AOL outages and service status in Blue Hill, Maine

Problems in the last 24 hours in Blue Hill, Maine

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Blue Hill, Maine and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Drew P. Sack (Skeptical/Suspicious) (@LocumRex) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Nasdaq @SpaceX Getting in on SpaceX 🚀 today is like getting in on the railroad industry in the late 1800s. Or, it could be like getting in on dotcom craze in the late 90s. I’m thinking back on AOL, WorldCom, Mindspring, and COVAD. Then there are always those Captains of tech like Kodak, and Motorola. Who eventually died on the vine because they just couldn’t keep up. Their boards were old and myopic and just couldn’t conceive of a future, other than what they were already doing. But $SPCX though. 🤔 Sometimes you just have to say, “what ********” and lay down a hundred grand, cross your fingers, and hope the best for the future. And the future for the next hundred years is going to be the exploration of technologies and space that we can’t even comprehend today. It won’t be easy, it won’t be slick and clean and shiny like some sci-fi would have you believe. It will be *****, cold, fraught with danger in the vast emptiness. Some will thrive, some will lose. Just like the “New World” explorers 300 years ago. There are no guarantees.

• 
  Gareth Walker (@Revision_124c41) reported 10 minutes ago

  @ASSEENONAI @Grummz They'll likely end up spinning xbox off. Kind of been saying they should do that since 2015. Just wish I did it on here so I could point to that. Problem with doing it at this point is that it is more about saving face for Microsoft and not about saving Xbox. I do think they should go through with it though. Part of the problem was Satya Nadella, he's the one who pushed for over expensive acquisitions and game pass. A lot of people blame Phil Spencer, but I think he was just a victim of his bosses own incompetence. I don't know where Sara Bond fits in to all of this, but I kind of point to her being a Satya drone that was hand picked for Phil as Xbox was not recovering since the Don Matrick blunders that came before him. A lot of people blame phil for what honestly started with Don Matrick, x360 was already a weakening brand by the time that generation was over and Sony had basically closed the gap that was once a huge lead and huge reputation. Removing Satya and the rest of microsoft would force the company to stand on its own two feet and look at the industry realistically. Cut some of that tainted human resource and get back to making good games. Hard decisions will need to be made and Xbox will need to be profitable again before this can work. We may even see microsoft retool their hardware targets to be more like Nintendo's than Sony's going forward. Leaving Valve and Sony as the only competitors in the high end gaming market. Still forcing sony and valve to address the low end as the plateau is no longer too far out of reach. This would effectively put an end to game pass and many other stupid ideas microsoft has had over the last 25 years. Praise Xbox Live as much as you want, but paying for a walled garden should have died with AOL 35 years. Now we have this stupid situation where we are fighting companies in courts just to keep servers online, paying for a minimal tier for "premium" game servers many of which are peer to peer and not being funded by the subscription. That entire back end is just for user accounts, messages, and voice chat, not even get versions of technology that are fundamentally free at this point. PSN and Nintendo Online would have likely had been still free too day if Microsoft hadn't decided it was more important to have subscriptions. I think at this point Xbox is a stranger to microsoft. Remember when the Xbox brand was formed it was to take over the living room and keep sony from ceasing control. They ultimately lost that fight and many others. I'd say the fight for the living room now belongs to streaming boxes, not game consoles. The threat of the DVD drive no longer exists. There isn't a single Xbox/Microsoft streaming service for any media that I'm aware of on Fire TV, Apple TV, Roku, or name another device. There isn't even a microsoft smart tv. These days Microsoft's interests are AI and Cloud. It's anyone's guess if Windows is even still a priority to the company these days, let alone Office. So why does Microsoft even need a gaming division? Direct X was originally intended to get people on windows. Now it's being used on Linux through proton and some devs are starting to look at vulkan to help improve that compatibility. GPU drivers are getting better in the linux space. I think it's time microsoft stepped back from gaming. Keep working direct X. Maybe consider bringing their development tools to other platforms. I know they tried this once a long time ago and Sony and Nintendo told them to **** off, but things change. The entire development suite for both companies is buried in Visual Studio development these days. With support for things like CLANG and cross platform connections. MS thinks making it easier to port between PC and Xbox Helix is going to be some kind of huge win that'll get them exclusives from third parties, I just don't see it. 3rd Party devs have entire core tech departments just specializing in getting around the weakness in dev kits. At best indies may seek you out assuming Epic doesn't just laugh you out of the room as people continue to get their Engine.

• 
  Reboticon (@Reboticant) reported 11 minutes ago

  @icpolicy @kitten_beloved @WomanCorn man its like aol in the old days I would get myself into a lot of trouble

• 
  Tom Fewer 🇺🇸🧊 (@therealTomFewer) reported 13 minutes ago

  @EdMarkey Ed, no-body know who ******** you are. Please resign and let someone that doesn't have an AOL email address take office. You're a waste of a seat

• 
  Trillionaire mindset (@TrillieAF) reported 13 minutes ago

  And btw y’all aol IM for my friends and I was the coolest thing in middle school, then it faded. So by the time we were in HS literally no one cared or used it. Maybe casually in freshman year? Everyone just wanted to hang out in person instead which was way cooler. The by sr yr

• 
  pratik (@guru30989) reported 13 minutes ago

  @ArtofLiving Ask your volunteers and teachers not to pressurise people to join paid sessions... Let them join by choice and not by force... Don't cross your laxman rekha else I have to file a police complaint against baba and entire AOL

• 
  Matchalover (@hauntedhomesinc) reported 16 minutes ago

  @prisyum Don't even make me start to try to remember my AOL login

• 
  AllThingsVentured (@AllVentured) reported 17 minutes ago

  When Netscape was acquired by AOL in 1998 for $4.2B they were still unprofitable but had >50% revenue growth and dominant market share with revenue projected to grow at a 44% CAGR and surpass $1B in just a few years. Sound familiar? You wont guess what happened next: $MSFT bundled Internet Explorer with Windows for free and took 80% of the share overnight. If you don't know how to apply this historical analogue to today I cant help you.

• 
  Torgo (@SonOfPhales) reported 25 minutes ago

  @PoopJohnx4q5 @TheDokJ @Qveen_Potato it was some wild west ****, frfr. but i was talking about dial up. aol disks. 1000 hours. anyone remember when you had to pay by the hour? no? me either.

• 
  Greg (@gkamstra) reported 25 minutes ago

  @gordie_smith Eventbrite was a horrible public company. AOL is an ice cube. You can make really good money buying them cheap and running them off (or turning them around), but it works way better in private markets w 5-10 year horizons. Most of the companies that do this well (that I’m aware of) are privately held. Opentext would be an example of a public one. Super low multiples, pretty crappy performance (although did well early on when it was smaller). I wish them a ton of luck, but I just expect over a multi-year horizon, the market will decide it hates the stock even if they make good decisions and create value.