Category Archive » AOL

Testing AOL Journals.
[ July 17, 2003 | Permalink | 6 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Internal beta testing of AOL Journals opened up yesterday, and I have dutifully started an AOL Journals blog and posted my suggestions and comments to the appropriate forums. It's no secret that AOL is doing this, but I didn't know any real details until yesterday. Also, I re-read the note about not leaking details, so this post is pretty restrained.

Here's a few tidbits that I think are not embargoed, but aren't really that juicy...

• The set up was stupid easy. I mean, my daughter could do it, and she's 9 weeks old.
• NetNewsWire can read my Journal's RSS file.
• The instant messaging conduit works pretty well, and I think IM blogging is a good thing.
• There's one thing about commenting that I like and hate at the same time. I'll rant and rave about this when the product goes public.

It's a good start, and it's not a "premium" service (as in, I don't have to pay extra dollars to have an AOL Journal) so I'm pretty hopeful that this thing will take off. The basics are there and it's pretty solid.

[Disclaimer: I do not work on the Journals product. It should be assumed that any product still under development will change, so don't expect anything I say here to be true when this thing goes live. Be sure to read around for a lot more info that I can provide.]


Netscape.
[ July 16, 2003 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Recently I speculated about the demise of Netscape, and more to the point, that Netscape would not meet an untimely end. Apparently, I was wrong, and it's pretty depressing to see it happen.

The point I made about the MSFT/AOL deal was that AOL would still prefer to NOT place control of its business into the hands of its competitors. That's definitely true, but I carried that into a hope that Netscape wouldn't be scuttled. At least Mozilla will carry on with active funding from the likes of AOL, IBM and Sun.


Who wins in this deal? I think I do.
[ July 15, 2003 | Permalink | 4 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

AOL and TiVo have a new service/feature available to those who are AOL subscribers and have a network enabled Series 2 TiVo. If you have that, then when you surf thru the TV listings at Keyword: Television, you can click on shows and have them be scheduled on your TiVo. In my opinion, that's pretty cool, but I can't figure out why AOL or TiVo thinks this is a great way to boost subscribers (or even if they do think that).

TiVo already has the Home Media Option which allows for remote scheduling and other media tom foolery. The remote scheduling is the only thing that makes me salivate, and they charge $100 for that privilege. If I'm an AOL subscriber, and I only want the remote scheduling, then this is a great deal, because I don't have to shell out an extra $100. If I wasn't already a subscriber, would this feature really lure me? And, since there are so few network enabled Series 2 TiVo's, how big can this market be? Why is TiVo willing to give away its best networking feature away to a potential audience of 30+ million people?

Business logic aside, I think this a great customer focused hack, even if it took me a while to find the feature (which, by the way, isn't vapor. It works right now). None of the news articles about this had any direction on where to use the feature, and I finally had the idea to read the original press release. It mentioned Keyword: Television, which when entered resulted in a search results page, which had a link to the actual Keyword: Television, which at the bottom of the page, said it was Keyword: TV.

After a few futile minutes of scanning that page, I finally thought of going thru the actual TV listings. I selected my provider and type of service and got a page with a listing of what's on TV right now. Since it's in a grid format, I assume AOL is paying royalties to Gemstar. Regardless, when you click on a specific show, you will see an item that says "Record on my TiVo DVR."

Doesn't that seem like a pretty convoluted process?


You've got blog.
[ July 07, 2003 | Permalink | 2 Comments | 2 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Apparently, AOL is doing a weblog product, and I'm guessing NDAs have been violated(?) I have only heard the rumors and know nothing more than what I read out there on the net. However, if any sort of internal beta testing is made available, you can bet I will check it out. In the meantime, some people already seem to have opinions...

Jeff Jarvis: AOL Blogs

Yesterday, I was one of a privileged council of blogging elders -- Meg Hourihan, Nick Denton, Anil Dash, Clay Shirky -- invited to see AOL's new blogging tools, which will be released later this year. They've done a good job.

Dave Winer: On AOL's entry into weblogs

Now their strategy is coming out, and there are some surprises. Today I'm going to discuss, briefly, just one, the Instant Messaging connection with weblog tools, and how it leads into the quagmire that the weblog world is caught up in (and a plea to swallow our respective prides and compromise now).

Kevin Lawver: Super Secret Agent Revealed!

The top secret meeting is now something I can talk about. I went to New York with the AOL Journals team to talk about the new AOL Journals product with some influential folks in the blogging world.

