Slashdot Mirror
AOL/Microsoft Talks Break Down
andres32a writes: "AOL-Time Warner and Microsoft talks over including AOL in the upcoming Windows XP have broke down. Get the scoop here." There's also a similar BBC article - this is a follow-up to this previous slashdot story, which reported that AOL and Microsoft had reached a deal. My guess: they're still going to reach a deal. AOL has too much to lose if their software isn't pre-installed, it was their key to success in the first place. And Microsoft has too much to lose if AOL moves over to a Netscape-based client.
Wow...two huge evil companies can't reach an agreement to promote a crappy online service on a crappy OS. Who the fuck cares?
What did you expect?
MS bought/built IE because MSN was a failure.
Plan A was always to use the OS monopoly to steal AOL's proprietary 'online' business. But that didn't work, because Netscape came along and changed the rules. And AOL was quicker to adapt to the change.
And all that talk of Netscape/Java/middleware really scared them.
So... Plan B. Kill Netscape and Java in the short term. Then use the OS monopoly to beat AOL at the internet game. So we got IE, bundling and the DOJ. They gave AOL desktop placement for one reaon only. To get the AOL minions converted over to IE.
Mission accomplished.
Netscape is no longer a threat to the desktop monopoly, and the Appeals Court looks ready to give them carte blanche on bundling of all sorts.
So there's no reason to offer AOL desktop placement any more. Whether they use IE or not. Now MS can get back to Plan A without the distraction of a threat to their monopoly. Bye-bye, AOL.
And for those of you who don't care because AOL's a big, bad corporation, well, nobody ever forced you to use AOL. But AOL's success is the best bet to preserve the last vestiges of the non-MS-dominated internet. I'd want them alive and healthy if I were you.
And before you start saying AOL got what it deserved for dealing with the devil, AOL needed that desktop placement. It's served them well, and there was no other way to get it. If the Appeals Court weren't so willfully blind (they're NOT stupid, just ideological), they'd have been able to stay on the desktop without IE. As it is, they're in trouble. But that doesn't mean they'd have been in any less trouble without the deal.
Judge Jackson was right, and the Court of Appeals is wrong, regardless of any interview Jackson gave. They and we all know it!
AOL didn't buy Netscape for the browser. They bought netscape for the Netscape.com portal and its users. AOL doesn't care about technology (as is immediately evident from their service) - all they care about is the number of users they have, and the number of those users that they can charge a monthly fee. Whether or not their stuff runs on Microsoft software, or Netscape sosftware or on Mrs. Jone's apple tarts, they don'e care...
Correct. However, they could change XP's implementation of Win32 API to, for example, check window title for a word "Mozilla", and if so, insert random bytes in code from which API function was called from.
Opinions are mine only and could change without notice.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
"expected lackluster uptake of XP"
Would this be anything like the expected lackluster uptake of Win95 or Win98 which completely dominated after being released?
There is no expected lackluster uptake of Windows XP. The expectation is everyone will upgrade to it.
You are confusing Office XP with Windows XP. The two are not the same product.
"a good 1/3rd of my software doesn't run on it at all or well"
Now you are aware that Linux and OS/2 software is not designed to run under Windows?
Right?
In my experience, IE is as flaky as Netscape. It's not so bad that an unclosed bold tag will crash it, but if you are running your CPU at 100% and start up IE, IE will STAY at 100% CPU until you kill it from the command line. You get the operating system high and IE will never come down.
I try to use Mozilla and Netscape exclusively now, simply because when IE pulls cute stunts like this, it's never predictable what will happen when I kill it. Maybe it will crash the OS, maybe not. I'd rather suck consistently.
I'd be willing to bet that AOL has been busy porting the entire AOL client software package to something based on XUL and Gecko. I had heard a rumor that this was happening, and that because of the "chinese finger trap" contract with Microsoft, that the one they had in the test lab actually used Mozilla for everything except web browsing -- how ironic! If negotiations have broken down, then they'll be able to go with an all-Mozilla solution. Look at the benefits:
- The popular AOL client software is now free of all that legacy crap they've been working with for the last decade -- it's now very dynamic and extensible.
