1  |   Order by index

Jun 7, 2000, 8:44pm

Once again, I've been inspired to rant. But for once, it's actually *in
defense* of COF. You can shoot me later, but hear me out first. :)

As most of you know, COF has posted job openings on their website for
various positions, among them 3D Modeler and Technical Support
Specialist, and I couldn't be happier. I guess the fact that they're
*finally* turning a profit means they can afford to hire some more help.
*smirk*

But still, this is a good sign! It means COF might actually care about
AW's future, instead of simply thinking that, by dropping big names and
even bigger numbers, you'll get the big business. There is hope after
all! (Heck, if this keeps up, I might actually start referring to them
as "AWCI" *gasp*)

Ok, enough with the compliments. :)

While hiring more help is always a good thing, more employees does not a
good company make. Just because COF only currently employs around 15
people, (if even that many) doesn't give them an excuse to ignore their
customers. Let's face facts, ever since COF introduced the registration
fee for citizens, it's customer base dropped about 85% and they *still*
haven't recovered from it. You'd think they'd learn, but instead of
trying to figure out what their (remaining) customers want, they simply
try to figure out more ways to extract money from us. (AW T-shirt,
anyone? :P)

So for the PR-challened over at COF, a few tips:

1. Read the newsgroups! True, only a minority of AW users actually use
them, but that minority is the same minority that actually care about
where AW is going. Many of us in here have been here since the beginning
and some of us are still here, clinging to the thin thread of hope that
you'll wake up and get your act together. Tons of suggestions have been
offered to you, yet they almost always go ignored. (unless it's
beta-related :P) Trust me, we customers know what we want better than
you do, so pay attention!

2. Look at your customer base! You may be trying to attract the big
corporate companies and blue-collar suits, but when you actually look at
who is *really* using your product, you'll see that the vast majority of
your users are around the 10-18 yr old range. (or parents of said range)
Perhaps that should tell you something, eh? Instead of trying to pass
off AW as some sort of slick e-commerce software, maybe you should
concentrate on what AW was meant to be in the first place: A living,
breathing, fully-functional, virtual community. AWCC and the like is a
start, but in order to have a "real" community, the actual members of
the community have to have some sort of say in what goes on in said
community.

3. Get involved! If you expect to keep COF (the company) and AW (the
software) as two separate entities, then you truly don't get it. I
remember back when Worlds ran the show, Protagonist and Co would
*regularly* show up at AWGZ and just sit and yak with everyone there.
They weren't there to make any sort of corporate announcements. They
weren't there to advertise anything. They weren't even there to "keep
the peace". They were there so they could touch base with their
customers and actually be a part of the community they had set out to
create. As it stands right now, users have a better chance of getting in
touch with Bigfoot than they do with you. And let's face it, if you
aren't there to defend your actions, then we'll just have to come up
with our own explanations. And they might not be all that pretty...

Of course, if COF sticks true to form, this post will go ignored just
like all the others. But that's why I'm happy about the job postings. If
they hire someone whose sole job is to listen to the customers and relay
their wishes to the rest of the company, maybe that person will find
this post down the road and hopefully take it to heart...

Oh well, one can hope, right? Cause, quite frankly, that's about all
some of us have left...
--
Goober King
Concerned Citizen #103935
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

P.S. I apologize for the length of this post, (sorry Eep ;P) but I felt
it needed to be said...

Jun 8, 2000, 10:04pm

rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Goober King) wrote in
<393ed04a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

[snip]
>Let's face facts, ever since COF introduced the registration
>fee for citizens, it's customer base dropped about 85% and they *still*
>haven't recovered from it.

I am curious as to how you've arrived at 85% as even an approximate?
Before the fees were introduced, we were only users (customers pay for
goods, services and so forth whereas users do not). World owners were the
only customers in existence at that point, so the true customer base
actually increased after the fees. Shortly before the fees were initiated
AW seemed to average around 400 users online almost 24 hrs a day -- note
this is simply the impression I received from the amount of time I spent
online and the number of users online at that same time; IOW, it's a guess.
Checking right now there are 274 users and customers online and that number
seems to varily widely by the hour. Even if we assume 274 as an average,
the drop is only 31.5%, nowhere near an 85% drop (that would be only 60
users and customers online as an average.)

