Slashdot Mirror
AOL vs. Microsoft in Desktop War?
loki29 was one of several people to submit this story at Betanews based on a supposedly leaked memo. Even if the memo is fake, the strategies outlined seem quite real and accurate - AOL/Time-Warner most assuredly is worried about Microsoft usurping their role in the "online experience" by presenting Windows XP users with lots of defaults set to "Use .NET".
They do, but it's for Internet Appliances like Gateway sold and Intel's one (both of them running Linux)
Hetz (Heunique)
Indeed. I run win98 because I like it. It works, it runs my apps, and after a bit of configuration and weeding out of shitty apps it now rarely crashes (I typically reboot only once a week to free memory that buggy programs have leaked). I'll probably upgrade to Win2k soon, because afaik it retains everything I like about Windows, while adding stability.
I used AOL for a while as well. I had used other online services (Prodigy, CompuServe, local ISPs), but it seemed the best designed. My parents could check their email and whatnot instantly, without downloading/installing email apps, configuring pop3 servers, smtp servers, etc. It just worked. Same with most aspects of the service really - there's configuration available (though not as much as some people might like), but it's not mandatory - everything just works by default.
So I don't use AOL anymore, simply because I have a cablemodem so just use them as my ISP, but I don't understand most of the outright hostility to it. AOL are quite accomplished in the field of user interfaces - they were a large non-internet BBS in the early 90s with a great interface, made the adaptation to ISP-hood, and adapted in the face of a proliferation of cheaper internet-only ISPs. You might not like their business tactics, but they really do have a point when they say "So easy to use, no wonder it's #1" - it is much easier than the alternatives for most people, and that is the reason they're so popular.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"I think most see Java as a server technology at this point. VB always sucked at this. "
.Net is all about.
Out of curiousity, on what basis do you say this? I have a feeling you've no knowledge of COM, much less VB so how can you intelligently make such a comment?
As far as your little tirade about interoperability, that's what
Just because you haven't taken the time to learn and understand something, doesn't mean it sucks.
Honestly, so far you are one of the few people I've seen posting to /. who actually get it.
.Net. I've read what I can and attended some of our local .Net user group meetings.
.Net. From the people I've talked to(mostly Developmentor instructors), the .Net framework is pretty tight as it is right now. It's being tweaked with enhanced capabilities prior to release, but there are whole production web sites running off the Betas today.
.Net user group meetings you can see a lot of people actually somewhat terrified that what they know now will just go away.
.Net's greatest problem.
I'm by no means an expert on
It's really quite cool, and like you say is more than just C#. It's a whole new development paradigm.
As far as tightening up
No, what will be the problem is training developers on how to properly use it. Most Microsoft developers still don't even understand MTS completely and that's been out for 4 years.
From the
It's that training, learning... attitude that will be
And we have hundreds of COM components written in VB working fine.
Not to say we have not had some problems, like you, but in each and every case we've tied it back to a problem in the code.
Instead of rewriting it, why don't you just spend the time understanding the code and fixing the problem? Wouldn't that be cheaper?
Ahh, pretty good analysis.
.Net versus J2EE. It's available here: http://www.objectwatch.com/pres/MSDN2/tour_files/f rame.htm
.Net is for you. ;)
However, I'm not in agreement that not being able to hold state with global variables is a negative feature of the language. That sounds like a really bad idea considering most app servers are load balanced, and I highly doubt Java can read the memory across machine boundaries.
I'd also be curious to see some performance comparisons. You make some implicit claims that Java is faster than VB, yet I've never seen this backed up with benchmarks. The one benchmark I did see comparing the different environments showed VB as twice as fast as Java, with C++ being three times as fast. But it wasn't necessarily fair as it also compared different hardware, i.e. VB on a Compaq, Java on a Sun.
Roger Sessions was recently in town here, and had a presentation on
It's interesting reading. I believe his conclusion was that using Java was primarily a religious argument. If you are dead set on using Java, continue to do so. If on the other hand your concerned with performance and cost to deliver, then
Ahh, if you want to persist some data then in the Microsoft world you could use the Shared Property Manager.