- It's now portable. America Online users will now have the same online experience, whether they're on a Winbox, a Mac, a set-top box, a kiosk, or a portable tablet type of thing. And the work required to make it run on generic Linux machines is so trivial, that they just might say "what the hell" and release one.
- Let's not forget that you don't have to go through Microsoft anymore to get on the Windows desktop. AOL can make preload deals with the major manufacturers of home computers and get that icon on the desktop anyway.
I think that AOL is better off without Microsoft. And the computer using population is certainly better off with some real competition on the Internet.--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Microsoft is.
Mozilla startup speed was improved recently when they made the JVM load only when required.
I use IE 5.5 at work all day long on my WinNT PIII 450 w/256MB RAM.
Among other things, I do some web development, so the browser is running pretty much all day long.
Every so often IE goes "funny" and sucks up 100% of the CPU. At this point I have to kill iexplorer.exe. Then, because it does other thing to my taskbar etc., I have to restart Windows.
That's th astiest. More often, it GPF's when browsing or relaoding. I'd say it does this about 3 times a day, and that it does the CPU trick once or twice a week. If I'm using IE heavily I have to reboot several times a day just to keep the machine running nicely.
Now, Mozilla still isn't quite as stable as IE 5.5 for me, but I NEVER have to reboot the OS when it goes down, and it isn't _that_ much slower than IE 5 when up and runnning. I'll admit that IE 5.5 is a better browser _now_, but it is by no means perfect. Given how much Mozilla has improved WRT speed and stability on both Lnux and Win in the last month or two I'm no longer so sure that IE will remain the undisputed champ even on Windows.
And then there's non-MS platforms. Yeah, well Mozilla ought to take over on those systems pretty quickly..
Anyway, it ain't prefect, but neither's IE. I don't like either AOL or MS much, but at least we get the code with Mozilla...
Hey, whatever happedned to the attempt to GPL Mozilla?
Ben
I'm not so sure that AOL really needs MS to preinstall AOL in XP. AOL has, what, 30 million subscribers, by now?
I think that the market for "newbie Internet surfer" is at, or near, the saturation point anyway, so I don't think it's that important for AOL to be preloaded on XP, any more.
Also, take into account slowing PC sales; the expected lackluster uptake of XP; constant rumors of AOL coming out with a standalone AOL network appliance, and suddenly the Win desktop doesn't look as important to AOL as it once did before.
I think MS is being stupid for haggling over the Media Player issue. Suddenly having 30 million desktops running Mozilla doesn't really do much good for the "embrace and extend" project...
---
I think that the market for "newbie Internet surfer" is at, or near, the saturation point anyway,
The market is no where near the "newbie internet surfer" saturation point. There are hundreds of millions of North Americans without Internet access. However, in the context of Windows XP this means nothing, because the bulk of the people currently without Internet access would never use anything as unreliable and complicated as a PC to access information resource and services.
AOL will someday break the remainder of the market, probably when they starting giving away wireless information access devices for free or cheap when they charge for their service. M$ can't break into the remainder of the "newbie" market because their executives are too scared to do anything that might not promote the desktop bloatware model that has been so rewarding to their investors.
I read the first line of this story and thought: This reminds me exactly of the sort of news you'd see on CNN, describing peace efforts between two conflicting nations. Does that frighten the shit out of anyone else?
Luckily, AOL and Microsoft aren't nuclear powers. Yet.
Not sure how that possibly got a +5, Insightful, but here goes.
MSN which isn't very popular anyway
Hmm, unless Juno has more subscribers (I don't have their numbers), MSN has the second largest base of U.S. subscribers. Guess it's not all that unpopular after all.