Regardless of the drop in users (tourists) and customers (citizens/world
owners) who are simultaneously online, to really understand why CoF
responds to this line of criticism as they do, one must recognize the
reality that their customer base has increased dramatically since the fees
were put in place. It has in fact increased to the point of actually
returning a profit, a small one true but a profit nonetheless.

Having said all that, I agree with your points made later in your post and
in fact communicated those very ideas directly to Rick in spring 1997. I
am afraid, as you are, that due to the above reason your missive will be
received about as well as mine was. . . .

--

The Wanderer
Travel Well and may your Journeys be safe!

Jun 8, 2000, 10:05pm

ok. *BANG*

Sorry, couldn't resist,
--Wing
Citizen 305004
Wing 'n Jess 4eva
(I love this sig!)

[View Quote] > Once again, I've been inspired to rant. But for once, it's actually *in
> defense* of COF. You can shoot me later, but hear me out first. :)

<snip>

Jun 8, 2000, 11:52pm

http://www.activeworlds.com/company/statistics.html

-Builderz

[View Quote] > Once again, I've been inspired to rant. But for once, it's actually *in
> defense* of COF. You can shoot me later, but hear me out first. :)

<snip>

Jun 8, 2000, 11:54pm

Perhaps Goober means an 85% drop in citizenships. There are around 28,000 citizens now (although I debate that number) compared to the around 250,000 before 10/97 (when citizenship fees were introduced). Granted, most of those citizens probably weren't repeats, but I'm sure the number of repeat citizens to AW were far more than AW's current 28,000. But it's hard to get an accurate UNIQUE citizen count considering all the free citizenships that come with worlds and galaxy/universe servers, given away as prizes, multiple citizenships per person, AWCI's various citizenships (based on themes like Star Wars, X-Files, Snowcrash, etc), etc. My AW history page (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html) goes into a bit more detail on this issue.

Also note that AW's "profit" (although mgib's done a good job of ripping that claim to shreds--and which can also be read on my AW history page) is not entirely based on citizenships but world/galaxy/universe servers, world/object contracts, etc. It seems some universe server buyers also want content (objects, textures, etc) which AWCI also receives compensation for (and is one reason why AWCI is hiring 3D modellers). But, supposedly, MOST of their revenue/profit/whatever comes from citizenships...but not ALL.

[View Quote] > rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu (Goober King) wrote in
> <393ed04a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:
>
>
> I am curious as to how you've arrived at 85% as even an approximate?
> Before the fees were introduced, we were only users (customers pay for
> goods, services and so forth whereas users do not). World owners were the
> only customers in existence at that point, so the true customer base
> actually increased after the fees. Shortly before the fees were initiated
> AW seemed to average around 400 users online almost 24 hrs a day -- note
> this is simply the impression I received from the amount of time I spent
> online and the number of users online at that same time; IOW, it's a guess.
> Checking right now there are 274 users and customers online and that number
> seems to varily widely by the hour. Even if we assume 274 as an average,
> the drop is only 31.5%, nowhere near an 85% drop (that would be only 60
> users and customers online as an average.)
>
> Regardless of the drop in users (tourists) and customers (citizens/world
> owners) who are simultaneously online, to really understand why CoF
> responds to this line of criticism as they do, one must recognize the
> reality that their customer base has increased dramatically since the fees
> were put in place. It has in fact increased to the point of actually
> returning a profit, a small one true but a profit nonetheless.
>
> Having said all that, I agree with your points made later in your post and
> in fact communicated those very ideas directly to Rick in spring 1997. I
> am afraid, as you are, that due to the above reason your missive will be
> received about as well as mine was. . . .