Outside my office window.
[ July 02, 2003 | Permalink | 1 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]






Don't count Netscape out yet.
[ May 30, 2003 | Permalink | 3 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

There has been some pretty rampant speculation about what will happen to Netscape now that AOL has settled their dispute with MSFT to the tune of a $750 million settlement. Quotes like this from MSNBC are out there...

"Both AOL Time Warner and Microsoft win on this one," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with Giga Information Group. "Microsoft turns what had become an aggravating enemy into at least a marginal friend and possibly a cooperative partner. AOL gets much-needed cash and are able to divest themselves of units that were costing them money like the Netscape unit."

On the webdesign list, a short thread explored the possibilities of there being no Netscape or Mozilla, and there was one voice of reason ("S.Marshall") who said...

Even from a purely technical point of view (i.e. leaving aside the political), control over your code is a very good thing, because when you're using somebody else's software you can't fix their bugs or limitations (sure MAYBE if you have a close financial relationship you can put in a change request that MAYBE they'll handle in six months, but that's never good enough).

And this is an argument that I buy. I can't imagine that AOL would want to dumb Mozilla/Netscape 7 in favor of going blindly with IE over the better part of the decade. And, I haven't heard any rumors at all that AOL is going to dump Netscape (and generally, I hear rumors). And the Netscape folks don't only do a browser, they provide other services within AOL. But this isn't the only part of the MSFT deal that's worth talking about. Dick Parsons, the AOL Time Warner CEO said this in an internal email...

The settlement should also help us deliver an even better online experience to AOL members. The agreement provides that Microsoft will give us technical information and support to ensure the peak performance of the AOL service on current and future Windows operating systems. In addition, Microsoft will provide us with an enhanced ability to market the AOL service to consumers, including opening up a new channel to provide AOL software discs to computer manufacturers worldwide.

If AOL doesn't ship with every copy of Windows, the market penetration of the service would decline (more rapidly). So it's a good thing to have that access (imho, because they pay the bills at Chéz Kapusta). However, at the end of the day, I have to assume that AOL will not limit it's choices and place any control of its own destiny into the hands of a friend or rival.


I'll be the judge.
[ April 29, 2003 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Declan McCullagh of C|net mentions the following about Lawrence Lessig...

Lessig made an unusual wager: If Congress enacts an antispam law that offers bounties for the reporting of spammers, and the law fails to "substantially reduce the level of spam," he will resign from his dream job at a top law school.

Too bad congress has yet to do that, but we should note that the state of Virginia is signing into law today an anti-spam bill that AOL email to employees describes thusly...

Please join Jon Miller from 1:15 - 2:15 p.m., as AOL hosts this historic event, and hear remarks from Governor Warner, Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, Ted Leonsis, and others. Together, we will witness the signing of a new spam-fighting law for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and celebrate this significant step forward in the battle against spam on behalf of our members and the entire Internet community.

To support this event, my group has supplied a feed showing how many spams AOL has killed since midnight eastern time (and it's up on a jumbotron). The number climbs upwards very quickly (via DHTML); on the order of thousands per second, and I've been watching the number for weeks now, and have noticed the peak number has been accelerating upwards from over one billion a day to over 1.5 billion a day. That half billion increase has happened over the past month (but the number does ebb and flow, so YMMV).

I watch this data every day, all day (to be sure the spams killed feed is still running for use in other places), so when I see the aforementioned Declan McCullagh say...

He [Lessig] has asked me to be the judge of whether such a law proves effective in reducing the deluge of unsolicited e-mail that's clogging our in-boxes, snarling mail servers and driving Internet service providers to distraction. I've accepted.

I have to say that, I'll be the judge. Anyone else who wants to make up their own mind can go to AOL Keyword: Safety, or watch their own mail box, and make their own judgement.


Scale.
[ March 31, 2003 | Permalink | 12 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Working on something that will be on the AOL Welcome Screen, or something linked from it, is sort of stressing. You simply can not fuck up, and you have to scale like a mo-fo. I've just completed an item (with tons of help from many other people) that will appear in that type of location. Now, I'm just a cog in the wheel, but I happen to be the cog where people actually see the spokes turning (metaphorically and realistically) and if it breaks, I'll be getting the 3am phone call.

It's a ticker of the amount of spam emails that have been killed (before they got to a member's mailbox) since midnight. It's a huge number, and ticks along in real time. The systems by which that data gets from one place to another, and finally gets represented on screen for the user, is equally big. This scale issue has been one of the things that has been hard to get used to over the last year, but I think I'm finally getting it.