Given that it's Time Warner-AOL who have stopped the talks, not Microsoft
None of the linked articles say this. Where are you getting this from?
with ICQ/AIM they already own instant messaging
I wouldn't shed too many tears for Microsoft here. MSNM has now had more users than AIM for a couple of months now. AOL wouldn't be doing so much whining about instant messaging lately if they really owned the market.
have a HUGE base of AOL users whose switch from IE to Netscape would be a major defeat for Microsoft
Huge? The AOL browser client has less than 6 percent of the browser marketshare.
Sorry if it hurts the Mozilla fans' sense of self-esteem, but the browser that the AOL client uses is a very minor issue in this deal. AOL in fact worried about alienating their customers by downgrading them to Mozilla, and unfortunately for them, Microsoft knows this, which means that there is no browser bargaining chip. The disagreements have more to do with multimedia and the DoJ than any non-existant browser war.
Cheers,
Actually the AOL client browser has less than 6 percent of the browser marketshare. A lot of AOL users don't use the client to browse the web, they use IE or Netscape. The point you bring up about MS-only extensions is a good one, but I think you have it a bit skewed. The most important issue about it is that AOL is scared to death that if they start using a Mozilla-based client instead, their customers are going to go nuts that they can't view some of their favorite web sites anymore, and that this will be a really bad time for pissed-off customers coming on the heels of their pricing increase combined with the new MSN program targetting pissed off AOL users by giving them free months and a price cut.
Cheers,
What strong-arming? Seeing as there aren't clients on the install disc for the thousands of ISPs out there, AOL is looking for a special benefit — having their client being one of the handful that are on the disc. In return, why shouldn't they give up something for the right? If they don't want to, why should they get the benefit that all those thousands of other ISPs aren't getting? Seems like it would be unfair to the other guys.
Cheers,
But having more users, which ICQ and AIM does combined, doesn't mean that they own the IM market and don't have anything to worry about, which was the point I pasted and was countering. It's like saying that Netscape owned the browser market when they were at 65 percent and dropping.
As to that second thing you asked about, it's a fact.
Cheers,
Earthlink is tiny? They're the number 3 ISP. MSN has slightly more users.
MSNM doesn't have the same number of users as AIM, it has more.
The 6% for the AOL client browser doesn't forget anything, it is what it is. The 25M you mention is a big number (I believe it's actually closer to 30M now), but the subset of people who use the AOL client browser is smaller — many use the standard IE and Netscape instead. Whether AOL switches to a Mozilla/Gecko-based client or continues with the IE-based client, why would all these people already using the browser of their choice start using the AOL client browser instead? AOL distributing a standalone (non-AOL client) isn't relevant here, because XP will already be shipping with IE6.
I don't think the browser is significant, and AOL has better forms of leverage. One is that Microsoft wants AOL to switch from Real Media to using Windows Media. WM doesn't have nearly the position in the market that IE has; I don't know if they even have 50% yet. Another is that Microsoft wants MSNM users to be able to communicate with AIM users; as we've both said, MSNM definitely doesn't have 50% in the overall IM market. Another leverage point is that Microsoft would like AOL to quit complaining to the DoJ every other week (although AOL would probably like Microsoft to keep quiet about any talking it's doing to regulatory bodies vis-à-vis AOL-Time Warner doings). Microsoft has over 80% browser marketshare even when the AOL client users are taken out of the equation (it's about 86% when you include them), that's why these other things are a higher priority.
Cheers,
Yeah, there's all sorts of wheelin' and dealin' going on there. I'm not specifically aware of any broadband talks being part of the discussion, but I'd think that'd be another point of dealing.
As far as your other point, I'm pretty much of the opposite opinion. I think the free market should decide the IM and streaming media segments, not the DoJ. Microsoft spent their own money on the development of their Windows Media codecs, so it doesn't seem fair that they'd have to give the technology away for free. They already do license out the technology, which is why other players can use Windows Media files. So it's not something that they're restricting to Windows Media Player only.