--
http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Jun 9, 2000, 2:44am

There is a broken link which needs fixing, Eep. The link about Russell Freeland (Dataman) points to http://www.synergycorp.com/dataman.htm/, but should point to http://www.synergycorp.com/dataman.htm (no slash at the end). Just wanted to point that out. ;-)

-Builderz

[View Quote] > My AW history page (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html) goes into a bit more detail on this issue.

Jun 9, 2000, 11:45am

My .02 ... I think we're forgetting how many of the 'regular' # of
citizens, ( the 400 vs 200 # of users) are now out in other various
uniservers that didn't even exist before. So, there could be even more
people on-line using the technology, just not in the main AW uniserver.
Casay
[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2000, 6:45pm

eep at tnlc.com (Eep²) wrote in <39404e66$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

>Perhaps Goober means an 85% drop in citizenships. There are around
>28,000 citizens now (although I debate that number) compared to the
>around 250,000 before 10/97 (when citizenship fees were introduced).
[snip]

How many of that "250,000" were actually active when the fees went into
effect? No one knows and no one can prove it either way. When I started
using AW in Nov 96 (that's pre-CoF still) there were already large
numbers of "vanished" users. Could they simply have been hiding? Sure,
AW is a huge place and there were no telegrams or green checkmarks in
those days (sounds so old to put it that way, LOL). They could also just
as easily been "NAC" for all intents and purposes.

>Also note that AW's "profit" (although mgib's done a good job of ripping
>that claim to shreds--and which can also be read on my AW history page)
>is not entirely based on citizenships but world/galaxy/universe servers,
>world/object contracts, etc. It seems some universe server buyers also
>want content (objects, textures, etc) which AWCI also receives
>compensation for (and is one reason why AWCI is hiring 3D modellers).
>But, supposedly, MOST of their revenue/profit/whatever comes from
>citizenships...but not ALL.
>

Which I noted when I said "Before the fees were introduced, we were only
users (customers pay for goods, services and so forth whereas users do
not). World owners were the only customers in existence at that point, so
the true customer base actually increased after the fees." and "users
(tourists) and customers (citizens/world owners)".

BTW, put a line feed between the -- and the first line of your signature.
Decent newsreaders automatically snip signatures but require a line feed
between the demarkation and the actual signature, it's annoying to have to
run to the bottom just to snip your sig when it would be done automatically
were the sig formed properly.

[View Quote] --

The Wanderer
Travel Well and may your Journeys be safe!

Jun 10, 2000, 8:05pm

[View Quote] > eep at tnlc.com (Eep²) wrote in <39404e66$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:
>
>
> How many of that "250,000" were actually active when the fees went into
> effect? No one knows and no one can prove it either way. When I started
> using AW in Nov 96 (that's pre-CoF still) there were already large
> numbers of "vanished" users. Could they simply have been hiding? Sure,
> AW is a huge place and there were no telegrams or green checkmarks in
> those days (sounds so old to put it that way, LOL). They could also just
> as easily been "NAC" for all intents and purposes.

Which is what I meant by the part you left out: "Granted, most of those citizens probably weren't repeats, but I'm sure the number of repeat citizens to AW were far
more than AW's current 28,000."

> BTW, put a line feed between the -- and the first line of your signature.
> Decent newsreaders automatically snip signatures but require a line feed
> between the demarkation and the actual signature, it's annoying to have to
> run to the bottom just to snip your sig when it would be done automatically
> were the sig formed properly.

OK, hopefully a blank line (who uses the term "line feed" anymore?) will work. Thanks.


--

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Jun 12, 2000, 6:39pm

eep at tnlc.com (Eep²) wrote in <3942bb93 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

[View Quote] LOL...I do (obviously :o-). However, your sig just has the persnickety
habit of passing itself as message text even with the line feed. Have to
send it in as a bug report I guess.....

--

The Wanderer
Travel Well and may your Journeys be safe!

Jun 29, 2000, 10:49am

I just read this and laughed...