There are other options for this as well, it all depends.
It seems to me that trying to persist this data in the server objects adds considerable overhead in terms of object management and I can't imagine it'd be a performance gainer. Although I can see where it might be faster than having to go back to the database every time, as database I/O is an expensive operation.
You're right on the last part. It is difficult to do meaningful comparisons because the way I would write an app using VB is completely different than how you would use Java. This issue of stateful server components is such an example.
C# is a language which is part of the .Net framework.
:(
.Net is a development framework which includes CLR and all it's various languages, SOAP, etc.
Hailstorm is Microsofts strategy of subscription based content.
The original poster has a better understand than you do.
Well, it would collect all your personal information (addresses, credit cards, etc.) in one place so that you could then use that one location to buy or rent things all over the net. So, instead of the current situation, where you have to enter personal information repeatedly at different sites, making it more difficult to track you, one site will know everything about you and your personal preferences. If that one site is hacked (and MS does get hacked) then everything about you is known to the hackers. The current decentralized model of data storage can be a PITA, but at least it obscures and (to a certain extent) protects your personal data.
IAAL,BIANLY
The thing is that MS intends for those tools to give developers easy ways to connect to and use MS services. So, say, if you build your site with .Net libraries/servers, you could make it such that all people who have registered with MS have the equivalent of Amazon's one click shopping at any site that uses .Net. (I'm just pulling this example out of my ass, but you get the point.)
.Net has been, from day one, about far more than C#- it has been about integrating the entire Web with the desktop (which is a noble goal) and specifically with the MS desktop (not so noble.) So don't limit yourself to thinking "this will help people build web sites, so what does AOL have to worry about." Think ".Net will help people build apps that use the internet but bypass the web (and AOL) completely, and use MS servers and services instead of their own." And that is the kind of thing that AOL is worried about.
IAAL,BIANLY
No. If all major websites start using Hailstorm to "make the buying experience easier", MS gets a cut of every purchase. Sales of servers and such is miniscule compared to what that could be, especially when (as the other poster has noted) MS can tie the desktop into Hailstorm.
IAAL,BIANLY
I don't understand this.
.NET was analagous to Java the platform. I took that to mean the JVM and things like the EJB and Servelet standards.
.NET is about tools to build and deploy sites. I don't think it's going to be a series of portals and content sites like MSN. I think that MS will use .NET to build new generations of MSN, but that other people can use .NET to build competing services if they want.
.NET, so this could be off base, but I think that MS is trying to rebuild Java with a couple of key differences.
.NET controls will be much easier to work with than EJB objects.
.NET. There will inevitably be lots of loose ends after the early releases. And Java is here and reasonably solid now.
.NET will be tweaked for Wintel boxes, and will run much faster than JVM stuff.
.NET. They certainly did a lot of pimping of the word "innovation" during the anti-trust trial, but this seems to be genuinely innovative stuff to me. I'm not saying it will work well or that it will win, but it is a big vision, and it is a gutsy thing to try to roll it out. And I give them credit for it. And yes, I know that it's all about trying to keep their leverage. But it's still interesting technology.
.NET is still a vague concept to me, but one of the main guys behind it said that C# was analagous to Java the language, while
My impression is that
Again, I have only a fuzzy picture of
First of all, they're trying to duplicate their VB control model across languages and in a distributed fashion. I believe that
Second of all, I think they're going to really go to town with visual RAD tools. They want to make developing Web applications to be much easier.
Third of all, they want to put less of an emphasis on supporting multiple platforms (although I think they will -- at least things like XBox and WinCE, and probably OS X as well), and more of an emphasis on supporting multiple language syntaxes.
I wish an MS guy would post here or email me to clear this up, but I doubt it will happen.