One of the cool things is the architecture by which data is cached (or not) depending on the responsibilities of that data and how it will be consumed (all in an effort to conserve network resources). Also, equally cool is the ability to embed web stuff in the proprietary AOL screens and make it look like it's totally normal. That sort of thing makes me hopeful that more "normal" web technologies will be used to present users with the content they are there to consume, and thus make my skills more useful :)


We make it, you consume it, pay up.
[ March 10, 2003 | Permalink | 5 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Last year Jamie Kellner said some semi-crazy things about watching TV and ignoring commercials...

Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots.

I felt that that position was kind of extreme, and that it wasn't a TiVo friendly position. When Kellner announced his pending resignation, I chuckled to myself that maybe his comments had caught up with him. But sadly, that attitude is burned-in like a video game on an EPROM (ie, a cartridge). For example, AOL is making a Tivo competitor that...

lets networks set the parameters, dictating which shows users can reschedule, and it also creates ways for networks to insert commercials.

And that is clearly the type of system that Kellner would approve of and is completely not focused on empowering/emboldening the consumer. In fact, I think I've noticed a fabric at AOL that is based on the idea that content is something to be delivered. As in, We make it, you consume it, pay up. I don't think the future of media (or journalism) is uni-directional.


Another AOL executive shuffle.
[ February 28, 2003 | Permalink | 5 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

AOL is just announcing (via email) another shuffle in the board room...

Steve Swad... has joined America Online as executive vice president and chief financial officer

Here's the part where it gets interesting...

Steve was vice president of financial planning and analysis for AOL Time Warner and vice president and deputy controller at Time Warner. Before joining Time Warner in 1998, he was a partner at KPMG LLP and deputy chief accountant with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission

That's a serious résumé and I'm glad to see that sort of experience taking a high profile role at AOL. The stock price seems to be benefitting from the announcement.


A drop in subs.
[ January 31, 2003 | Permalink | 1 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

The $100 billion dollar, year over year loss reported by AOL Time Warner concerns me less than the price of pickles in Pakistan. What does scare the shit out of me is this...

AOL's customer numbers fell by 170,000 in the last quarter, despite the aggressive launch of the latest version of its access software AOL 8.0, the giveaway of millions of free CDs offering trials of the service and an outlay of more than £600m on advertising and promotion.

A drop in subscriptions is not good. I always thought that there would be an increase of subs at AOL due in part to the massive promotions, but more importantly the points of presence (POPs) that AOL has. I never been anywhere that I couldn't get a local AOL dial-in phone number, and that ubiquity is valuable to me. A drop in subs really surprizes me.


Blockbuster?
[ January 10, 2003 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 1 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Last night I watched CNBC's special about the AOL Time Warner deal from three years ago, and it wasn't very flattering from the 'I work at ' perspective. One of the interviewees went as far to say that AOL is to Time Warner as Blockbuster is to Viacom. Which is supposed to mean that AOL can represent profitable returns and be a part of a portfolio of companies. AOL annual cash flow is in the $750 million area, which is a lot of movie rentals. Sheesh.

Anyway, what sort of rosy picture could be painted by CNBC (a MSFT funded operation) about a serious decline in 's stock valuation, thru the eyes of Time Warner people and the CEO's of its competitors? Not any that I can think of right now. But, maybe one will come to me in the coming months and years as, I hope, a career develops.

(ps, I watch CNBC all the time, and I like Dave Faber, who hosted this show, most likely wrote all of it, and did all of the interviews. He's a smart guy, and it was a good show, but it wasn't a warm and fuzzy evenin' at IMX headquarters, aka, home).


AOL makes good on a promise.
[ December 13, 2002 | Permalink | 1 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

As you likely already know, /Netscape has released Netscape 7.0.1 which includes the old new feature of blocking pop up adverts. Advertising is a core business for AOL, and fighting an advertising mechanism in favor of the user experience is good news. Recently the message coming out of Dulles has been about re-focusing on the customer/user experience. I'm glad to see some evidence of this out there on the public internet.

However, I can't imagine how many companies AOL must be pissing off by doing this, but then again, market penetration for Mozilla based browsers is barely in the range of what I would call "significant" so advertisers may not care. Stop and think about when AOL builds this into the AOL client, and keep in mind that uptake of new versions of the AOL client are robust to say the least (8.0 was released this fall, and I think it's already the most used version on the service).