Ok.. so the "customer" base *has* risen since they started charging. Well
DUH... when everyone goes from not having to pay to being told "to keep all
this great stuff you need to start paying us for it", it's obvious.

Secondly... 400 users? That is a far cry from citizens in there, as we all
know that number you gave us was simply a number comprised of both citizens
AND tourists.

Both sides of the story here are a bit jaded...

AW just doesn't have much of a clue anymore. They said themselves that
e-commerce wasn't pofitable (this is referring to a part of their customer
base), because they didn't have enough interest (in the form of regular
users) to show statistics that would interest companies.

So, what does AW do? They charge money for the service of AW, which lowers
the potential people in AW. Active Worlds neither promotes their service or
has made a valid attempt to put ecommerce in their environment.

Throwing up a mall and saying "tada!... now leave one world to go to another
world just to shop :)"

That is the most idiotic idea I have heard lately... you couldn't get the
people who hang out in the AW world to leave there even with a stick of
dynamite.rwx!

well... maybe a powderkeg.cob.... :)

In any event, I totally agree that AW has managed to kick themselves in the
nuts (there is a first time for everything...) when they started charging
for AW citizenships. By starting this practice, they pretty much ensured
that they would NEVER be able to get enough people into AW to show companies
that AW can be used for ecommerce.

Personally, I think AW should just make it free for everyone (stop charging
for cits), thus converting the ENTIRE user base into cits as well as opening
the flood gates for new people to just walk into the place and stay for
free, THEN go to the companies and say "See, we have huge horde of people
using the service on a regular basis..." thus allowing AW to make alot more
money from the business aspect.

It's called advertising supported business model. Companies can afford to
pay AW alot more than the entire citizen base can together.

This is just an idea... but I tend to agree that AW has made a big mistake
by charging for cits. Although there is alot more wrong with the way they
have modeled their business model, I won't go into here... it would just
take too much space.

TTFN :)

MPL Knight

[View Quote]

Jun 29, 2000, 8:27pm

The phrase "The idea looked better on paper" was never more apt...

The whole citizenship fee has become its own catch 22. As far as I can
tell, the reason they started charging for citships in the first place
was because they weren't making a profit from selling worlds and
advertising space. (their main forms of income at the time) Now it's
gotten to the point where citizenship fees are the *main* source of
income for COF, and they *still* aren't making that much of a profit. So
even if they wanted to, they couldn't get rid of the citship fee or
they'd then have to file for Chapter 11! :P

So, they need to find some other way to make money other than citship
fees, while at the same time attracting a nice, big, fat user base. Then
once they're pulling in decent profit and users, they can afford to
ditch the citship fee.

Of course, finding such a thing to pull in both users and money is not
an easy task. Here's hoping their new batch of employees will do the
trick.

Altho, you gotta wonder... the job postings have been up for almost a
month now... Has anyone even been hired yet?


[View Quote] --
Goober King
Always glad to dig up an old thread if it lets him rant...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jun 29, 2000, 8:27pm

I agree with what you say about how AW will never be able to profit from
E-commerce if they chrage for citizenships. I know that if I am visiting a
website and to view their inventory and buy stuff I have to download a file
that takes a while to download JUST to view their stuff, I will most likely
go else where. There would be consequences of not charging for memberships;
worlds would have to cost much more for example.

Oh well.

--
-Mike Nelson-
AW Cit BirdMike (292200)
Owner of AW Worlds A-Build & A-Centre


[View Quote]
and
I
>
>
>

Jun 30, 2000, 12:20am

DarianKnight at hotmail.com (MPL Knight) wrote in
<395b45c8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

>I just read this and laughed...
>
>Ok.. so the "customer" base *has* risen since they started charging.
>Well DUH... when everyone goes from not having to pay to being told "to
>keep all this great stuff you need to start paying us for it", it's
>obvious.
>
>Secondly... 400 users? That is a far cry from citizens in there, as we
>all know that number you gave us was simply a number comprised of both
>citizens AND tourists.
>
>Both sides of the story here are a bit jaded...
>

If you're going to play the critic be accurate. I state quite clearly that
users represent citizens, world owners and tourists. Of course the number
I gave was a compilation of citizens and tourists, whatelse could it have
been? As far as having a jaded view, until you are also willing to
understand the situation from CoF's point of view, not agreed with it just
understand it, then you are unfit to determine whether any view is jaded or
not.