I think the problem they have is that it's going to take years to tighten up
But MS is betting that they can manage a platform better than Sun. Java people complain bitterly about Swing vs. MFC, and about seemingly small things like printing support. So there's room for improvement. And presumably
I'm intrigued by the scope of
> What truely bothers me is that, with so much at stake, to what lengths will AOL/M$
> go to win? And, where will the battle be fought?
One thing that stuck out of this memo was the projection that 5-10 new computers will be sold in the Christmas 2001 season. Which is a figure I just can't understand: last figures I heard from Gertner & similar ilk was that 5 million total desktop computers would be sold in 2001; & unless a new ``killer application" came out for the Windows platform (i.e., something that makes Joe End User want to buy a new & improved computer running either Win 2K or Win ME), I doubt we'll see much more than 5 million in 2002 either.
Computers are, at last, plenty fast for Joe End User: why should he or she fix something that ain't broken? Even if Microsoft releases Windows XP in time for Xmas 2001, its sales will mostly be at the cost of existing Win 98, ME, NT & 2K sales.
Add to this the fact that there are about 22 milliion AOL users out there, & several million Earthlink users. If MS releases a product that keeps them from easily connecting to their established accounts & circles fo friends, how much of an incentive will they have to upgrade?
If AOL starts a FUD campaign about XP, it will kill XP sales, & force Microsoft to support the other four flavors of Windows for another year or two, which eat all of the R & D that went into this failed product. And when you consider both Win ME & 2K were received with underwhelming interest, MS will have spent serious money on R & D for several years in a row without any increased profits to show for it.
Hmm. Could AOL be turning the consumer Internet into a Vietnam for Microsoft?
There are a number of smart people at Microsoft -- well, smart marketers, & at least as many as at AOL -- so expect Microsoft to unleash their own PR counteroffensive. Which will be as effective as AOL's. And it will get bloody & costly for two companies whose business models are built on perpetual growth. It could turn into a bloodbath on either side, much like the ignomious battles of World War I where hundreds of thousands of lives were lost just to gain a few hundred yards.
(Yes, I can be a little apocalyptic sometimes. But the idea of Microsoft & AOL beating each other to death while more enlightened businesses step in & steal their markets appeals to me.)
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
But as much flak as MS has caught for Windows, I don't think I could ever use an AOL OS. I would never want to, either.
I read the memo with one of two things on my mind...a)AOL could try this and fail *one good thing*, b)it could be fake so we won't have to worry about it *another good thing*, or c)It's the truth, and they succeed *then we'd all be screwed*
It's one thing to be using some AOL software (Winamp, Netscape, ICQ, or even AIM), but I will not allow AOL to control my desktop or my operating system. (And no, AOL doesn't already, because any such options that the software tries to put on I disable immediately)
This is one occasion that I'm wishing MS to win.
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
I wonder, how long until AOL and Sony get together, and develop the Playstation 2 America Online edition? You can play all your games, get on AOL, maybe it'll even come with a docking station for your Palm pilot. This could be a REAL war -- a company/group that can really stand toe-to-toe with MS in terms of name recognition and brand loyalty.
MS has made a situation where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sounds like a viable solution to pretty much every other company on Earth.
How long until Roadrunner installation is free, with a free Playstation 2 (AOL edition), with just the $60/month AOL fee to pay? make it $100/month, and get 20 "free" game/DVD rentals a month from Blockbuster...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Perhaps the memo is faked and perhaps it isn't. But you have to admit this is a reasonable stance for AOL to take.
If the memo is true to the attitude of AOL/TW, faked or not, it seems like a good opportunity for somebody like Red Hat to step in and talk to AOL about moving things along for a "Linux XP" or something on that order where an AOL-focused Linux distribution is created.
There are tons of users who use their computers only to access America Online. They don't know what the other pretty icons on their computer are for. If you launch something else, like even a spreadsheet program, they will insist that you "hacked" something on their computer. I'm deadly serious, this is no joke.
Those users could be the key to bringing in people to the Linux desktop. Make it easy for those users and they will flock...and this will seriously burn into Microsoft's share of the home desktop market.