When millions of user go to popup blocking, the popunder ad might become less viable. Unfortunately, according the C|Net "Netscape 7.01 comes with the pop-up filtering off by default."


An attempt to be more constructive in my critique on AOL.
[ December 06, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Ok, so I said the other day that I have my doubts about 's new plan of providing exclusive content on the AOL service. In an attempt to be constructive instead of being a wanker, here's what I would like to see out of...

1. I want downloads of MP3's, or Ogg files, or whatever format that is infinitely repayable using either the AOL client or WinAmp (and AOL property). The music industry has yet to come up a response to the MP3 threat. AOL should answer the big question. If they did, $5/month would be a music subscription I'd be interested in.


2. I want downloads, and lots of them. I want these downloads available at all times with no bandwidth caps or throttling. What I'm really looking for is a FileShack killer (FileShack is a file download service that offers a paid-for service with faster downloads and no download queues). Access to fast downloads of game patches (usually huge files) and Lord of the Rings previews, et al., and updates to software packages is worth at least $5/month. Downloading from FileShack is a BAD experience, and is an opportunity for AOL to leverage the AOL Transit Data Network and their user experience experience.


3. I want access to many of the magazines owned by the media conglomerate. This could be a Salon killer where the entire content of various magazines are made available thru SNS (see blow). Beating MSFT in this space is pure icing. Here's 2 or $3/month of value to me.

Enabling this architecture is the Screen Name Service (which you can see/use at the top of an AOL web property website, such as CSS, where you see the Netscape Network banner at the top). Being able to go to various websites to get access to tons of content with fast download times is a good user experience (which I said the other day is the baseline for ). A good user experience with valued content on top is something I'd pay for, but I'd like to see a $10/month price point. That's $120/year. Apple charges less than that for their bring your own access services.

[Some background info: Even though I work at AOL, I have no inside information on AOL's plans, proposals or ideas for the future other than what has been published thru public media outlets like CNBC (which I watch too much). I'm not even close to being an important person at the company, but I sure do have my opinions.]


More on AOL exclusive content.
[ December 04, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Yesterday I mentioned AOL presenting exclusive content from Time Warner properties. Dick Parsons, the CEO of AOL sent a note out to choir today that included the following...

through Warner Music Group and AOL Music, AOL members will continue to see videos and hear select songs before they air, purchase music, as well as enjoy exclusive interviews and live performances available nowhere else.

Mr. Parsons, PLEASE be sure to let the rest of the world know that. Dump the adverts saying 'so easy to use, no wonder it's number 1' because that's an expected feature of AOL. Tell the world that people can get Lord of the Rings previews only at AOL and they will come. And you better tell them on TV, because telling people from the splash screen, or via email to members is preaching to the choir.

$15/month is still a little steep though. I wonder what Viacom would do if they owned AOL (and the Akamai-like AOL Transit Data Network).


For AOL, User Experience is no longer the Value Proposition. It's the base line.
[ December 03, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

today said it will focus on bringing exclusive content to paying cutomers via the AOL service. That content will likely from time Warner properties and be on the order of special 'Friends' videos and exclusive tracks from pop stars. However, the commercials coming out of AOL are all still about the user experience. This is a waste of time to continue advertising ease of use as the value of the service.

If AOL expects to broadband users to shell over $15/month on top of their cable/ADSL service, they better get on the ball and tell everyone why that cost is worth it. I work at AOL and I didn't even know about some of the recent exclusive content that is available from the service (ie, that Friends thing I mentioned above). I know at the core of my being that AOL is supposed to be easy to use. This message has been beaten into my head by zillions of middle class looking commercial actors. It's time to leave the assumed as assumable, and move on to VALUE that I can't get elsewhere.

MSN is easy to use. AOL is easy to use. The user experience being acceptable and, dare I say, "robust" is what I expect to find in an online service now. If I buy a car, I expect it will have wheels. If I but a TV, I expect it to have a remote control.

$15/month for access to content is a HIGH price. I pay less than that for HBO, or for my subscription to Wired. I pay less than that monthly for the movies I see at theatre (eg, Harry Potter and The Two Towers (both AOL Time Warner properties)). I need to see commercials, on TV, during Friends, showing me things I really want to see and are worth $15/month. Until then, I have my doubts about the new plan.


Spam as a detriment to user experience.
[ November 25, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

C|Net says AOL is testing a POP/IMAP email client that seems to be apart from the AOL service. Keeping in mind that AOL is on an anti-spam crusade, I'm hopeful that this plan is real and that they mean what they say...