>AW just doesn't have much of a clue anymore. They said themselves that
>e-commerce wasn't pofitable (this is referring to a part of their
>customer base), because they didn't have enough interest (in the form of
>regular users) to show statistics that would interest companies.
>
>So, what does AW do? They charge money for the service of AW, which
>lowers the potential people in AW. Active Worlds neither promotes their
>service or has made a valid attempt to put ecommerce in their
>environment.
>
>Throwing up a mall and saying "tada!... now leave one world to go to
>another world just to shop :)"
>
>That is the most idiotic idea I have heard lately... you couldn't get
>the people who hang out in the AW world to leave there even with a stick
>of dynamite.rwx!
>
>well... maybe a powderkeg.cob.... :)
>
>In any event, I totally agree that AW has managed to kick themselves in
>the nuts (there is a first time for everything...) when they started
>charging for AW citizenships. By starting this practice, they pretty
>much ensured that they would NEVER be able to get enough people into AW
>to show companies that AW can be used for ecommerce.
>
>Personally, I think AW should just make it free for everyone (stop
>charging for cits), thus converting the ENTIRE user base into cits as
>well as opening the flood gates for new people to just walk into the
>place and stay for free, THEN go to the companies and say "See, we have
>huge horde of people using the service on a regular basis..." thus
>allowing AW to make alot more money from the business aspect.
>
>It's called advertising supported business model. Companies can afford
>to pay AW alot more than the entire citizen base can together.
>
>This is just an idea... but I tend to agree that AW has made a big
>mistake by charging for cits. Although there is alot more wrong with
>the way they have modeled their business model, I won't go into here...
>it would just take too much space.
>
>TTFN :)
>
>MPL Knight
>
[View Quote] --

The Wanderer
Travel Well and may your Journeys be safe!

Jul 1, 2000, 11:22am

I see everyone writing about this is missing the big picture as much as AW has
when it comes to producing a profitable e-commerce company. Broadcast.com sold
for billions $$$, Geocities, Xoom, Yahoo, and many, many others all has
successful stock because they have USERS!!!! They DON'T rip the USERS off by
charging them. They do what the television networks have done for ages. Allow
free use of the content in exchange for advertising dollars. It is not rocket
science at all to look at the example of years of industry standards and
successes.

'They would have to charge more for worlds'... That's a laugh! Does Geocities or
Xoom charge for their FREE web spaces? They have spent way more money that AW
will ever dream of seeing on the equipment to host the FREE sites. But then
again, they are professionally managed and profit from advertising sales in
exchange for the exposures they generate from a FREE user base.

If you don't believe this, just simply compare the stock prices of these
companies, their board of directors and then go look ad the steep and steady
decline of AWLD on NASDAQ.

AWLD reported on 3-16-2000 to the SEC that some Australian company would pay
them $15 million for AW malls... give me a break... dream on... if there is a
fool out there that will pay $15 million for air please let me know... I sell
him mine for a he[[ of a lot less *S*

The renderware engine is worth less than $50k, the browser, even netscape
offers out for free, geez... look what it cost to develop AW in the first place.
Are you going to get me to believe some fool would pay $15 million for what they
could create on their own for less that $100,000? After all concept is not
copyright able and renderware is available to anyone who buys its license so
creating 3D malls could be done profitably with PROPER management, a skilled
and educated board of directors and a company that lives off good will and not
greed.

Karma has a way of making things balanced.. is it any wonder AW has problems
when they have a history of not paying bills or abiding by contracts? There is a
long list of sites out on the net of many AW users who have quit, been upset,
been harassed, had their world names stolen etc. . This all adds up in the
end... bad faith, bad business.

