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 ..."
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