PDA

View Full Version : Paid Version of AIM for iPhone Now Available for $2.99




MacRumors
Mar 4, 2009, 04:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/03/04/paid-version-of-aim-for-iphone-now-available-for-2-99/)

Last week, we reported (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/02/27/aim-for-iphone-updated-moves-to-ad-supported-and-paid-versions/) on an update to AOL's AIM for iPhone, which brings several new features to the instant messaging application. At press time, only an ad-supported, free version [App Store (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=281704574&mt=8)] was available, although an ad-free, paid version was promised to be working its way through Apple's App Store approval process.

AOL has informed us that the paid version [App Store (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=306610781&mt=8)] is now available with a price tag of $2.99. Other than the removal of ads and a purple icon (versus a red icon for the free version), the paid version offers the same features present in the free version.

Article Link: Paid Version of AIM for iPhone Now Available for $2.99 (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/03/04/paid-version-of-aim-for-iphone-now-available-for-2-99/)



mj1903
Mar 4, 2009, 04:27 PM
AOL, you confuse me.

macduke
Mar 4, 2009, 04:30 PM
This is all pretty lame. I think Apple should implement a system where you can choose "Skip" instead of install so the app update will go away. Instead we are forced into something new, like ads. A prime example of people not wanting to update is Ambiance, which just released a free legacy version to pacify customers who hated 2.0. Sure, you could just not update, but then it's always there, with the badge icon, and you can't use the update all button.

As a side note, what's up with the fake app updates? My badge icon fluctuates between 4-15 apps throughout the day, and when I go to see what they are, there is a list of apps that I've already installed. It's only done this for the past few days, but it won't stop!!

Buschmaster
Mar 4, 2009, 04:31 PM
This is all pretty lame. I think Apple should implement a system where you can choose "Skip" instead of install so the app update will go away. Instead we are forced into something new, like ads. A prime example of people not wanting to update is Ambiance, which just released a free legacy version to pacify customers who hated 2.0. Sure, you could just not update, but then it's always there, with the badge icon, and you can't use the update all button.

As a side note, what's up with the fake app updates? My badge icon fluctuates between 4-15 apps throughout the day, and when I go to see what they are, there is a list of apps that I've already installed. It's only done this for the past few days, but it won't stop!!

The ads aren't bad at all, I really don't mind them. They go away pretty fast and the new features are worth the ads.

alchemistmuffin
Mar 4, 2009, 04:35 PM
Apple needs to implement new policy in the app store, where if there are ads in the app, it is automatically rejected.

There should be no ads in the apps, only on web site.

happydude
Mar 4, 2009, 04:44 PM
Apple needs to implement new policy in the app store, where if there are ads in the app, it is automatically rejected.

There should be no ads in the apps, only on web site.

mmmmm, i tend to disagree. while the ads are annoying, they do allow apps to be available for free or subsidized cost. if the app is worth it, people will still use it regardless of ads. just an example of what little free market apple does allow within the app store that works.

Jeremy1026
Mar 4, 2009, 04:47 PM
Apple needs to implement new policy in the app store, where if there are ads in the app, it is automatically rejected.

There should be no ads in the apps, only on web site.

So, should every developer in the App Store distribute their hard work for free (with no ads) out of the goodness of their hearts, and forego the whole eating and shelter thing?

Dokter_Mac
Mar 4, 2009, 04:54 PM
This is all pretty lame. I think Apple should implement a system where you can choose "Skip" instead of install so the app update will go away. Instead we are forced into something new, like ads. A prime example of people not wanting to update is Ambiance, which just released a free legacy version to pacify customers who hated 2.0. Sure, you could just not update, but then it's always there, with the badge icon, and you can't use the update all button.

As a side note, what's up with the fake app updates? My badge icon fluctuates between 4-15 apps throughout the day, and when I go to see what they are, there is a list of apps that I've already installed. It's only done this for the past few days, but it won't stop!!

I have the same problem with the fake updates. When I search again I'm getting even more fake updates! And sometimes, after three or four times, I'm getting the message that everything is "up to date"? Weird :confused:

The "Skip" option would be great. Just like in OS X for desktops. Meanwhile I backup every major iPhone app update (by dragging them out of the trash or with time machine). This way I can reïnstall the app when they suddenly adding stupid "ads" :mad:...

Greetz

Tanj
Mar 4, 2009, 05:08 PM
What a waste. Everyone go buy beejive. It has a better GUI and more fuctionality. Sure it's pricey, but it's on sale this week for 9.99 (vs the 15.99 original). It's worth the money.

