Slashdot Mirror
AOL 6.0 Client: We'll Be Your Home Page, Thanks
Masem writes: "According to this story at CNet, the latest version of AOL 6.0's Web browser does not allow the user to set a home page, nor click on a button to go to the home page. Instead, the user is forced to start up through AOL's start page. AOL claims this was an aesthetic move prompted by user input, but many are crying foul in light of the proposed TW/AOL merger; such a move gives AOL too much of an edge on content control. At least they could have left such a change in an advanced dialog box for experienced users ..."
AOL may not be the choice for power users, but they are most certainly not going downhill. They are, by a huge margin, the #1 consumer ISP. Even the Devil of Redmond, with its monopo-bundling power, and loss leading (read: $400 bribe to subscribe) has not been able to crack this nut.
I wouldn't be caught dead on AOL, but what they say is true: it is easy to use. AOL has totally nailed the consumer Internet experience, and most of its users are very happy with the service. If you have never met an AOL customer who didn't feel "seriously abused" then I have to question the identity of the group you sampled.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Well people, you may be right that AOL has the right to do its browsers with its content. Quite correct it's THEIR browser and they have the right to present the product to you the way they think you like it.
:)
However could you tell me one little thing? Do they separate this product from their other services? Do they specifically tell you that you may use it or IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera or even lynx? If they don't do this then they are subverting you. They are bounding you into the use of AOL only products. Worse, if they force the installation of their browser embedded into other services then they are clearly subverting your right for choice. Specially if you don't know too much about the market. It would be the same as if Ford possessed a oil company and made its cars sch a way that you could only fill in their gas stations ("Oh you can't use other gas station? Unfortunately we couldn't agree the common standards. And why to worry? We are everywhere").
If this happens, it's a problem. Because you're facing a monopoly. However, if AOL informs that its products & services are separate entities. If it informs you about the existence of a market (no matter that it will surely say that its browser is better). IF it does not impose any critical restrictions or incompatibilities with other products. If you can get rid of AOL products without hampering other services the company gives. Well, if these IFs are observed then it's their right to do the browser the way they want. You have a right to choose. And, in this case, it's no matter to anyone if this company is fatter then King Kong. Otherwise, wait for DJ knocking their doors in a near future. When AOL will try to subvert the biggest US corporation...
You just haven't looked hard enough. I bet you could fix the problem by using the following steps (and I'm not quite sure about what everything is called, as I don't really have a Windows box with AOL on it nearby, or hell, even a windows box nearby):
- Open the "Start Menu"
- Choose "Settings"
- Choose "Control Panel"
- Choose "Add/Remove Software"
- Find AOL in the list of software
- Click the "Uninstall" button
I think that will do it.Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People still actually use the 'Home page' feature? I've had my 'home page' set to a blank page for about 3 years, and ever since IE allowed customization of the toolbar, I haven't had a little 'Home' button.
It's AOL's browser, they can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like AOL's browser, then don't use it. I can't imagine why anyone would in the first place; the thing is a piece of crap.
Is this an illegal way of pushing their own company, or is this just an inconvenience that 6.0 users will have to put up with?
AOL users who are not 18 or older may not make TCP/IP connections from other browsers; they must use the AOL browser and look at AOL.com's banner ads.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"According to AOL, removing the home page icon was a way to make the service simpler for subscribers without limiting their preferences."
Got it? Removing a preference does not limit their preferences. And black = white and we have always been at war with Oceania.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Top news -- We should be encouraging AOLers to be informed about what's going on in the world. Maybe then the s/n on Usenet would improve.
Shopping links --. Besides getting their porn fix, shopping is what most AOLers use AOL for.
Stock quotes -- ditto for shopping.
AOLEmail -- ditto for stock quotes and shopping.
Web Channels -- discussion boards for all sorts of useful topics. Here, AOLers get to practice their online communication skills and learn the principles of netiquette before moving on out into the rest of the net. This is a good thing.