It's something to think about.
My journal has hot
Just some god damn competition in the industry! It's funny, we look at coke and pepsi ragging on eachother and pulling stunts and it seems normal, but when the computer industry actually starts to compete we think it's war! It just shows how little competition there has actually been for the past 6 years.
they just want to find the easiest cheapest way to do what they want to do on the Internet
Then AOL should fill those CDs they are always sending to everybody with pr0n instead of software. Cut out the middle man!
Yes because MS has such an impeccable record of acting ethically while AOL has screwed everyone it has ever partnered with.
After all who are going to trust people who commit perjury and evidence tamplering or people who just run a business without having been found guilty of crimes.
War is necrophilia.
Oh come on now. Are you really suggesting that all those people tried out every office product on the market and settled on ms-office? No like most morons they use it because it got pre-installed on their computer or they are forced to use it at work and were forced to learn it. People are stupid and obedient they will eat whatever pile of shit you deposit in front of them.
BTW IT managers are some of the biggest morons on the face of the planet. A monkey can pick better products then a typical IT manager. you typical IT manager chooses products by whoever has the biggest and the shiniest ad in PC magazine.
War is necrophilia.
That's funny AOL had never impacted my life by forcing me to do something I did not want to but MS sure has. Maybe their voodoo mind control techniques only work on you.
I have never even installed AOL but I sure have been forced to install all kinds of software by MS and oddly enough a good percentage of them broke my currently running machine.
War is necrophilia.
Don't be so sure.
The Web - and the 'Net - exist as they are today because they started life as open systems. Microsoft (MSN) and AQL both started off with closed systems for distributed content. They would both prefer closed systems. But the unexpected growth of the Net has persuaded them - probably temporarily - that they have to pay lip-service to open systems.
Currently, Microsoft controls the majority browser out there, and AOL control the other browser that most users have heard of. Netscape has a long history of inventing 'enhancements' to published standards which make documents written for their software work more poorly (or not at all) with other people's. Microsoft are also past masters of that art.
One of the quite possible outcomes of this is that the Web breaks up into a Microsoft-only space and an AOL only space, with no one browser able to access all the information, and, in the worst scenario, with open source browsers unable to access any of it. If methods of accessing the next generation Web servers from Microsoft and AOL are subject to software patents, this could become a reality, at least for users in the US.
Don't get me wrong - I think the best case outcomes from this battle could be very good for the open source movement, with many users seeking refuge in platforms on which they can't
be messed around by corporate interests... but this is a very unstable situation, and the difference between the best-case outcome and the worst is quite dramaticPosted with Konqueror 2.1.1
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
While WinHEC is a "hardware" conference, they were lots of companies there that were not traditional hardware engineering companies. Not only did AOL not show up in large way themselves (they had a few people there as observers) they also were not mentioned at all. I was surprised to notice that while MS railed against companies like Sun when talking about Servers and WindRiver when talking about Embedded stuff, they failed to mention AOL when talking about Net services. I suspect MS is really a bit worried about AOLTimeWarner. They don't even have any kind of marketing ready to show how hailstorm riding on .NET will be a better choice than AOL. MSN seems to not have the ability to get even close to AOL. MS is now buying customers and services just to get what AOL signs up through simple word of mouth and cd distribution. MS has a two big fights on its hands: AOLTimeWarner in the net serverices space and Sony and Nintendo in the computer game console space. Wait, make that three because you can't forget the gonverment and many class actions in the legal space. Have fun MS!
A true sense of the confidence of AOL was shown some time ago when Case appeared on Charlie Rose. Rose got to asking Case about MS's offer to buy AOL or get crushed by Microsoft. Case tried to avoid the issue but Rose pushed. I paraphrase:
Rose: "Come on, you have to feel good about that decision [not to agree to an MS purchase].
Case (finally smiling): "Well...yes. We felt then and that it definitly was the right way to go. Today, I think it is fair to say that we were right."
