Chuck Simmons wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
> >
> > DeMoN LaG wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Feb 2002:
> > >
> > > > applications to undermine their system? They have created their own
> > > > IM network, and I think that they have the right to ask users to
> > > > use the AOL software. I don't think it's anti-competitive.
> > >
> > > I agree entirely. I think they could strike a deal with some client
> > > makers like Trillian, and say "Hey, you guys can freeload, but you can't
> > > give people the software for free and not have ads in it and so we get
> > > no money and higher operating costs on it". Either Trillian's makers
> > > have to pay $xxx per month or something as a "licensing fee", or they
> > > have to run ads for AOL in their software, like AOL has in it's software
> >
> > Christ, this planet is populated with nothing but dumbasses I swear.
> > For whatever reason, you pay for AOL's "service". Ok, fine. So you
> > then think you should have ads pumped at you? You're paying for an
> > ad-pump service?
> >
> > Lambs to the fricken slaughter. Why don't you lobby congress that you
> > want your taxes raised too while you're at it?
>
> I didn't see anyone saying they were paying for IM or IM service.
AOL users pay for AOL's "service", correct? "Instant Messaging(tm)" is
part of that service, correct? If I am (by some bizzarro-world freak
accident) an AOL subscriber, should I not have the option to use
whichever IM client I want to? And not have AOL's godforsaken ads
staring me in the face?
> Do you
> have a reading comprehension problem?
>
Yes.
("TEEHEHEEHEHEEEEE!! HE SAID YES!" God.)
> However, the TANSTAFL principle applies.
Not in this case. It has to be enforced, or all would indeed be
enjoying a "free lunch". If you define "free" as ~$20-a-month.
> You don't pay money
I can be an AOL subscriber and not pay Steve Case a dime? Sweet! Where
do I sign up for my bajillion free hours? I just love their proprietary
"client".
> and you
> learn to ignore ads.
Nope, I learn to *block* the ads before they ever get to me! Technology
can be a bitch on old paradigms, can't it?
> More than 50 years of commercial TV proves that it
> works.
And more than 20 years of pay TV prove that people are actually so
stupid that they will *pay* to look at *more* ads than they get on
*free* TV.
> It's a no brainer that the same idea can work on the Internet.
Unfortunately, "no brainer" is exactly the word for it.
> Indeed, TANSTAFL is the rule. It is not my rule, Grasshopper. It is
> Nature's rule.
Indeed it is: Why give somebody what they paid for when you can pump ads
at them instead?
