Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : America On-Line: will it survive ...? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yikes who wrote (10310)	6/18/1998 8:51:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13594

AT&T has the band name recognition. What's more, it has the network structure, the distribution, and advertising agencies. People switch long distance companies to save $150 per year. So what should AT&T do? Print on the monthly bills: $9.95 flat fee for unlimited Internet access, saving $120 per year over America On Line. It should be able to sign up 10 million subscribers in 6 months, easily. Here we go again. So, another gorilla that is supposed to wave its magical wand and poof AOL is stardust. This argument sounds so familiar, wait, I think maybe it was MSFT and MSN? MSFT is a cash cow, and yet they don't seem to follow your strategy. If I can recall, AOL has them beat by about 10 million subs. 10 million subscribers in 6 months? There is already FREE internet access. You think they've signed anywhere near 10 million? Not even remotly close!!!! AOL had to spend millions for advertising, sending out free floppies. AT&T can do it cheaper and better. Did you say 'content'? Fork over $100M to Yahoo! and C\|Net and presto! Content. So, what your saying is that right now T is doing it dumb and dumber. Because T does have it's own internet service, does advertise, and still doesn't come close to AOL. But somehow, they can do it cheaper and better. As for content, Yahoo! and C\|Net are established internet sites. They are not T branded content. When you say the content is the web, all T would be is a ISP. What will the market bring today.... S.

To: Yikes who wrote (10310)	6/18/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: P.T.Burnem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13594

AOL had to spend millions for advertising, sending out free floppies. AT&T can do it cheaper and better. Did you say 'content'? Fork over $100M to Yahoo! Yahoo! has hooked up with MCI to offer Internet access for $14.95/mo. I have yet to see any evidence that AOL has been adversely impacted. Quite often, lesser brands and generics represent a better value than household names, yet find it hard to gain market share from dominant brands. IMO, this is because it takes some brain power to find value while buying a brand name is a no-brainer. As they say "Noone has ever been fired for buying IBM products". Half of the population is computerphobic. To them, an AT&T Internet service is inherently suspect because AT&T is a phone company. Phones have been around for decades, but Internet is something new, cool, and one needs a computer to surf it. So, one buys long-distance phone service from AT&T, and an Internet account from America Online. It's a no-brainer! PTB