I wouldn't want to be on Case's sh*t list...makes you almost feel bad for MS.
-- soldack
Red Hat: Millions of AOL users can't be wrong. ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
The fact is that they're by far the best internet service around. They've even changed some things to make their service work better on Linux.
Even if it weren't for that, for broadband it's a choice between them and Verizon DSL. Yuck.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Yeah, tell people Windows has bugs. That's always stopped them from buying it in the past.
---
These proposed strategies take advantage of known user habits (and although the memo is likely a fraud, I bet most of the items have some basis in truth).
.NET strategy is set to take advantage of this as well. Each six months or year you will need to update your .NET subscription for Microsoft's .NET services, like Microsoft Word and the operating system itself. They will take advantage of this at every step to push Microsoft and Microsoft only items, like MSN, like Microsoft Media player, etc...
Most computer users use EXACTLY what the computer installation places in front of them. Most users NEVER remove items from the default desktop, generally thinking that they may be useful someday and they will not be able to find them. So, if you own the default desktop and the default app settings, you own the computer business of the user.
Microsoft's
The sad thing is, as the computer age matures, AOL's business model only looks stronger. Everyone believes that they will always be paying for ISP service, the same way they pay for phone service, electrical service... This revenue model stands in contrast to Microsoft, most of whose software could be replaced out of the box with Free Software without loss in functionality (excepting compatibility). Microsoft is trying to save their future, and AOL will own the world. As if they didn't already.
Unless Microsoft can break into the ISP market with substantial share, they will be reduced to a second tier player over the next decade.
.NET is still a vague concept to me, but one of the main guys behind it said that C# was analagous to Java the language, while .NET was analagous to Java the platform. I took that to mean the JVM and things like the EJB and Servelet standards.
.NET is the next generation of Microsoft's component technologies (COM, COM+, DCOM) which incorporates lessons learned from Java. COM is a technology that allows you to interact with components written in different languages transparently and is descended from OLE (Object Linking and Embedding which is the technology that was developed to allow being able to drag an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document) and . The languages that support COM are the Visual Studio languages as well as Object Pascal (Delphi). COM has its own binary format and while works almost transparently from Javascript, VB, and VBScript is a bitch to work with from C++. DCOM is the same as COM but it adds being able to do RPC (remote method invokation for the Java heads) from components irrespective of what language they are written in, kinda like CORBA without the ORBs.
.NET simplifies this by having a Common Language Runtime which is analogous to the Java JVM. COMable languages simply compile to the CLR format instead of to assembly code or a weird binary format. So this should lead to the best of both worlds by giving you all the functionality you have come to expect from the Java platform with the added benefit of using languages other than Java (C++, C#, VB, Javascript, VBScript, Perl and a few others) and transparently interact with objects written in these languages. Because all .NET languages have access to the CLR they can utilize it to extend themselves, e.g. Visual C++ has "managed extensions" that allows for garbage collection via the CLR.
.NET is Microsoft's XML Web services platform. This is the next generation of Internet computing, using XML to communicate among loosely coupled XML Web services that are collaborating to perform a particular task. Microsoft's .NET strategy delivers a software platform to build new .NET experiences, a programming model and tools to build and integrate XML Web services, and a set of programmable Web interfaces.
Developer View:
The major goal is then to use this technology to build XML based web services.
Marketting View:
Microsoft
--
If AOL were to do a Linux distro most likely it wouldn't be recognizable as such. The user interface would be as easy as a set-top internet box, with lots of pretty colors. While undoubtedly hackable, it would almost certainly be geared to the complete newbie. I think this would be a good thing, in that while none of us would take it seriously, it would increase the market share of linux, and hence decrease MS market share. Tschüß,
Mike.
