff I'm honestly surprised AOL lived this long. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | While that's off 80% from it's highest number of subscribers, what is scary that it's still the 5th largest ISP.
Doubt they shed 2 million per year. 2.1 mil from 7.5 is 28%. So looking at it that way if they continue to shed 28% per year in 5 years they'll still have 1 million subscribers. | |
| | | | | Re: AOL will shed a third of its staff AOL Subscriber numbers from ISP Planet ( »www.isp-planet.com/research/rank···a_h.html ) - except for the 2009 figure which is from the Post article:
Q2 2003: 25.3 million
Q2 2004: 23.4 million (down 1.9 million)
Q2 2005: 20.8 million (down 2.6 million)
Q2 2006: 17.7 million (down 3.1 million)
Q2 2007: 10.9 million (down 6.8 million)
Q2 2008: 8.1 million (down 2.8 million)
Q2 2009: 5.8 million (down 2.3 million)
So AOL's been losing 2 million or more members per year since 2004. (I think 1.9 million's close enough to count.) They are actually averaging 3.25 million members lost per year over the past 6 years. At that rate, they have less than 2 years left.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
|  HpowerRoflmao
join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA
 ·Charter
| They are going to die. It's inevitable with how long they always wanted to stick to dialup customers which is causing them to die. Just die already please. No one likes AOL (America Offline) anyway.
Just a matter of time. I say next year is their time. I just don't get how they are not filling for bankruptcy with how bad they are doing and getting worse.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
|
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Maximum fine set at £50,000 for illegal file-sharing Not that I'm into piracy, but is this just another way to suck money from the innocent?
Does it really cost the music industry 50,000 pounds for each song shared? Is it going to be the same here, where if the RI/MPAA suspect anything, even a printer, of filesharing that they'll sue them into financial oblivion for the rest of their lives?
I still think a 1/4 of a million dollars for each offense here is way too ridiculously expensive.. and it's not likely the actors will see any of it... Yet, the RI/MPAA ask for a freakin' bailout.
I agree with Good Charlotte's "Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous". Most of them wouldn't know what to do if they had to live like the rest of us and actually live on a couple thousand a month (or less).
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,Win7]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Maximum fine set at £50,000 for illegal file-sharing said by Simba7:Not that I'm into piracy, but is this just another way to suck money from the innocent? Does it really cost the music industry 50,000 pounds for each song shared? Is it going to be the same here, where if the RI/MPAA suspect anything, even a printer, of filesharing that they'll sue them into financial oblivion for the rest of their lives? A) Innocent? I doubt they are randomly sending out fines to random people. I suppose you are one that thinks NO ONE EVER downloads anything illegally.
B) Unless I read it's wrong it's 50,000 pounds TOTAL not per song. Which is actually alot better than what you can end up paying here in the US. Also that's the MAX fine. You could get fined a smaller amount. Think of it this way, here in the US when a crime has a 10 year max prison sentence, how many people actualy do the 10 years? Almost none.
Also the 50,000 number I guess is to supposed to act as a deterant. Honstly I still don't get why people still steal songs off the internet. They took away the DRM that's what everyone bitched about. That's what they used as an excuse. what the excuse now? | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Law Firm Contemplates Class Action Suit To Recompense Xbox L Oh please. Now I'm not an anti-lawsuit guy. There are many legitimate lawsuits. But it's pretty clear in the TOS that you are not allowed to mod your XBOX and if you do you can and will be banned form XBOX Live. So it's pretty simple if you don't want to be banned don't fucking mod your xbox. And if it's not your intention of doing anything illegal then why mod it at all? Exactly what would be the point? | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Law Firm Contemplates Class Action Suit To Recompense Xbox L Any time you buy something it is yours to do with as you please(within your control). There are tons of reasons to mod hardware that have nothing to do with illegal activity. Take a look at the Linksys wrt5g router as an easy example. If it were not for people doing mods on this router we would not have a quarter the features that are now standard on home routers. People making mods to current equipment is how we get new features and capabilities today. | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Law Firm Contemplates Class Action Suit To Recompense Xbox L said by Lazlow:Any time you buy something it is yours to do with as you please(within your control). it's in the TOS when you join XBOX Live if you mod your console you will be banned. Since you have to AGREE with the TOS before joining XBOX LIVE these people don't have a leg to stand on. You can't AGREE to something then be mad when the other side acts on that agreement.