Screw the capitalist pigs at AOL.

Sirobin
Mar 4, 2009, 05:09 PM
I have the same problem with the fake updates. When I search again I'm getting even more fake updates! And sometimes, after three or four times, I'm getting the message that everything is "up to date"? Weird :confused:

The "Skip" option would be great. Just like in OS X for desktops. Meanwhile I backup every major iPhone app update (by dragging them out of the trash or with time machine). This way I can reïnstall the app when they suddenly adding stupid "ads" :mad:...

Greetz

I'm having the same problem, I figured it was just my phone though. Earlier today, I closed and re-opened the App Store like 5 times in a row, and the updates listed were different everytime, and the "updates" were mostly older versions that what I had installed! WTF!:confused:

MattG
Mar 4, 2009, 05:11 PM
Jeez, it's $2.99...suck it up.

plumbingandtech
Mar 4, 2009, 05:25 PM
Apple needs to implement new policy in the app store, where if there are ads in the app, it is automatically rejected.

There should be no ads in the apps, only on web site.

Good grief.
:rolleyes:


I think apple should implement a pony pixie giving policy instead so the devs can pay for their bills with pony pixie dust....

SkippyThorson
Mar 4, 2009, 05:28 PM
$2.99 to remove an ad that goes away in 10 seconds and the color purple? AOL, I offer you the 1 finger salute, and not my thumb. :)

Tofaha
Mar 4, 2009, 08:27 PM
What a waste. Everyone go buy beejive. It has a better GUI and more fuctionality. Sure it's pricey, but it's on sale this week for 9.99 (vs the 15.99 original). It's worth the money.

Screw the capitalist pigs at AOL.

what makes beejive better? (just curious)

MacJoe
Mar 4, 2009, 08:30 PM
So, should every developer in the App Store distribute their hard work for free (with no ads) out of the goodness of their hearts, and forego the whole eating and shelter thing?


Appeal to emotion and thus an invalid argument. Give me a valuable app and I'll throw the dev $$$ by the fistfull. I fail to see how ads generate that much revenue. If an app has ads...ANY ads...neither the dev nor the ad companies will get a penny from me and, more importantly, I'll never recommend the app to anyone. It's bad enough that the Web has become polluted with obnoxious ads (there's no other kind) but I refuse to tolerate it on my personal iPhone.

Tanj
Mar 4, 2009, 11:24 PM
what makes beejive better? (just curious)

Toggle auto correct/auto capitalization off.
Landscape mode
Gchat, Yahoo chat, myspace, AIM, and ICQ support
Customizable IM sounds
Two different buddy list orientation option.
Linking Message accounts to Contacts in your phone book
Changing Chat background.
Changing incoming/outgoing chat bubble color.
FILE TRANSFERS

Why don't you just look it up in the app store?

macfan881
Mar 4, 2009, 11:41 PM
got bejiveIM wont go to aim agiain till they suport Landscape mode

rockosmodurnlif
Mar 5, 2009, 12:07 AM
What a waste. Everyone go buy beejive. It has a better GUI and more fuctionality. Sure it's pricey, but it's on sale this week for 9.99 (vs the 15.99 original). It's worth the money.

Screw the capitalist pigs at AOL.
Screw the capitalist pigs .. but go buy BeeJive instead of use the free AIM?

Y'know what, BeeJive should be free. Aren't they just piggybacking on networks built by AOL, Yahoo!, etc.? Why do they get to profit?

macbookhamburg
Mar 5, 2009, 01:03 AM
Why isnīt anybody talking about nimbuzz ? Everything from Aim,skype to facebook is integrated and itīs for free ???

http://www.nimbuzz.com/de/iphone/download

hexonxonx
Mar 5, 2009, 01:20 AM
What a waste. Everyone go buy beejive. It has a better GUI and more fuctionality. Sure it's pricey, but it's on sale this week for 9.99 (vs the 15.99 original). It's worth the money.

Screw the capitalist pigs at AOL.