-
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Hows about, for example, the IFS, which exposes itself, amoung other things, as a web interface? 5.5's OWA was a series of ASP pages. 2000's is a direct interface to the information store. Of course, that really bites when you want to deploy OWA on a different box... ;-)
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Did it ever occur to either Microsoft and AOL that I am perfectly happy with my present LAN connection, and one should be able to customize his computer without having to uninstall all the junk that comes with it? I won a laptop recently, and VOIDED my warranty by removing the 2 GIGS of OS extras and installing a consumer OS on it. I hope to a high degree that the AOL/MSN strife only occurs at the OEM level. If I ever need to upgrade an office full of W2K computers and then get notices from MIS that people are playing with MSN or AIM because they were installed by default, Linux is just a click away.
Microsoft: Somebody set up us the WinXP.
Microsoft: We get signal.
Bill Gates: What!
Microsoft: Product activation turn on.
Bill Gates: It's You!!
AOL/TW: How are you gentlemen!!
AOL/TW: All your OEM are belong to us.
Bill Gates: What you say!!
AOL/TW: You have no chance to launch make your time.
AOL/TW: Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Bill Gates: Take off every ".NET"
Bill Gates: You know what you doing.
Bill Gates: Move ".NET"
Bill Gates: For great profit.
Sorry, it was just too good an opportunity to pass up...
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Very good explaination from a programmer's view (or the point of view of Microsoft Developer Marketing).
.NET hasn't shipped yet, MS is telling the systems people that they can deploy the ".NET Server Family" today. This includes products which have absolutely nothing to do with "Web Services" and the like such as Exchange 2000 (which was originally planned to be Exchange 98) and the new version of Proxy Server.
.NET product while it was still running BSD. This is where the hailstorm/passport strategy comes in, and what AOL obviously dislikes. Some of this might fall back on "web services", but lots of it is the same old MSN portal integration strategy.
Note however that Microsoft is majorly confusing the marketing message. For example, while the developer's
On another front, Microsoft has started to call their MSN/Internet initiatves ".NET" too. Hotmail became a
The term has also been applied to their software rental model.
So, you can understand the confusion of the average slashdot reader. The term ".NET" is turning into a generic brandname for "Made By Microsoft". I'm trying to do myself a favor by calling the CLR "the CLR", and calling Web Services "SOAP components", and avoid the marketing morass as best as I can.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
"Think Different" is a direct copyright infringement. However, that's exactly the kind of term that a marketing person would use.
Of course, Apple came up with "Think Different" because they were trying to sell an incompatible product to the subset of the market that might like that. AOL can't afford to do that.
I kinda like the idea that "assimilation" to describe Microsoft tactics has worked its way out of the Usenet/Slashdot advocacy lingo and into marketdroid speak. Probably too good to be true.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The XP screenshots I've seen all have little links such as "Buy Music" embedded directly into the Explorer.
Ignore the confusing marketing message of NET/Hailstorm/Passport. Recall back to Windows 95 -- where Microsoft built the MSN interface directly into the OS GUI. From here, it looks like XP is just another attempt at doing that, just updated for the times.
Microsoft can't grow with its current Windows/Office monopolies. That meanst they've been trying to do two things for some years now:
1) Crack the server market
2) Establish themselves as the consumer services (e-commerce) channel.
The answer to your questions is that if MS is successful, both server products and Hailstorm will be very profitable. They are both equally important to MS's long term future. They don't have a much of a connection, though, except for the magical marketing term of ".NET".
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
And "Think Different" is probably a direct copyright infringement of Apple's ad campaign. The memo kinda looks like those fake "Survivor 2 memos" that went around before the show started ("Rodger is going to fall off a horse during a challenge").
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, the question is if unverified memo is news, or should we presume unverified memos as fake until proven otherwise? Of course, presuming all unverified memos as true is lunacy as well.
I find that a lot of this is highly dependant on a person's choice of enemies, etc. Too often, if the unverified blurb is about someone that a person loves to hate, then it must be true. Of Course. and vice versa.
It takes exceptional qualities to step outside the box in this regard, and suspend judgement on someone you hate; and to get all the facts, despite the FUD. The memo itself seems to be semi reasonable from the viewpoint of AOL, and I would not hold anything against them if it was true. MS should expect some people to be working against them.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Looking at the typical behavior around here, especially from the college crowd, odds are that this would qualify you for the top 5 percent of the population. Never mind those who are less "well educated".