All in all, it's a decent portal for newbies and hardly worthy of our derision: it doesn't even have too many ads, unlike certain other portals. Most newbies never change their homepages from netscape or microsoft anyway, and AOL is taking the prudent step of giving them one fewer thing to worry about.
-- Anne Marie
My initial reaction was the same as yours... "Experienced Users... AOL?"
But there are alot of people who do use AOL for one reason or another. Perhaps their family uses it, so they are stuck. This was a terrible move on AOLs part. Especially given that their latest browser actually recieved favorable press over at wired, as a feature-full browser.
Its easy to raise our noses and say, "It serves them right for being stupid enough to use AOL." But hey, AOL users have feelings too. Instead of this, we should all let AOL know how we feel. They claim that feedback is important to them, so let them know.
Too many things in this world are a good idea from a commercial persective (now AOL gets advertesing revenue every time someone fires up that browser). However, when we do things to make money, we should always think about what it does to the consumer. What AOL has done here hurts the consumer, and I seriously hope that it bites them in the ass. Captain_Frisk
Nobody forces you to use AOL. There are tons of ISP's out there. You can download IE for free. In fact, it comes default on almost every computer shipped. Netscape/Mozilla are also easily downloadable. I've never used AOL as my ISP and I don't feel limited in any way because I don't have access to their proprietary services. I just don't see them as a "gatekeeper".
As for the cable networks, DSL is a competitor. Fixed wireless is a competitor. Heck, someday freespace lasers might be a competitor. I'm not horribly concerned about open access, particularly where a cable company is facing a multi-billion dollar price tag for upgrades that they are 100% taking the risk on. If cable modems don't take off or are obsoleted, the cable company could be left with billions in stranded capital. I'm sure that TW would be happy to give access to any ISP that is willing to share the cost and risk of building out the network. And AOL has said that they will follow an open access policy.
For example, I subscribe to Newsweek. If I don't like the content they are packing in their magazine, I will cancel my subscription. Now, I know you will all say, "What about the dummy users who don't have the tech skills to get online with an ISP?" Well, ISPs will have to make their services easier to use, or, if AOL becomes to annyoing for the average users, other AOL-like services will arise that will offer similar service but without the cramming content down your throat.
The beautiful thing about capitalism is that companies can try different things. If those things are not successful (i.e. the customers don't like them), the customers can stop spending their money with the company, and said company will either change their methods or loose money. Anyway, I wonder what percentage of /. users are AOL subscribers... anyone care to admit to it? :-) Assuming there are so few AOL subscribers here, what's the big fuss!?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
The problem is if you want a blank page to come up instead of a start page you no longer have that option. Be this because you don't want to wait for AOL's news page or because you don't want to read AOL's news or because you want to open ./ as your home page instead dosen't matter. You can't change you home page at all.
While this is their choice to remove this option it is one that I can easily see upsetting many people just for the reasons listed above.
However even worse is the possibilities hinted at that Time Warner/AOL could use this to help sway public opinion in their favor. Image all of the people who use AOL having no choice but to at least be exposed to the news that TW/AOL chooses to show them. This could be highly biased "reporting" about why AOL is the only "real choice" for internet acces, or it could be a presidential endoresement. Heck it could be an ad for dog food. It dosen't matter these people are being help as a captive audience.
One of the great things about the web is that you are never forced to view anything you don't want to. Well, that just ended for AOL users.
Even worse this now gives the 'net a major down side against all other media. With your TV you can choose what channel appears when you turn it just by leaving it tuned to the channel you want. With your Cable box, VCR, or Stereo same thing. You can choose what you want. If you don't want to hear KGOD - all catholic metal all day then you don't have to. But with this new change for AOL if you use AOL as your ISP you no longer have a choice what you are subjected to when you log on.