There are tons of reasons to mod hardware that have nothing to do with illegal activity. Take a look at the Linksys wrt5g router as an easy example. If it were not for people doing mods on this router we would not have a quarter the features that are now standard on home routers. People making mods to current equipment is how we get new features and capabilities today.
Bit of difference between a router and a XBOX 360. And at any rate if you mod your Linksys router you void your warranty. Or should Lynksis be sued over that too? | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Law Firm Contemplates Class Action Suit To Recompense Xbox L BF69
I was not arguing with the live portion, just your statement that the only thing modders do is for illegal purposes. Why is there a difference between an Xbox and a router, as far as modding? There is not. You mod to add capability and features. Obviously people want to do certain things that are not available to be done on a standard Xbox, otherwise there would be no mods. This applies to virtually any hardware out there. | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  Why Chrome OS will fail -- big time
Fatal flaw No. 1: The Linux foundation
From power management to display support, Linux has long been a minefield of buggy code and half-baked device driver implementations. Google recognizes this fact and, in a page out of the Apple Macintosh playbook, has taken the draconian measure of allowing the Chrome OS to be distributed exclusively on a series of as-yet-undisclosed netbook-like devices.
Fatal flaw No. 2: The Web user interface
Unlike a traditional OS, there's no desktop. The "applications" running under the Chrome OS are really just interactive Web pages, with the Chrome browser's tabs serving to separate and organize them visually on the screen.
The world won't buy an inflexible OS
And that's where I believe the Chrome OS ultimately fails. In its effort to pare the traditional OS model down to the bone, Google has thrown out the one characteristic that made Windows and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS X and full-blown Linux successful: flexibility. Simply put, the Chrome OS is too narrow. It assumes that the world is ready to give up the traditional personal computing paradigm and live full time in the cloud. In reality, most users prefer a hybrid existence, with some of their data and applications stored locally, and others -- typically the freebies, like Gmail -- hosted online.
Don't forget that Google's plans for acceptable hardware to run the Chrome OS is very limiting. No hard drives or even DVD drives; only solid state drives. That may reduce power usage and speed up boot time (as if that was really an issue), but it also means you can't run your own apps, or store and access data, when you don't have a live Internet connection. Plus, the supported laptops are only netbook-size laptops, with low-power CPUs that won't be all that capable. The short version - Chrome OS is nothing but a slightly upgraded cellphone OS.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Why Chrome OS will fail -- big time I think you guys missed the point. Chrome OS is specifically targeted at netbooks. So it is logical that it's first release will (surprise) be on netbooks.
As far as flexibility, they have released the code already. It is extremely likely that by the time it actually ships that there will be tons of third party apps already out there. As far as support for new devices (storage media) that is pretty much a no brainer to add(nix mounts file systems not drives). If you want to add a new desktop you will do what one does now to change desktops in Mac/Linux (just add it). | |
|
Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | Of Course there's a backdoor in Win 7! Of course there's a backdoor in Windows 7!
Most of its development was done under the dick and bush show. "Mine Kerr" Bush loved taking as many freedoms and rights away from us as possible-and arranged all kinds of ways to spy on us. Do you really believe that he didn't strongly advocate for backdoors in everything he could?
I mean this is a guy who never saw a law or right he liked-and whose paranoia is so extreme that he has the phone companies (AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, etc.) spying on evey phone call we make and every piece of data flowing through their networks! Of course he never bothered to get court approval for any of this-why should he? He has a GOD complex-and God doesn't need approval from anyone! Not only that he refused to let Congress or the courts even see any details on how thorough this spying on USA citizens is-which means it has to be pretty bad! He also went out of his way to make sure that the ILECS don't get in trouble for breaking the law-which they MOST CERTAINLY DID to allow wiretapping on such a scale as this.
The scary thing is that Obama is allowing this to continue-it has to be REALLY BAD for that to happen. I'll bet he's afraid that if the truth came out, the uproar would be deafaning-and the backlash would be too extreme.
Don't kid yourself, Apple has backdoors in their OS too!
So, the best thing to happen is that everyone adopts Linux, because it's an open system and no one could put a backdoor there. | |
|
| |
|