It's just like Apple QuickTime and their Sorensen codec. A lot of people complain about having to install QuickTime whenever some new Star Wars trailer comes out, but Apple's spending their own money to license the codec in their own QuickTime player, so I think it's their right to restrict it to those people using their software. I don't like the QuickTime player — I actually hate having to install it, because it has a reputation for mucking things up — but I've got it installed anyway so that I can view certain things, and I don't have any qualms with Apple making me do that. Same with the Real Player. I'm not too fond of it, but I can't listen to my Phil Hendrie archives without it, and I know that it cost Real a good bit of money to create it, so I install it without any bitterness.
As for Real, I don't think they need to think about giving away the store. They should just keep producing their software, and having it (it being both the player and the server software) run on platforms that Windows Media isn't available on is a decent selling point for them. They won't be going away anytime soon anyway, because they've got some good content lined up, especially with their exclusive deals with certain major sports leagues.
Cheers,
No such luck. It works like the hydra. Kill one and two more grow in its place.
I'd say that both Microsoft and AOL used the 'negotiations' at the very least as an opportunity to get inside information on the other company. What better way to find out what the competition is doing than doing it in the name of 'joining forces' with them?
FWIW, I view the term "coopetition" the same way I view "frenemies". They're still out to screw you, and a short-term boost isn't worth it in the long run.
Stability of NT? You haven't tried it, have you? Ugh... a good 1/3rd of my software doesn't run on it at all or well...
Microsoft engineered the dot com crash eh?
Funny, but it looked like a classic Wall St. bubble to me. Maybe Microsoft engineered the biotech crash of a few years back, and also have aliens been kept alive in the basement at Redmond.
Considering the amount of money, rebates and restructurings they've invested in MSN, I'd say it's doing pretty badly. MSN has about 5M users, same as tiny Earthlink, while AOL had 25M+ as of sometime late last year.
If MSMN has the same number of users as AIM, then that still puts them at less than half of AOL's AIM+ICQ user base, which is split about exactly 50/50.
Your AOL browser client 6% market share conveniently forgets that for years AOL has been available as a straight ISP and distributes IE under a previous agreement. With 25M AOL users, and only 50-60% of the 100M US households net connected, I'd say that's pretty damn significant!
You don't think the browser used by AOL is significant here... that what exactly else do you think is the leverage AOL is using, as a direct competitor to MSN, to get on the Windows desktop?!!!
Slashdot may be anti-Microsoft, but if you want to defend them then at least try to use some real fascts!
Interesting - thanks. It Microsoft and AOL do come to an agreement over streaming video and IM standards, then I'd like to see the DoJ step in and force them to open these standards. That'd be a tough combination for providers to ignore and continue to support competetive standards. Probably the smartest thing Real could do would be to open up their standard which would widen their user base and possibly sucker Microsoft into supporting it.
You've got a point there!
Still I think the browser does give AOL a lot of leverage because if your 100 free hours AOL coaster automatically installs and uses Netscape/Mozilla, then I think there are going to be a lot of AOL users who will simply use it. Apparently the reason so many people use archaic browsers is because they just used whatever came with the OS/whatever, and never consider to switch or upgrade.
I'd really like to see instant messanging and streaming video become standardized. They're really no different than the telephone or television - they're part of our national infrastructure (as, for that matter, are electronic interchange/document formats).
Because it's more strategic to them to attempt to subvert the web to IE standards (under the agreement AOL would use IE vs their own Netscape), than to try to make a few bucks off MSN which isn't very popular anyway.
Given that it's Time Warner-AOL who have stopped the talks, not Microsoft, it seems apparent that everyone knows who has the upper hand. Time Warner is obviously a formidable competitor even for Microsoft, and with ICQ/AIM they already own instant messaging and have a HUGE base of AOL users whose switch from IE to Netscape would be a major defeat for Microsoft who are continuing to struggle to have any kind of success in the internet arena other than IE's popularity.
I'm guessing Microsoft are going to back down.
Microsoft: So what we'll do is split the market so you get to put Netscape/Mozilla on Unix + PS2 etc and we'll only put IE on Windows platforms.
AOL: OK.