This is indeed a very scary thing. Image it spreading to your TV and stereo and then ask yourself why this is important.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
I've seen this story elsewhere, and while I haven't seen the AOL 6 software in use yet, at least one article contradicts the assumption that underlist most of the comments here.
:-) ) but now it is changed by going in to some preferences menu or such. In other words, it's not fixed, just not saying "change me" so loud.
It appears that AOL changed the <i>manner</i> in which one's home page is set. It used to be very easy (so easy, even an AOLer could do it!
What's scary is the way some people use this minor change to call for governmental intervention. Do slashdotters really want the government to be regulating the design of software? (The MS antitrust case is utterly different, starting with its monopoly status, but it also wasn't about regulating the code per se.) Do slashdotters really want to government to be regulating Internet content providers?
AOL doesn't own wires. They are basically a time-sharing house with a clever display technology. All of the non-web content is hosted in a big data center in Virginia. That's not even a classical ISP model. It's content. They lease their modems from UUNET, Genuity and Sprint. Like them or hate them, asking to regulate them is asking for trouble.
When I read the story, I saw that they removed the 'Home' Button, but allowed for full customization of the toolbar with any icon you want pointing to any URL you want. Instead of having 'Home' point to a blank page, I could have an icon of a blank page to click on, right?
How this is sabotaging AOL/TW, proving AOL users are inferior, showing that our online rights are being taken away, etc. is lost on me.
You can probably search the registry for aol.com and change it that way. I'd verify it, but in order to do that, I'd actually have to install AOL.
Hmmm... if that turns out to be the case, then maybe I can do a little business selling AOL homepage unlockers.
There is nothing that says a user can't edit the registry. OTOH, if they embedded it in the EXE, then you'd have to hexedit the program. It would be a real pain if they embedded it *and* obfuscated it.
What happens if you set AOL as the default browser, and create an Internet shortcut on the desktop? That might be a real easy fix.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Reverse engineering is prohibited under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which you must obey at all times. Even if you are in another country without the wonderful DMCA you should still heed it as it would be the right thing to do. The AOL software is not your property to fiddle with. You must use it according to the license agreement which is completely valid and legal. It's for your own good.
Also the new hacking treaty would apply anyways as soon as it's rammed through Congress which will prohibit you from posessing any reverse engineering tools, compilers, assemblers, etc unless you are licensed by the Software Publisher's Agency, Motion Picture Agency, or the Recording Industry Agency. Of course your license would only be for approved uses. Hacking someone else's intellectual property without permission would still be unlawful... and intellectual property is property... PERIOD.
We must stop piracy at all costs... including freedom.
Once upon a time, I used to be an AOL customer. Then their service got worse (this was after the 5er's hacker attack), & after a few years I moved on.
With that in mind, I have to share probably the most perceptive words on AOL ever written. From Michael Wolff's book, _Burn_Rate_:
``I never wanted to do a deal with AOL. At best, AOL just watered down the experience of the Internet and network technology; at worst, it was in some other business -- it was a direct marketing organization, infomercial shit.
``I never knew anybody who took AOL seriously as an Internet company.
``I never knew an AOL customer who didn't feel seriously abused by AOL.
``I never knew an AOL information provider who didn't feel that AOL was about to start turning the screws.
``I never knew an AOL executive who didn't think he or she was playing a part in a very serious shell game that, ideally, would end in an acquisition of AOL by a reputable company.
``I never knew anybody who really wanted to work for AOL, located in true Nowheresville, Virginia."
Wolff wrote this in 1998, long after I left AOL. from what I've heard & read, AOL has gone even further downhill.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Experienced Users use AOL ???
-Snoot
I don't like AOL. Never have. However, if they want to take away the user settable home page button on their own browser, then why should we (non-AOL users) complain?
Of course, if you are an AOL user, then complain (if it bothers you), or use a different browser to surf the web. If you think that AOL will now have too much control over where you visit, then stop paying for their service, get a different ISP.
--Xandu
--Xandu