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Which is nice if Beta News gets Slashed. (all your hits are belong to us!)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Microsoft's (MS) new .Net strategy, coupled with the impending release of XP, presents a significant risk to the AOL franchise. By integrating and embedding traditional AOL functionality (e.g., email, IM, chat, wallet, calendar, address book, web browsing, content aggregation, media players, etc)
why would an OS integrate email, IM, chat, calendar, address book, web browsing and media players? Poor AOL, I sure hope they loose that battle. Suddenly an OS is bad just because it integrates everything needed for the web in a user friendly environment? AOL will fail, their only option is to join forces with MS. But then again, AOL/TW/MS, they would be unstoppable.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
1) Crack the server market
Seems to me the IIS server market has been cracked quite successfully... *sigh*
Since Time/Warner owns AOL, would the Home Gardening Channel be the only one who could broadcast this without misrepresenting either side?
Seriously though - I know of seniors who boot up their computer, connect to the internet via AOL and don't even know that there's anything else on their computer.
AOL provides them with chatrooms, discussion groups, web-surfing, email, and they can even send pictures. When I showed a neighbour of mine how to use their CD burning software, they practically freaked! I was running something that she'd never seen before - she even claimed to a friend of hers that I was "hacking" something on her computer.
If there is fear and loathing in the AOL/M$ land, it's going to be interesting...
Personally, I use neither - although those AOL CDs make lovely, and attractive shiny objects for my inlaws to play with.
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
I'd say that if you feel compelled to throw in phrases like "supposedly leaked" and "Even if the memo is fake," you might want to reconsider running the story at all. That goes double if you're Michael Sims and the story is bogus enough to jolt even your unusually low journalistic standards.
I mean, it's one thing if the tip comes from someone like Eric Raymond who, bonehead though he may be, has a track record of receiving real information. But what the hell is Betanews?
It takes exceptional qualities to step outside the box in this regard, and suspend judgement on someone you hate; and to get all the facts, despite the FUD.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd call that a minimum standard of intellectual honesty and fairness, not "exceptional."
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
This is nothing new. Regardless of weather the memo is fake or legitimate, the article underscores the evolution of Microsoft's known corporate software policies.
.NET services). While it was at one point in Microsoft's interest to sell off desktop realestate, they have now discovered that if they prevent the sale of that realestate, they can sell other realestate much larger, although slightly further away (ASP based services).
Windows 3.1 was provided as an add-on PC productivity tool. Windows 95 was introduced as the primary PC productivity enviroment. Windowd 98 and ME were the frst steps in OS based network integration of the consumer PC.
Windows 3.1 cane with a few weak core apps and depended on 3rd parties for additional apps and services. With the advent on windows95, Bill realized that desktop realestate was a comodity to be sold and bartered with. Windows 98 and ME allowed for network integration which drematically increased the salable realestate using activeDesktop.
Windoes XP gives Microsoft the opportunity to sell internet based 'realestate' which is of course infinately more expansive. If, however a service is available locally, users are far less likely to make use of a remotely hosted or ASP based service (or the
Again, this is nothing new. Microsoft realized that it is more profitable to sell extensive resources to users, than it is to sell pieces of a limited resource to vendors.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
An AC wrote:
> Buy apple...port MacOSX to intel (probably
> in the lab anyhow)
No need to. Apple has already ported Darwin, the open source base of OS X, to x86 and has released it for free. If Apple has any clue, they've already got Quartz and Aqua rigged to move over to x86 with a simple recompile. That's one of the beauties of Unix: portability. It lets them move rapidly in any direction they need to. The G4 chip is nice, but a little too rare for Apple's comfort. Since AOL already runs on Macs, they would only need to produce a carbonized version (it is already in beta now), and recompile it for whatever platform OS X wanders on to.