:-)
Considering that IE has a market share of over 75% and Mozilla and Netscape 6 *COMBINED* have less than 0.5%, I think maybe you should wait a little before you announce Mozilla as "the new king".
What? Does everyone's choice of browser really mean that much anymore? I mean, I know MS likes to dominate every last possible interface and platform to the full extent of their abilities, but the browser wars seem to be over. Back when Netscape and MS were going for each others jugular, their was the percieved danger of Netscape being some kind of new platform for software development. That does not seem all that great a threat nowadays. So, what is the big deal from MS's standpoint?
Wir mussen wissen. Wir warden wissen. I am a wuss
"Besides, MSN is already running specials to sign up people who are pissed that AOL raised its rates."
All the more reason it would be suicide for AOL to sign any deal with MS. MS is a monopoly competitor with unlimited funds. They can (and will) crush AOL and any deal AOL cuts with MS will only hasten that day. I say go out fighting and don't lay down and let them kill you easy.
War is necrophilia.
They have what amounts to an unlimited funds. That is to say they have more money then you and more money then AOL.
Having absolute control over the internet is not being stupid. Once MS convinces AOL to stick with IE and use MS media then MS will have locked up the internet. Nobody will be able to do anything if they don't have MS software. I think that is a goal worth spending your cash on and so does MS.
War is necrophilia.
Sorry, they beat you to it. You can get AOL over RoadRunner (at least in the central florida area), it does cost more though, so all they really would have to do is start loss leading to smash the telcos. Scary, scary stuff.
The NYT article is located here: article.
Ever get the feeling that Microsoft was that kid who knew the only way to win at Monopoly was to refuse to deal with any of the other players? Tis ironic really, my great grandpappy got gypped by the Parker brothers precisely because he didn't want to deal with them gits.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Microsoft would never stoop so low as to hurt the technological medium with underhanded tactics.
Why just look how netscape...
Hrm...
What about their excellent mail client that is virtually bu...
Hrm....
Still we see an excellent server platform that will bring the internet to much broader horiz...
Well, shit, there goes the planet.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I find this really bizarre - Microsoft took *more* than three years to produce IE5, and considering mozilla will be more of a technical accomplishment than IE6, I think the speed of development is really quite impressive.
/won't/ use Netscape, and they won't use Mozilla - they'll embed Gecko (which has been working very nicely for over a year) into their own client.
Secondly, AOL
No, Mozilla doesn't 'try to do everything IE5 does' - it tries to do a LOT more. And it's getting to the stage where it can do this. All I'm saying is that on pure technical achievement Moz is impressive, not that it's super-stable IN ITS PRE-RELEASE STATE.
And no, IE *ISN'T* portable. A browser called 'IE' has been written for a number of different platforms. The Unix version is basically no longer being developed, and the Mac version, which is much nicer than the Windows version (but slower, according to some sources), but very different, has basically only just arrived. There is a very big difference between someone writing an application for a number of different platforms, and actually creating it almost totally cross-platform. The most important evidence you'll see of this is that when Moz 2.0 come out, it will be quickly ported to about 20 platforms. Why? Because the foundations will already be there, and you have to do very little to get it to work on one platform if it already works on another. The same is NOT true of IE.
What does Mozilla do that IE can't? Let's see. *FULL* standards compliance. It is a full email client. It has a nice WYSIWYG / HTML editor. It has an IRC chat client. It should soon have crash protection, which will resurrect what you were doing in case of a crash. It has very easily customised and created versatile sidebars. It will apparently soon have stop and resume buttons for downloads. It is very easily themeable, and there is a theming engine built upon it. There is an entire perl / python development environment built on it. Etc. Etc.
Fine, some of these may sound tiny, but many are only possible because of the way it has been written. And that is what I mean by technical accomplishment - to build something so versatile and powerful is very impressive, IMHO...
Whether it is execute as well is simply a different question, but it certainly is an IE5 level product - i.e. they're the same generation.
