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?

Comments

Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.
--

AOL is no fool...

[sterno]

AOL isn't stupid, they are hedging their bets and doing what they can to put themselves in an effective position to compete. The fact of the matter is that right now Microsoft runs the desktop of most consumers and so AOL is willing to make the sacrifice to go with IE in exchange for favorable positioning up front.

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.

---

Mozilla has done it's job....

[ajs]

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?

Re:Mozilla has done it's job....

[TheTomcat]

I don't mean to sound too much like a compsiracy theorist, but...

MS sets conditions, including IE (which I don't understand since the browser is no charge anyway-- I suppose this helps sell IIS on NT for the server side)

The biggest problem with IE dominance is this:
If the day ever comes that [someone like] MS controls [almost] 100% of the browser market, that puts them effectively also in control of the web server market, the content authoring market, the browser plugin market, etc.

Case in point: [Someone like] Microsoft controls [almost] all browsers. They decide to implement encryption/authentication in their browsers that only accept data from certain servers (ie, [something like] Microsoft IIS), effectively putting server authors who don't pay the [someone like] Microsoft Tax out of business. After all, who wants to run a server that won't talk to most browsers?

But there will always be open source projects that will be able to emulate these "privileged" servers, right? This situation is starting to remind me of the whole DeCSS debacle. The DMCA would protect [someone like] Microsoft's servers from being emulated.

It's only a theory, and not ENTIRELY possible, but definitely food for thought.

The story is INCORRECT!

[_egg]

The FULL quote excerpted in the story is this:

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.

Interesting

[sjbe]

Could it be that AOL never really intended to actually use Netscape/Mozilla? Perhaps they simply are developing it as a big stick to prod Microsoft into giving them a better deal. After all, 20+ million users switching browsers takes a huge chunk of the browser marketshare away from Microsoft. If Microsoft crosses them then voila, the switch browsers in AOL 7.0. If not, they just use the threat of it to get concessions from Microsoft.

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...

How about this:

[Burgundy Advocate]

Netscape is dead. Get over it. And not only that, they weren't killed off by some evil Microsoft empire--they were killed off because they released a shitty product and then let it stagnate. Netscape 4 was decent, years ago when it came out. 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.

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.

--