I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. AIM could have created a great mobile app with new features a la whatsapp et al, a new OSCAR protocol that was backwards compatible, and had a huge base of mobile users.
Hindsight is 20/20, but it sounds like you're saying that even with hindsight closing AIM was the right call.
It was the right call. AIM was losing money with no obvious way to monetize it. AOL was not in the same position than Microsoft was. They had little experience selling to pro customers and they were bleeding users to Google Talk and Facebook Messenger at the time.
Even knowing that the mobile market would explose in popularity, it is far from obvious that AIM would have even been positionned to benefit from it. Google Talk was really popular then and notoriously failed to convert that into a leading position in the mobile market.
it was basically explicit transfer of the core value - user graph - from AOL to FB which probably doubled or tripled the FB graph at the time. The "small deal" and the modest "linked" below are kind of euphemisms describing the full buddies list import and thus sucking AIM dry if i remember correctly:
https://marker.medium.com/the-untold-history-of-facebooks-mo...
"During his time there, AOL wound up doing a small deal with Facebook that linked AOL Instant Messenger to Facebook’s website. But the biggest outcome of the deal was the connection Palihapitiya formed with Mark Zuckerberg."
So the GP{3} saying "short sightedness and pettiness of these directors is something of legend" is very wrong. As you can see they played very long and successful game, just not the game you'd have expected them to play :)
Of course, it's easy to say this today having seen the result. But aol in particular was familiar with ad-driven business; they should have had the appropriate resources to anticipate the potential of their businesses.
> It's still insane to me these corporations shut down perfectly viable platforms that were still used by millions. The short sightedness and pettiness of these directors is something of legend, I hope there's a chapter about this in new management textbooks, but who knows.
It's not short sightedness. It was perfectly reasonnable to close these plateforms (in so much as they were closed - Microsoft folded MSN into the Lync and Skype brands and rather successfully sold it to pro users). They were never going to make money with them as they were. You are just missing that modern instant messassing plateforms have little in common with AIM and MSN.
If you look at what is valuable today, you have on one side WeChat and Whatsapp who took over the mobile space and are extremely valuable in emerging countries where text messaging became the main point of entry for conducting business and mobile payments. On the other side, you have Slack which use is centered around chat rooms and collaboration rather than direct messaging and whose popularity grew mainly on the shifting habits of a generation used to communicate via text, habits taken on smartphones. Then again, Microsoft was quick to reuse the infrastructure they already had to launch Teams which is very successful.
So, unless you could foresee the emergence of a mobile first world, it completely made sense to pivot these services towards paying customers.