Just one point of view. I am an American, my first amendment right to free
speech is important to me. In AW however, that constitutional right is
obstructed and could have you ejected from their public worlds, go figure!

If you read all the various newsgroups pertaining to AW you will find a whole
lot of complaints. Add all those up and compare it to the ones who praise the
development, services, product or management and I believe you may see the
reason it's a dog business wise. My guess is that less than 1% would be praise,
even if you could ever find a post like that. But you sure as he[[ can find a
bunch of serious complaints dating from day one. That should easily tell anyone
to place their money into companies with a future, good honest management and a
successful PLAN! In other words run as far away from AWLD stock as possible.

[View Quote] > I agree with what you say about how AW will never be able to profit from
> E-commerce if they chrage for citizenships. I know that if I am visiting a
> website and to view their inventory and buy stuff I have to download a file
> that takes a while to download JUST to view their stuff, I will most likely
> go else where. There would be consequences of not charging for memberships;
> worlds would have to cost much more for example.
>
> Oh well.
>
> --
> -Mike Nelson-
> AW Cit BirdMike (292200)
> Owner of AW Worlds A-Build & A-Centre
>
[View Quote]

Jul 1, 2000, 9:56pm

[View Quote] Umm... hello, but that's what I said in my original post! Yeesh, read
the whole thread please.

> 'They would have to charge more for worlds'... That's a laugh! Does Geocities or
> Xoom charge for their FREE web spaces? They have spent way more money that AW
> will ever dream of seeing on the equipment to host the FREE sites. But then
> again, they are professionally managed and profit from advertising sales in
> exchange for the exposures they generate from a FREE user base.

Geocities, FortuneCity, Xoom and the other free web space providers *DO*
charge for the majority of their services. They offer free web space
because they can afford to, but not *all* of it is free. While they do
make money from advertising, they also make money from selling server
space, and other web-based utilities to businesses and such.

> If you don't believe this, just simply compare the stock prices of these
> companies, their board of directors and then go look ad the steep and steady
> decline of AWLD on NASDAQ.
>
> AWLD reported on 3-16-2000 to the SEC that some Australian company would pay
> them $15 million for AW malls... give me a break... dream on... if there is a
> fool out there that will pay $15 million for air please let me know... I sell
> him mine for a he[[ of a lot less *S*
>
> The renderware engine is worth less than $50k, the browser, even netscape
> offers out for free, geez... look what it cost to develop AW in the first place.
> Are you going to get me to believe some fool would pay $15 million for what they
> could create on their own for less that $100,000? After all concept is not
> copyright able and renderware is available to anyone who buys its license so
> creating 3D malls could be done profitably with PROPER management, a skilled
> and educated board of directors and a company that lives off good will and not
> greed.

Hate to break it to you, but SEC report is the one place where COF *has*
to tell the truth. You don't lie to the SEC, or your company gets the
ax. And just cause the Aussies are willing to pay for the AW malls
doesn't mean they will.

> Karma has a way of making things balanced.. is it any wonder AW has problems
> when they have a history of not paying bills or abiding by contracts? There is a
> long list of sites out on the net of many AW users who have quit, been upset,
> been harassed, had their world names stolen etc. . This all adds up in the
> end... bad faith, bad business.
>
> Just one point of view. I am an American, my first amendment right to free
> speech is important to me. In AW however, that constitutional right is
> obstructed and could have you ejected from their public worlds, go figure!
>
> If you read all the various newsgroups pertaining to AW you will find a whole
> lot of complaints. Add all those up and compare it to the ones who praise the
> development, services, product or management and I believe you may see the
> reason it's a dog business wise. My guess is that less than 1% would be praise,
> even if you could ever find a post like that. But you sure as he[[ can find a
> bunch of serious complaints dating from day one. That should easily tell anyone
> to place their money into companies with a future, good honest management and a
> successful PLAN! In other words run as far away from AWLD stock as possible.
>

Telling people to avoid COF stock like the plague certainly won't help
the situation. If people leave AW in droves, then COF goes down the
tubes and we would be left with nothing. And if COF dies, you can say
good-bye to places like OuterWorlds, City4All, and the other Uniservers
out there, cause they depend on COF technology.