What is capitalistic about AOL ONLY charging $2.99 for the ad free version?
Since Beejive costs $9.99, wouldn't that make them capitalistic pigs as well?

hexonxonx
Mar 5, 2009, 01:21 AM
Why isnīt anybody talking about nimbuzz ? Everything from Aim,skype to facebook is integrated and itīs for free ???

http://www.nimbuzz.com/de/iphone/download

Probably because there was no BUZZ about nimbuzz like there was about AIM and Beejive. I already have AIM and Beejive, don't need anything else.

macbookhamburg
Mar 5, 2009, 01:26 AM
Probably because there was no BUZZ about nimbuzz like there was about AIM and Beejive. I already have AIM and Beejive, don't need anything else.

true .. I replaced Aim with it to integrate my other chats and itīs for free ... so before spending 10 Dollar on an app i would recommend trying the free alternative... beejive is probably better but i donīt chat a lot on my phone so Iīd never spend that much money

Tanj
Mar 5, 2009, 03:14 AM
Beejive didn't introduce a standard application for months before adding ads to the standard version, calling it free, and making you pay to get them removed.

Beyond that, the placement of the ads diminish the functionality of the application. Worst of all the uninformed public will fund AOLs endeavors because "it's only 2.99$" But when everyone does it they make big bucks. It's a collective action problem.

At least support a software company that gives you substantially more functionality than the others AND one that has integrity.

kenzbud
Mar 5, 2009, 04:47 AM
Palringo FTW!

Palringo is a free IM client I use for my AIM, MSN, Yahoo & Facebook chatting. They have both a desktop and a iPhone app. Although at home on my Mac I use Adium. Is BeejiveIM that much of a better app than Palringo?

rednano74
Mar 5, 2009, 05:22 AM
Screw the capitalist pigs .. but go buy BeeJive instead of use the free AIM?

Y'know what, BeeJive should be free. Aren't they just piggybacking on networks built by AOL, Yahoo!, etc.? Why do they get to profit?

As opposed to saying screw the liberal fascist pigs who want to steal other people's money and give it to another group. Typical liberal pig, always having their hand out. :p

I'm sorry but you don't have a right to having an IM app. Get over it!!!

macbookhamburg
Mar 5, 2009, 06:35 AM
Palringo FTW!

Palringo is a free IM client I use for my AIM, MSN, Yahoo & Facebook chatting. They have both a desktop and a iPhone app. Although at home on my Mac I use Adium. Is BeejiveIM that much of a better app than Palringo?

I guess it depends if you use skype too because as far as my knowledge goes palringo does not support skype

killmoms
Mar 5, 2009, 08:20 AM
...it's on sale this week for 9.99 (vs the 15.99 original). It's worth the money.

Screw the capitalist pigs at AOL.

Yes! Stick it to the man! Instead, give your money to the capitalist pigs at Beejive! :rolleyes:

The irony in this post is thick enough to cut with a knife.

JtheLemur
Mar 5, 2009, 08:23 AM
Feh. Call me when this s✗✗t can run in the background.

southernpaws
Mar 5, 2009, 08:29 AM
Appeal to emotion and thus an invalid argument. Give me a valuable app and I'll throw the dev $$$ by the fistfull. I fail to see how ads generate that much revenue. If an app has ads...ANY ads...neither the dev nor the ad companies will get a penny from me and, more importantly, I'll never recommend the app to anyone. It's bad enough that the Web has become polluted with obnoxious ads (there's no other kind) but I refuse to tolerate it on my personal iPhone.

Appeal to emotion doesn't invalidate his argument, just turns you off to it. but the core of the argument is that a developer should be compensated for his work, whether directly by the consumer or indirectly by ad companies.

While everyone hates ads, it's easier for some people to ignore. So you're kind of in a minority that makes ads a complete hangup. Also, if you indeed throw fistfuls of dollars at valuable apps, you are again a minority. Plenty of people say they will pay good money for a good app, but the fact is they don't.

At the end of the day, more people will download the free AIM rather than the paid one.

vandlism
Mar 5, 2009, 10:12 AM
The ICQ application is exactly the same as AIM except for its green theme. The only thing is that ICQ is free and doesn't have any ads. You can still log in with your AIM screenname, as it is all the same network now.

spaceballl
Mar 5, 2009, 10:17 AM
So lame that an app release somehow gets turned into a thread about capitalism...

Anyhow, I'll stick with Beejive :D.

miketcool
Mar 5, 2009, 10:28 AM
Feh. Call me when this s✗✗t can run in the background.