Corre said AOL Communicator will target "heavy users of AIM and advanced users of e-mail," but would not say whether the company plans to charge for the software or whether it would be sold to companies or to AOL subscribers.

Users of Hotmail know the pain of spam, and even if there is a filter to put spam in a trash box, it should never have gotten to you in the first place. Just open a Hotmail account, don't ever send any email, and never give the address out, and you'll still get spam. I don't see that business plan coming from AOL.

Dealing with spam is a bad user experience. I know that's obvious to me and you, but it bears repeating. I've heard it straight from the horses mouths that user experience is a top priority at AOL and that spam is to be fought vigorously. If AOL can supply cheap, stable, spam free email, in a client that's easy to use, then they have MSFT and Apple beat.


AOL gets something done about cable.
[ August 21, 2002 | Permalink | 1 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

This deal has been simmering for a long time now, and I'm glad to see they finally got something done about it...

The agreement announced Wednesday calls for AOL Time Warner to assume full ownership of TWE's content assets, including Warner Bros. and Home Box Office, as well as TWE's interests in the WB Network, Comedy Central and Court TV.

All of AOL Time Warner's cable assets, including those now owned by TWE, will be owned by a new subsidiary of AOL Time Warner called Time Warner Cable Inc.

The part about the cable assets is the part that interests me. AOL Time Warner (TW) already has about 4 million cable modem subscribers, but hasn't been very public or aggressive about increasing that number, and I think the resolution of this deal will help remedy that problem. To wit...

In another part of the deal, AT&T agreed to give 's Internet service access to its cable networks. AT&T Broadband and Comcast, which have agreed to merge to form AT&T Comcast, will make AOL High Speed Broadband available on the new entity's systems passing about 10 million homes within two years, and another nine million homes in the future.

I'd be in love if AOL bought out Adelphia's Northern Virginia operation. But I'm not very hopeful about that since Adelphia is carrying massive amounts of debt, and an IPO of this new cable entity will not be able to raise the kind of cash they would need to mitigate that debt risk (the Moody's rating would be in the shitter).


AOL and broadband, the wait continues.
[ August 07, 2002 | Permalink | 9 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

<rant style="eyebrow: furrowed;">
The new AOL CEO (of the online unit, not the entire company) was interviewed by C|net (ZDnet?) and had a few promising things to say, but I find this part familiar and disappointing...

I love broadband! I'm a techie in that regard--I can't wait for that to be prevalent throughout the world. But we're going to wait. It's not going to happen tomorrow morning. I'll give you an example. I'm fortunate enough to have two homes. In one home in Westchester, I cannot get broadband installed and I've tried very hard. And in the second home, I do have it installed but it took over 100 hours to get it installed.

We are going to wait?!? (By "we", I mean the inclusive we, which includes me, because I work at AOL and Miller is now my boss). How can AOL afford to wait to make strides in broadband rollouts? Slowing subscriber growth is not mitigated by waiting to provide a faster, more compelling, online experience (even if AOL 8.0 looks to be more customer centric than the last several revs ions). In terms of user experience, speed matters, and has mattered for YEARS. Ask anyone.

Part of my frustration is based on the fact that I live 4 miles from the mother ship, and I can't get a broadband connection. Not from AOL or Verizon or Adelphia or anyone (unless I want a $500/month T1 thru Atlantec, but I'm not a business). Who ever gets me the fat bit pipe first, wins. Will it be you ? Or will it be the bankrupt and seemingly corrupt Adelphia who has been laying fiber in my neighborhood recently?
</rant>


Oh crap, is that a camera crew?
[ July 18, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Seeing a camera crew in front of your workplace as you drive in the drive way is never a good feeling. I'm guessing it's because of this article in The Washington Post (it's 11 pages long, and is the first of two articles). I think this part of the story is more disappointing though since Pittman seems to have the confidence of the proletariat around here.


Ouch.
[ May 22, 2002 | Permalink | 1 Comments | 1 TrackBack | TB URL ]

Rueters says that "Nearly 60 pct of Web surfers plan to quit AOL." Maybe it's time for AOL to buy Adelphia since they seem to be going down hill fast but have a large subscriber base and have been actively upgrading their cable systems for bidirectional data services (read: internet access via cable modem). After all, what's another $19 billion in debt mean next to the recent $54 billion loss?


Mixed Signals.
[ May 02, 2002 | Permalink | 2 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

So, the CEO of Turner (JK) recently said the following to Cableworld...

