AOL Tries to Challenge Gmail

06.14.2006

AOL has always been an easy target for ridicule. So, when I found out today that AOL was trying to take on gmail with a new public beta mail service, I jumped at the opprotunity to test it out.

I was disappointed to find out that AOL did a number of things right with their new service; in many ways, I'd say its superior to gmail. Namely, AOL's webmail wins hands down in terms of:

  • Overall user experience
  • Overall design

However, even by the most charitable measures, AOL's webmail still loses to google. The first reason being:

  • It took a full 35 seconds to load their mail application with a broadband connection. This is in comparison gmail's dandy 2 second loading time.

The second reason AOL mail loses can be seen in these two screenshots. Both of which are of the first thing a user sees when they sign onto the respective services:

AOLMAIL

GMAIL

These screenshots speak 1000's of words. The main focus is the primary differentiator between screenshots. Gmail's focus is -- well -- your email box. AOL's is their own commercial content, and their ads. Indeed the slow load times for AOL's mail service are -- in likelyhood -- entirely due to their promiscious sprinklings of shockwave, and flash ADs. And bear in mind the service is SLOW even with broadband.

Its clear to me that there are some progressive voices trying to make a difference at AOL. Their work is evident in the service's superior interface, and design. Sadly, however, their work is more than cancelled out by the old voices of AOL: the voices who think that users will put up with giant intrusive ads, slow load times, and being bombarded with content which has neither relevence to their goals, nor interests.

Everyone deserves a second chance -- even AOL (that was painful for me to write). But in technology, as well as in life, second chances are usually wasted. Often, these chances are wasted for no better reason than someone felt the path to failure needed to be tried again -- for the 4th time. I suspect AOL's web service serves as  yet another tragic example of the definition of insanity.

Comments

buy wow gold cheap wow power

AOL webmail is good

I like AOL webmail because:- #Its fast. #It has better features like blogging from e-mails and I can register for my own domain. #IMAP support. #Robust SPAM protection.

Subsequent use seems much faster

I too experienced a LONG time to log into AOL's webmail, but that was my FIRST time. On my second and subsequent logins, AOL's new webmail is much much faster. Like in the realm of a few seconds. Did the author try logging in more than once? Tom

Clarify please

So what is it about their 'Overall user experience' that you like about aol? The use of popup windows for everything is super annoying. I'm curious what you liked about it.

The means do not justify the end...

And if the end is a page full of colorful flash ads, then it matters not one bit if the site used the finest AJAX ever, and the backend was jointly coded by Torvalds and Berners-Lee. That said, I like websites that use AJAX within reason (like Gmail) - my notebook's performance isn't that stunning, and if other programs are running in the background the Javascript engine can get a bit slow. If on top of a script-heavy page the browser then has to load the Flash player and (heavens forbid) plays music at me, I can go take a nap while the page is building. Makes me feel just like the good old dial-up days (and I'm on a T1). Since one of the purposes of AJAX is to improve performance by loading less data, this is faintly ironic.

Favorite line

My favorite line from the article you linked to:
For Apple Computer Inc. users, AOL recommends Mac OS X with Firefox 1.0.4 or above.
Hmmm. I use an Apple Computer Inc. monitor with a Dell computers. What do I do?

It’s quite disappointing

It's quite disappointing to see that they still haven't learnt from gmail's success. Even the new ajaxified yahoo mail beta fail's miserably when compared to gmail's ajax.

I'd argue that AOL's use of

I'd argue that AOL's use of AJAX was more impressive, from the technical standpoint. Now people like to say "technical standpoint" in order to sound smart. While I like to sound smart, this isn't one of those occurances.

Usability wise, their app requires less pageviews, and is more intuitive than gmail. Gmail's ajax is pretty light so far as ajax is concerned. The real problem is that that AOL's Ajax in combination (or maybe it is the ajax, I don't know..) results in CRAZY LONG load times. So the ajax is useless, because the user's experience is still damaged by waiting... and waiting... after they've been waiting.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • You may post code using <code>...</code> (generic) or <?php ... ?> (highlighted PHP) tags.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.