I need the number first. Just call us back at T-Mobile, we'll hook you up with a real open source touch screen phone. You can even run whatever you want in the background...

optophobia
Mar 5, 2009, 10:34 AM
I need the number first. Just call us back at T-Mobile, we'll hook you up with a real open source touch screen phone. You can even run whatever you want in the background...
Out of interest which one ?

odinsride
Mar 5, 2009, 11:28 AM
People still use AIM?

nagromme
Mar 5, 2009, 12:37 PM
Appeal to emotion and thus an invalid argument. Give me a valuable app and I'll throw the dev $$$ by the fistfull. I fail to see how ads generate that much revenue.

They can generate a LOT of revenue for a popular app. (A lot more than zero!) And if YOU will pay "$$$ by the fistfull" to developers of quality apps, many OTHER people won't. Developers can't feed themselves off of people like you alone, so there IS room in the market for BOTH ad-support and paid apps.

You and I would both LIKE to live in a world where nothing was paid for by ads, and our favorite web sites and TV shows could keep on going without them. But that's simply not reality. Take away all ads and you'd take away a lot of what those ads pay for.

You prefer paid apps, which I understand completely--but many OTHER people prefer ad-supported, which is where I lean myself, as long as the ads are small. I use lots of excellent ad-supported free apps, including Pandora, Shazam, a number of games, and yes, AIM. Plenty of others I pay for directly, and gladly.

So why not offer people the choice? That's what AIM has done here--and since the early problems with AIM on iPhone seem to be gone, I think it's a worthy app whichever way you choose. Other messenger apps have their benefits too, of course.

I also don't have a problem with downloading a free app that later gets ads. The developer made me no promises (certainly not a promise to develop for free forever) and I paid them no money. Should I ask for a refund :rolleyes:

I wish all apps were ad free, and cost nothing... and in fact paid me $50 a day to use them. I wish all developers worked for me expecting nothing in return.

Failing that, I'll take good apps, in whatever way the developer chooses to be paid for them--and I'm free to take it or leave it.

leandromp
Mar 5, 2009, 01:22 PM
Hell no. I wont pay not even 99 cents for this app.
Better get Beejive and is 100 times better and supports more stuff and better interface.

MacJoe
Mar 5, 2009, 03:24 PM
Irrationality rules! Why should I expect anything else.

maestro55
Mar 5, 2009, 04:10 PM
I don't mind paying for the app without ads, but I would certainly be happier when Apple gets push for apps so that when I am traveling I can get AIM messages without actually being logged into the application.

rockosmodurnlif
Mar 5, 2009, 05:49 PM
People still use AIM?
People still listen to Dio?

Bubba Satori
Mar 6, 2009, 10:58 PM
So, should every developer in the App Store distribute their hard work for free (with no ads) out of the goodness of their hearts, and forego the whole eating and shelter thing?


+1

overcast
Mar 7, 2009, 12:53 PM
The ICQ application is exactly the same as AIM except for its green theme. The only thing is that ICQ is free and doesn't have any ads. You can still log in with your AIM screenname, as it is all the same network now.

Except most people, especially in the states do not use ICQ anymore.

levitynyc
Mar 8, 2009, 10:39 AM
When will Apple just release iChat for the iPhone?

twoodcc
Mar 8, 2009, 04:33 PM
i'm sorry, but i'm not paying for this

macusernick
Mar 8, 2009, 05:11 PM
As opposed to saying screw the liberal fascist pigs who want to steal other people's money and give it to another group. Typical liberal pig, always having their hand out. :p
I love the phrase "liberal fascist pigs" that is a real bushism right there if I ever heard one. I'm not a genius here or anything, but wouldn't a liberal fascist kinda be an oxymoron? It would be like calling someone who is in favor of personal freedom a dictator. hmmm....

Out of interest which one ?
If I'm not mistaken he is talking about the Android G1 from T-Mobile.

When will Apple just release iChat for the iPhone?
Oh we have a winner here. Everyone is making such a big fuss about beehive and aim and whatever that they forget that apple has iChat. While iChat doesn't support every service it is integrated fully in the system and it is stupid for apple to have left it out. My guess is that apple will release it when they get background notification support... just a guess though.


// end of post

vandlism
Mar 8, 2009, 07:06 PM
When will Apple just release iChat for the iPhone?

Oh we have a winner here. Everyone is making such a big fuss about beehive and aim and whatever that they forget that apple has iChat. While iChat doesn't support every service it is integrated fully in the system and it is stupid for apple to have left it out.

On which planet do you believe ATT would allow Apple to bypass virtually any need for SMS messaging by shipping the phone with an instant messenger? Right now AIM, ICQ, touchTXT, and countless apps allow for this to happen by sending text messages to contacts in the address book. For allowing the use of the iTunes Music Store on the iPhone and not the crippled or clunky ATT music purchase system, I am sure some concessions had to be made.