JK: Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.

CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

JK: I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial.

Now, take note that Turner is a part of AOL Time Warner, and that owns 1.1 million shares of preferred Tivo stock. Then, ask yourself the natural question, about what the hell is going on, and you will be where I am, confused.


Job angst, over.
[ April 09, 2002 | Permalink | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBack | TB URL ]

I just started a new job at AOL yesterday. Up until last week, the job search was utterly depressing, which only got worse as time went on. Back in August of '01 we all knew that the poor financials were going to catch up with us soon. Accounts receivable was not outpacing liabilities and no new work was starting. On September 9th an all hands meeting was called to take place on the 11th. Having seen two rounds of layoffs occur at these 'all hands' meetings, we knew what was going to happen. Obviously, the day was much worse than we anticipated.

The consensus in August was that any new work would have to come ASAP because payment always comes long after the project starts. If something didn't come quick, there was going to be hell to pay (or rather, all hell and no pay). Throughout 2001 we kept laying people off and nothing significant had come in the door since the TMC deal was confirmed, which is a day I still remember vividly.

In the summer of 2000, the BookAdventure team was on its way to Baltimore for a launch party after finishing a 3 month redesign. On the way to Baltimore, we got a phone call with the good news, and it felt like we were firing on all cylinders. Just few months previous, we had moved into our new offices, which was a huge improvement to the one room temp space we had, which wasn't an improvement from the days where everyone was working from home. We now had 30+ employees, a multi-million dollar project, and a corporate culture that was great. Everyone was friends, the work was interesting, and the money was getting better and better.

Not since then has a large project come to pass. In fact, nothing even close has come around, but we have had several smaller jobs to keep the company going. At the height, we were up to 60 employees with Y2K Christmas bonuses reaching the 25% range. A year later, the bonus was not getting laid off. Seriously.

On December 15, 2001, we had our 4th round of layoffs, and almost everyone got the ax. We were still reeling from the layoffs of September 11th when we watched the smoke rising from the Pentagon as we heard about 30% cut in staff. At this most recent round of layoffs, it was also announced that Senior Management, all 5 of them, began working for no pay (which I admired and benefitted from). A list of names was read off and I heard my name. These names were those of billable employees and thus would remain on the payroll until their projects ended. I thought I was saved, and so did everyone else, but I found out in a private meeting afterwards that I was only billable for the next 4 days, and then I was done.

Thankfully, I had three weeks of vacation saved up (the maximum allowed) and was able to 'take my vacation' and get paid for the time. The next day, I came to work, and there was only a few people there; the billable people. The culture had always been based on lots of social interaction, and the lack of people to be social with was a kick in the teeth.

Back in the glory days, ever other week or so, a large group of us would head down to a bar in the next building. Most of us had been there many times before, and thought of it as the usual place to go. We ate and drank and the bill was usually paid for by one of the company Partners, and everything was great. That was then, this is now.

Today, just a few people are billable, and 5 others remain unpaid for the their efforts, which have been fruitless in spite of constant efforts. The e-business climate has been horrible for so long. They are attempting to keep the company going, but it's like a desert hiker trying to find his way to an oasis. Which is a metaphor for the job search.

Anyway, after my 3 weeks of 'vacation', the other person at the company who does what I do, quit because she was lucky enough to find a job elsewhere. She had been the person to orient me when I joined the company, and was always gregarious and helpful. But, her exit opened up a billable position for me, and is what kept me working until I found my new job at AOL.

Ironically, if I hadn't lived through this I would have felt that I had missed something.


AOL to buy Red Hat? I'd prefer a Lindows acquisition.
[ January 19, 2002 | Permalink | 5 Comments ]

A massive media company looking to buy a Linux distributer could be a good thing. Linux as a desktop OS is just not quite there yet, and perhaps a company that prides itself on making the Internet easy could bring Linux to more consumers. But, I'm not sure AOL wants to get into the business of software development for an OS that still is, for the mast part, a server OS. IBM does that already and seems to be doing a good job.

In my opinion, a better Linux acquisition for AOL would be Lindows. Most people have investments in Windows software, which wouldn't be an issue with Lindows. I think a strategy of shipping /Red-Hat-Linux-CD's to everyone in America would garner few new AOL subscriptions because folks would have to deal with way things are done in Linux, and use Linux software. Yes, I know a Linux user could install WINE on their own, and then run their Windows software, but how many AOL users would do that? Not enough to base a business plan on.