Slashdot Mirror
AOL 6.0 Bundled with Windows XP?
mizhi writes: "MSNBC reports that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP and given prominent placement on the desktop in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support. They're also talking about making Windows Media Player the exclusive player for AOL. No monopoly here... keep moving along..." What about MSN? Mozilla? If AOL isn't going to switch to a new Netscape or Mozilla browser to base their client upon, what happens to Netscape?
That you assume that Orwell's tale was applicable *only* to those given the moniker of 'government' is a sure sign of your own shallow understanding of that which you read ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I seriously doubt they can shoehorn two bloated peices of software on one CD.
</humor>
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Being cross-platform and providing those other functions is vital to the Mozilla project. If they'd just done a simple, Windows-only, WWW-only program, what incentive would there be for people to use it, when IE is already there?
No, the true value of Mozilla (and the Communicator suite which preceded it) is that you have a consistent set of tools available on all platforms -- including future embedded boxes. Netscape knows that trying to compete with Microsoft on the Windows platform is suicide due to Microsoft's bundle-opoly. They control the integration framework and have the power to marginalize anyone who they consider a threat. By providing a complete Internet communication suite, Netscape can provide access to the Web and email (and now, instant messaging) on Windows, and then provide a consistent experience for those users who choose to migrate to another platform. That's been the Netscape vision from the beginning -- only Microsoft caught on to their game a bit too early for them to complete it, and took steps to grind them into dust.
The Mozilla project is still meaningful, and I believe it is one of perhaps three or four programs whose continued existence are absolutely crucial to the preservation of a world in which Microsoft does not have 100 percent market share of all three major sectors (desktop, server, and embedded).
This message has been proudly posted using Mozilla.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Now, at the same time, they fund the Mozilla effort, which as time goes on, should probably be little drain on their resources due to increasing community involvement. So overall investment there is small and it continues to give them a platform to work with on Embedded devices and non-windows desktops. As the market share of Embedded devices vs. Desktops shifts, AOL will have mozilla there to fill that need.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"It hasn't really improved, while Internet Explorer has made leaps and bounds, coming from behind, overtaking, and leaving the Netscape crowd in the dust"
I hate to point out the gaping flaw in your reasoning here, but of course Netscape got left in the dust - that is exactly what happens when a competitor cuts off your distribution channels - you can no longer afford to improve the product - helloooo, thats exactly what Microsoft did to Netscape, that is actually called "killing them off". How do you improve your product when you've been cut out of the market?
How short our memories are. IE3 and IE 4, the "competition" for NN4 at the time, were also crap products, incredibly unstable and buggy. Now a couple of years later everyone seems to have forgotten that, and now everyone compares the Netscape of 2 to 3 years ago to the Internet Explorer of today. Hardly a fair comparison.
-----
I imagine they were prepared to go either way - to use it as a bargaining chip to keep AOL on the desktop, or to attempt to make AOL/Netscape the desktop for internet appliances.
Since AOL is the money maker, not netscape, it does of course make a lot of sense.
Of course logically they will need to maintain Netscape as a viable threat in order not to get expunged from the Windows desktop at some point in the future.
It may be AOL's view that Mozilla has done it's job by forcing Microsoft's hand. MS wants to keep it's lead in the browser world, and if threatinging them with AOL conversion to Mozilla get AOL placement on the XP desktop, well it was worth the money they paid....
I'm not saying that I would be happy with that attitude, but is there any business reason for them to not think this way?
Server-side includes and shell/sed/awk scripts are your friends. :-) You can structure a site so that it spits out standards-compliant code for real browsers, yet is able to hack a page on-the-fly to deal with Nutscrape's borkenness.
If it were entirely up to me, I'd tell the Nutscrape users to bugger off, but I had to put together a corporate website that had to be viewable with the widest range of browsers. I've since adapted the code to my homepage as well. View it with IE/Mozilla/Opera/Lynx/iCab/whatever and you get standard HTML 4.01 and CSS 2 (or is it 1?). View it with Nutscrape and you get a hack job that looks more or less like what real browsers produce with standard code.
(As an aside, iCab renders the page incorrectly. The funny thing is that it doesn't complain about invalid HTML or CSS. Given that it's a beta, it's more than likely a bug that'll get worked out. IE and Opera render the page correctly. Last time I checked it (which was some time ago), Mozilla worked OK as well.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
The five-year contract between the two companies that guaranteed AOL prominent placing on Microsoft's Windows operating system in exchange for exclusive support for Internet Explorer on AOL's online service expired in January.
In other words, the story as posted to Slashdot skews the perception AWAY from the actual events. The deal is to put the AOL installer on the XP install disc... Nothing more. AOL can use Komodo/Gecko in their next revision, but it's not ready in time for XP's launch, so they're using their current installer. We should still expect to see Komodo in the future, and the article says absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise.
Thanks for the link, but hold off on the rhetoric unless you have something a bit more substantial to back it up.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
- They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--
Precisely! Generally, when I build houses I like to pour the foundation last.I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
The problem is not this: that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP.
:)
The problem is this: in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support.
Why is that a problem? Because of this: what happens to Netscape?
This is one of those rare times that the summary got all the important stuff.