The iPhone is Apple hardware and software, but the network is made possible by ATT. Apple doesn't have free reign over use of the ATT network. And no, at this point you can't complain that Apple is stuck on ATT and they should go to other networks and blah blah. We already know that Verizon didn't want Apple to have their own iTunes Music Store on the phones. You also have to realize that technologies such as visual voicemail are made possible by the Apple/ATT relationship.

The IM functionality is on the iPhone with free downloads from the App Store. But I am sure contractual agreements prevent Apple from releasing their own IM client.

derryquinn
Mar 10, 2009, 07:25 PM
On which planet do you believe ATT would allow Apple to bypass virtually any need for SMS messaging by shipping the phone with an instant messenger? Right now AIM, ICQ, touchTXT, and countless apps allow for this to happen by sending text messages to contacts in the address book. For allowing the use of the iTunes Music Store on the iPhone and not the crippled or clunky ATT music purchase system, I am sure some concessions had to be made.

The iPhone is Apple hardware and software, but the network is made possible by ATT. Apple doesn't have free reign over use of the ATT network. And no, at this point you can't complain that Apple is stuck on ATT and they should go to other networks and blah blah. We already know that Verizon didn't want Apple to have their own iTunes Music Store on the phones. You also have to realize that technologies such as visual voicemail are made possible by the Apple/ATT relationship.

The IM functionality is on the iPhone with free downloads from the App Store. But I am sure contractual agreements prevent Apple from releasing their own IM client.

Actually, I thought about this after I read your post, and I severely doubt it.

For one, the face that "Right now AIM, ICQ, touchTXT, and countless apps allow for this to happen by sending text messages to contacts in the address book." is simply untrue, but the main reason I think this isn't the case is that, when you look at it, and I'm not trying to be a fanboy here...

AT&T don't want to lose the iPhone

They've let iTMS slide, they've let WebText enabling Apps slide because of the App Store, they've let lots of thing go to have such a consumer-oulling device.

And that will not change anytime soon.

Anyway, even if there was a contractual agreement, it could be changed. A certain mr Jobs can be very persuasive (See: Death of DRM)

vandlism
Mar 11, 2009, 04:00 PM
Except most people, especially in the states do not use ICQ anymore.

That's not exactly an issue. ICQ and AIM are both owned by AOL, and run on the same network. Just login with your AIM credentials in the ICQ application. It's the EXACT same application, just a different name and color scheme. It's marketed towards ICQ users, but you still login with your AIM account.

vandlism
Mar 11, 2009, 04:07 PM
[duplicate]

vandlism
Mar 11, 2009, 04:09 PM
For one, the face that "Right now AIM, ICQ, touchTXT, and countless apps allow for this to happen by sending text messages to contacts in the address book." is simply untrue

I'm not entirely sure why you labeled my statement as false. I currently use touchTXT on my iPod touch to text message friends on their phones. The paid version of AIM also allows for this functionality. It can be done; I do it every day.

Anyway, even if there was a contractual agreement, it could be changed. A certain mr Jobs can be very persuasive (See: Death of DRM)

Currently there just isn't much motivation for Apple to create an iChat client. They are in a partnership with ATT, not a struggle. ATT provides the texting services, and Apple willfully agrees not to compete with ATT services by creating a free alternative. The iTMS was a sticking point, and Apple had some weight to throw around and get it their way. Apple wouldn't drop ATT because they can't make an IM client. Apple made iChat in the first place because other clients on the Mac just weren't that great. AIM and others fill the niche perfectly on the iPhone.

retrovm
Mar 11, 2009, 04:18 PM
good call with ICQ, i'm just using that in place of AIM now.

edwinaoki
Mar 13, 2009, 07:57 AM
The ICQ application is exactly the same as AIM except for its green theme. The only thing is that ICQ is free and doesn't have any ads. You can still log in with your AIM screenname, as it is all the same network now.

You can indeed use the ICQ for iPhone client to log into the AIM network with your AIM (or .mac/MobileMe) screen name, but the ICQ client doesn't have the benefit of multiple screen name support, long lived signon and SMS notification of received messages (for users in the US, Canada and other locations where we offer SMS services) or Contact List support, among other more minor features.

Eminemdrdre00
Mar 17, 2009, 02:05 PM
I bet just this paid version of AIM will support 3.0's new Push Notification system =(