This is going to sound corny, but I think we as a community should be
doing all we can to help COF get back on their feet. Since it's obvious
they can't do it themselves, we need to help them out and get them as
much business as possible. Otherwise, AW will dry up and then we'll have
*nothing* to argue over.

--
Goober King
Now he's coming to COF's defense! Shoot him now!
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jul 1, 2000, 11:35pm

[View Quote] Umm... hello, but that's what I said in my original post! Yeesh, read
the whole thread please.

> 'They would have to charge more for worlds'... That's a laugh! Does Geocities or
> Xoom charge for their FREE web spaces? They have spent way more money that AW
> will ever dream of seeing on the equipment to host the FREE sites. But then
> again, they are professionally managed and profit from advertising sales in
> exchange for the exposures they generate from a FREE user base.

Geocities, FortuneCity, Xoom and the other free web space providers *DO*
charge for the majority of their services. They offer free web space
because they can afford to, but not *all* of it is free. While they do
make money from advertising, they also make money from selling server
space, and other web-based utilities to businesses and such.

> If you don't believe this, just simply compare the stock prices of these
> companies, their board of directors and then go look ad the steep and steady
> decline of AWLD on NASDAQ.
>
> AWLD reported on 3-16-2000 to the SEC that some Australian company would pay
> them $15 million for AW malls... give me a break... dream on... if there is a
> fool out there that will pay $15 million for air please let me know... I sell
> him mine for a he[[ of a lot less *S*
>
> The renderware engine is worth less than $50k, the browser, even netscape
> offers out for free, geez... look what it cost to develop AW in the first place.
> Are you going to get me to believe some fool would pay $15 million for what they
> could create on their own for less that $100,000? After all concept is not
> copyright able and renderware is available to anyone who buys its license so
> creating 3D malls could be done profitably with PROPER management, a skilled
> and educated board of directors and a company that lives off good will and not
> greed.

Hate to break it to you, but SEC report is the one place where COF *has*
to tell the truth. You don't lie to the SEC, or your company gets the
ax. And just cause the Aussies are willing to pay for the AW malls
doesn't mean they will.

> Karma has a way of making things balanced.. is it any wonder AW has problems
> when they have a history of not paying bills or abiding by contracts? There is a
> long list of sites out on the net of many AW users who have quit, been upset,
> been harassed, had their world names stolen etc. . This all adds up in the
> end... bad faith, bad business.
>
> Just one point of view. I am an American, my first amendment right to free
> speech is important to me. In AW however, that constitutional right is
> obstructed and could have you ejected from their public worlds, go figure!
>
> If you read all the various newsgroups pertaining to AW you will find a whole
> lot of complaints. Add all those up and compare it to the ones who praise the
> development, services, product or management and I believe you may see the
> reason it's a dog business wise. My guess is that less than 1% would be praise,
> even if you could ever find a post like that. But you sure as he[[ can find a
> bunch of serious complaints dating from day one. That should easily tell anyone
> to place their money into companies with a future, good honest management and a
> successful PLAN! In other words run as far away from AWLD stock as possible.
>

Telling people to avoid COF stock like the plague certainly won't help
the situation. If people leave AW in droves, then COF goes down the
tubes and we would be left with nothing. And if COF dies, you can say
good-bye to places like OuterWorlds, City4All, and the other Uniservers
out there, cause they depend on COF technology.

This is going to sound corny, but I think we as a community should be
doing all we can to help COF get back on their feet. Since it's obvious
they can't do it themselves, we need to help them out and get them as
much business as possible. Otherwise, AW will dry up and then we'll have
*nothing* to argue over.

--
Goober King
Now he's coming to COF's defense! Shoot him now!
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

1  |   Order by index