Mothra: 1961-2001 -- Her heart can reach!
I think probably the best thing AOL could do, if they waged an all-out campaign against XP at a time when Microsoft are pushing XP exclusively (remember, the current marketing plan has XP replacing both the NT and DOS series') is open an opportunity for PC manufacturers to ship PCs with operating systems other than Windows, and to do so in response to genuine customer demand. "You mean I can't use my AOL account with XP? Well, give me a PC with Linux", that kind of thing.
This requires AOL gets its house in order though and get their Linux, etc, clients working.
Right now AOL is probably the only company with the wieght to effect Microsoft's ability to make XP a complete success. Personally, partially because XP is probably the slimiest product MS have ever released, but mostly because when I go into a computer shop, I want to see a choice of platforms and choice of different computers to be standard, not frowned upon, I hope they succeed.
(None of this should be construed as meaning I either believe or disbelieve the memo this article is about)
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"...is open an opportunity for PC manufacturers to ship PCs with operating systems other than Windows, and to do so in response to genuine customer demand. "You mean I can't use my AOL account with XP? Well, give me a PC with Linux", that kind of thing."
Um, XP doesn't have AOL so give me Linux instead? From a segment of the population that think AOL has been 'erased' when they accidentally delete the desktop icon?? I think you overestimate the intelligence of our average friendly AOL users... and why just not get Win2k instead, if XP won't be able to use AOL?
Remember, both Microsoft's and AOL's strategies are to keep the end user as uneducated as possible... this makes it 'easier' for the user (less choices to customize and all...) and keeps them unaware of alternatives. Seeing a desktop in the store running Gnome with Enlightenment with all 'features' turned on would appeal to them (ohhh... shiney objects...), especially when sitting next to a winME/2k box with the comparatively bland Microsoft desktop.
"6) Stall XP Adoption: Until AOL can develop an appropriate XP solution, message to AOL members and the public that XP is "not ready" for broad adoption (i.e., has bugs, will not run AOL, will not run your existing software, will violate your online privacy, etc...)"
I especially like this one. Lying to consumers to get your product forwarded. I could just see a big Steve Case "Member Community Outreach" regarding the severe online privacy violations with XP, just after AOL parades you with ten sign-on ads and collects data on your web browsing (AOL "proxy") while moderating everything to hell.
Everyone seems to think Microsoft is the worst corporate technology firm with devilish, underhanded practices, but this is just outrageous.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
"Make a better product".
I always find this so amazing about standard business practices these days - these execs will come up with every possible technique in the book to gain an advantage - except "make a better product". I can just picture all these middle aged execs in a huge boardroom worriedly trying to come up with ways in which they can gain market share, coming up with hundreds of suggestions (massive marketing campaigs, grassroots campaigns, FUD/spin campaigns, exclusivity deals, "strategic" partners, "make AOL the default" type technique etc) - yet not once during days of meetings will it cross the minds of even one of those execs to even consider building a better product. The closest they have there is "think different", which involves some development at least, but still places more emphasis on OEM partnerships. The saddest part of the whole thing is that they probably have to do this sort of thing just because most users are too clueless to choose the better product - number one reason people "choose" IE over NN has always been "it came installed with the computer".
2) Place compatible AOL XP bundle client installer on the machine
I wonder if they have considered the option to flood the entire free world with AOL cd's. The Coaster Producers Association wouldn't like it.
8) Get "Designed for Microsoft Windows" logo program exemption for AOL. Microsoft pays the OEM significant rebates to have their software bundles compliant with Microsoft specifications. The AOL client will likely not meet Microsoft?s standards, resulting in OEM PC?s being out of compliance with the logo program and jeopardizing the rebates.
So corp. A not only supports really scary policy of corp. B but wants to take advantage of it. This is the kind of stuff that makes it impossible to compete. Because of the kinds of margins the harware companies are dealing with and the kind of competition they face, they really have to go along with this stuff, or they are toast.
How about free and open markets instead?