America Online May Charge For Content From Time Inc.

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 11/25/2002 | Matthew Rose and Julia Angwin

[GeneD]

Want to read People magazine online? Soon, it might cost you.

America Online and sister magazine publisher Time Inc. are discussing an agreement under which a substantial portion of the content on Time Inc.'s currently free Web sites could be transferred onto America Online's struggling proprietary service, company executives say.

[GeneD]

Another way of forcing people to stick with the balky, disconnect-prone AOL service. Brilliant idea, Dick!

[Paleo Conservative]

Who needs AOL when cable modems and DSL are widely available?

[KeyBored]

Gee, now they're going to attempt to charge me for what I've been ignoring all this time for free.

With that kind of logic, they must be liberal democrats. (or, at the very least, government bureaucrats)

[truthandlife]

Another reason to dump your AOL stock. Not just because it is a liberal company but because they are STUPID. Nobody is going to pay for these liberal TIME stories. If it wasn't for Drudge linking these TIME stories all the time nobody would be reading.

[goldstategop]

I guess AOL saw how successful Rush Limbaugh's extra content was so they're aiming to ape the model. The difference is while Rush offers valuable extras worth paying for, the truth is no one wants to read Time and People's liberal junk. If they make serious money off their proprietary Time Warner media related content, I'll be as surprised as any one else.

[AmishDude]

I mean, who pays to read Time anyway? Most of the time it's the distraction of choice in the dentist's waiting room.

[Sparta]

I don't even want to read Massimo Calibresi's stenography for free. Why would I pay to read it?

[Radix]

"who pays to read Time anyway?"


Really,

I stopped subscribing to their crap years ago!

I used to get 7 or 8 news magazines. Some were weekly, some monthly. Nowadays I get only The National Review!

Those "News" Sources just simply do not get "it." They do not get the Election just passed either. They are so seriously out of touch!

Ain`t it great?

How sweet it is!

[billybudd]

I wonder how many people would get AOL just so they can look at sh!tty Time and People articles, which you can read in the supermarket anyway if you're dying to know who's "Up" and who's "Down" this week. BTW, people who have internet access know they can get any horsesh!t Time has to offer on thousands of free sites, including FR. All AOL will end up accomplishing is driving down page views for Time Warner content. Idiots.

[ServesURight]

BWHAHAHA!! AOL just doesn't get it - Who in their cotton-picking mind is going to pay for online crap from Time and People when they don't even subscribe to it or pay for it at the newstands?

Especially People magazine - Once upon a time it used to be a great magazine that focused on the strengths and lives of ordinary Americans but has hopelessly become just another idiotic celebrity-obsessed rag. I don't read it even when it's free when I'm in some stupid waiting room.

Man, AOL is absolutely brain-dead. Anyone who subscribes to AOL should be shot dead.

[newgeezer]

Who needs AOL when cable modems and DSL are widely available?

Novices, neophytes, those who don't know how or are afraid to switch. (Oh, and don't forget those who refuse to double their expense, regardless of the benefits.)

[Paleo Conservative]

Oh, and don't forget those who refuse to double their expense, regardless of the benefits.)

It really depends on whether you are using your voice line to surf the internet. If you are already using a second line to call AOL, getting DSL on the first line, dropping the second line, and dropping AOL will greatly improve performance while not increasing cost.

My brother switched to a cable modem and entirely dropped his conventional phone service. He now only has a cell phone. He finds the total monthly cost for is about the same as he was paying for an ISDN line and an ISDN internet service provider plus a satellite TV subscription.