John Linton I doubt that many people remember AOL's much trumpeted 'entry' in to the Australian internet marketplace and their bizarre 'go to market' approaches and even fewer probably recall their eventual demise in this country but it is interesting in as far as a one time "dominant player" in the USA (in movies and TV shows "AOL" was used as being synonymous with "internet") that was the first champion of the ISP concept that "content is king" should become so irrelevant:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704823004576192350397031570.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews
Long a dominant presence in the USA internet market (though never more than an irrelevancy in Australia eventually being 'bought' by iPrimus) they were the first internet company to go down the content is more important than speed/downloads/pricing in the USA/EU and, in a very stupid way in Australia where that concept was never going to fly.
As the 'NBN2' government monopoly inches closer you tend to hear more and more people in the Australian media talking about how "content" will become the dominant supplier differentiator in a bland one internet distribution world - what a total crock. AOL's descent from dominance to irrelevance illustrates the dangers of this particularly stupid view. I don't have the specific knowledge (let alone the time) to develop the argument against 'content models' beyond the base concept that 'exclusivity' and 'the internet' are mutually exclusive and cannot be used in the same sentence. Those people who believe (and invest in) re-inventing AOL with similar ideas simply don't understand what the internet actually is, how it continually changes or what it will become - in particular I will take bets that the internet is not morphing in to another form of cable TV service......anyone who does, lives in a cable TV world that doesn't show "The Social Network" or doesn't understand the lessons it displays.
Re-invention is a 'corporate nonsense word for failure....along the lines of "oops, this doesn't work anymore what can we do now?" It's trying to use an 'infrastructure' purpose built and staffed for one thing to do something very different and to compete with other companies that purpose built their own organisations to address the markets and provide the services that the 're-invented' company is going to try and address. It can work and you may very well cite Apple as an example - except Apple is an exception rather than the rule and Apple did use almost all of its long term core skills to compete in areas that had no dominant or even really strong 'players'.
I suppose I could be terribly wrong - it wouldn't be the first time or the last time. Perhaps, against every example I can think of and every cogent reason I have come across I still think that humanity is not epitomised by the brain dead TV watchers/RPG zombies and lives their individual lives in more sensible and purposeful ways. Doubtless, and Foxtel's "progress" in Australia proves this is true, there is a significant market for peddling old movies and TV shows to be watched for the nnnth time by people who can think of nothing better to do with their 'spare' time.....but is even that demographic going to pay even more money than they currently do for such a 'service'? I have no idea but for those people who believe 'content' will determine what internet provider a sizable percentage of the market will use it might be best if they did a little research in to AOL's rise and fall.
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
ABN 350 979 865 46