I'm not sure, but I think I may be missing something, so I want to list off what I see going on...(these are in no particular order, except as they come to mind)
1. AOL is the most expensive national dialup ISP going.
2. XP, according to rumor, is time-limited, so the user has to pretty much re-purchase it every so often, or their box quits running XP.
3. (this is one of the things I'm not sure of) AOL at one time was in the process of switching to Netscape/Mozilla as their embedded browser; at least, until this "agreement" came along.
4. AOL and Time-Warner currently constitute one of the biggest home-entertainment conglomerates going.
5. Microsoft and AOL are buddying up on software and content provision.
6. Starting with Win2k/ME, Microsoft has been working to isolate the functions of the operating system from the user, the most obvious of these attempts being the removal of the option to boot to a DOS prompt and the loss of a DOS window in the OS as shipped.
7. Another rumor has it that once XP is installed on a machine and registered to it, if the user upgrades either the HD or the CPU they have to buy another copy of XP, because theirs won't work and can't be reinstalled. (Yes, I did say this was a rumor. Put the torches away.)
What does all this add up to? IMO it's a combined attempt to make sure of three things: the general user base doesn't ever get its unwashed fingers inside the workings of either their machine or the fancy, overpriced and oversized OS that Microsoft demands drive it; the user only can use the software and content that Microsoft (with AOL at its side) approves of; and no matter what happens, both Microsoft and AOL are guaranteed their revenue streams pretty much in perpetuity.
Would someone please tell Microsoft and AOL that they're about 17 years too late for this crap? And all the FUD they can spread won't change the fact that some of the "unwashed" they want to protect from such things as working code can, in fact, make their own good decisions? AND this is really the worst time for them to be trying this, with the (admittedly myopic) eyes of the USDOJ, among others, gazing down upon them?
Okay, that's my rant for the day. Thanks for paying attention...I'll be here until Saturday. Don't forget to tip your waiter.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
It makes a certain amount of sense. (to me at least) It even makes sense that AOL will keep funding development it to keep Microsoft honest.
Of course this does make it a little tough to figure out who the good guy is here...
I understand and appreciate that point of view. I've done my fair share of web development with netscape and have been just as fed up as others with all of it's crap.
However, I can't agree with that point of view simply because I don't use windows. I have used IE on friends and familly's windows machines and I agree that it rocks. But the more I see web pages come up with messages that say "Get with it! Netscape is dead! Switch to IE like the rest of the world!" the more angry I get.
You see, I can't switch to IE because I choose to not use a system on which IE is available. I agree that this is my choice and I have to live with the consequences. But please realize that not everyone can "get with it" because not everyone uses winblows. Maybe 95% do, but I am in that 5% that actually likes to get some work done. If you don't want to support me that's your choice, just realize that I can't "get with it" like you suggest I do.
And I realize that you personally have probably not done something like what I have mentioned. I just felt that this was an appropriate opportunity to express how I feel on that issue :O)
However, the desire for an IE for Linux has encouraged me to start the Cheetah Web Browser project.
--
Garett
AOL has been bundled with Windows since 1996 . Why is this news now? AOL 6.0 and XP are just upgrades.
sulli
RTFJ.
AOL knows their customers pretty well. The average AOL user is stuck with a sub 200 MHZ machine with about 32 megs of ram. Can you imagine running Mozilla on that? I have a 800 with 756 megs of ram and it clunks along when I try to use Mozilla. Also, AOL knows that their most avid and populous users are not computer literate. They would not want a drastic change in browser or functionality. KISS has made AOL billions and IE as much as I hate to say so is the best browser around.
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
Sounds like Microsoft is going to tie AOL into their system to suck them in. Then as people "graduate" to the real internet, it'll be an easy transition to MSN.
It's a good move for Microsoft, because AOL users would more likely get XP, since there would be no need for them to install the AOL client.
It's a verrry bad move for AOL, because in doing so they are exposing themselves to the "I hate XP and therefore I hate AOL" mentality. Childish if you ask me, but then we're talking about the general public.
As far as the other stuff AOL owns (Winamp and the like), I don't see AOL pulling the plug. AOL will feel it needs to remain more than a virtual subdivision of MS on the XP desktop.
For Netscape, couldn't care less, since Netscape no longer exists as an independant company.
As far as Mozilla is concerned, they need to ink a deal with SONY to be on the playstation.
That'll mean that every (nearly) 10-14 years old will get the Mozilla browser along with their game box (and isn't that what most home PCs are for these days?
"Piter, too, is dead."
If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.
--
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Better yet, just turn away anybody who isn't using your favorite browser from your sites. It saves both you and the web browsing public a lot of trouble.
I don't think it's much better than Konqueror or the latest releases of Mozilla. IE is faster on low-end hardware, but that's easy to fix, and IE has its own set of really annoying behaviors.
There's actually an interesting strategic reason that they purchased Netscape--so that AOL could couple advertising with its browser:
AOL shelled out 4.2 billion for Netscape (in a common stock transactaion). At the time of the acquisition, Netscape had an installed user base of 28 million users worldwide. Divide that and you come out with $150 per person. They couple the browser with AIM--whose user base had exploded to 35 million users, and was rising fast--in order to attract more users to AIM. Stick the ads for AOL on those and in Netscape, and you have one very large way of putting eyeballs on your advertisements, at a very low dollar per capita rate.
Interesting that it all comes down to marketing your product.