It's a little rich to argue that Netscape abandoned the users that they had built up by practically inventing the popular, easy browser. It's a lot easier for someone to jump on the bandwagon than to invent a whole new paradigm.
How is Mozilla more of a technical accomplishment? It'll have full standards support, it is cross-platform and very portable, and this is down to the fact that it is an entire platform (like it or loathe it), rather than just a browser, it is very modular, e.g. the rendering engine can be embedded into tiny devices, showing things just as on any other, and I personally think it's very intelligently designed, from the ground up. Regardless of whether you like it or not, most criticism is that Mozilla isn't just doing what IE does, but doing a great deal more - and I'm not convinced you can deny that this ambitious foray won't produce somehting more technically accomplished than IE...
I for one hope that they don't come to an agreement. That way we'll see Mozilla on a lot of desktops. Even if they were to include an crappy release like Netscape 6, they're AOL users, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Right?
Seriously though, it would be nice to see Mozilla get some marketspace this way and it is getting good enough (especially speed-wise on Windows, Linux needs tuning) that most people would be happy with it. XP is not going to be running on your P166, so the requirements are going to be fine and I doubt most AOL users upgrade all that often. From what I've heard from some Mozilla developers, the AOL folks hate Microsoft with passion, so don't be suprised if they stick with their horse rather than ally with the evil empire.
So if the negotiations break down, IE won't be the browser-of-choice on AOL software, and AOL will use Netscape 6.
However, even though Mozilla 0.9 is pretty decent, Netscape 6 is still pretty hideous. I know someone's going to reply with "butbutbut I downloaded the Nightly Builds, and they ROCK", but from my user perspective, both Mozilla and Netscape need work.
And from reading the previous Mozilla article "Mozilla 1.0 Delayed Again", some people think that Mozilla needs more resources (People to do more QA, documentation, programming, etc) to reach it's quarterly deadline. AOL can supply some of this labor.
This could be a boon for the Mozilla project, right?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
In the next version of AOL, AOL 7.0, they are working on making it where you can choose which browser you want to use. I have an early leaked version, and even though I don't think its implemented yet, it's definately on their todo list.
Like What? The MS browser is GIVEN away, they make no money on it, it carries no advertising. Its already on the platform, so just what does MS have to lose?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
did you *ever* wrote a line of code? (I chose not to correct your syntax.)
I ask the same of you. I can do anything with code, given enough time. That includes altering parts of the API so it messes up for 1 application or all applications.
The worst part about MS's control of the API, is that to the user, Netscape/Mozilla crashed even though Windows/MS caused it to crash.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
You bring up an interesting point. Just what the hell has the acquisition of Netscape gotten for AOL? Was it so they would have a bargaining position when Microsoft saw that they had an alternative to IE? That seems an expensive price to pay, to me.
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
It just seems a damn shame to me that the success of products is not determined by their quality but instead by bundling deals such as this. If Mozilla/Real is better suited for AOL's needs and it's customers, why should they have to deal with this kind of strong-arming? A real world example of why monopolies are bad for everyone (except the monopoly).
A damn shame, really... I guess that's how the whole world works though, not just this industry.
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
--me
I Disagree. If AOL moves to Netscape exclusivly and Windows drops AOL from their install, that leaves MSN as the default "Online Service", running the "default" browser Internet Explorer. This would damage AOL/Netscape's market in a huge way, and play into MS's Domination strategy quite well.
-- mikeDOTd
AOL is the perfect example of a company that can be successful despite Microsoft. Say what you will about AOL, but the secret to their success was the fact that any idiot could plop a floppy into the drive and it "just worked". In fact, for a long time it was totally self contained -- it found the modem and used it's own communication software. No Internet setup, no TCP/IP setting, no nothing. Boom! You're connected.
You are right. For the nationwide ISP business, getting a user connected easily the first time is incredibly important.
Now think about how important it was to have an AOL icon on the first boot screen for every user of every flavor of Windows. Combine that with their streamlined sign up process, and you have a major reason for their success.
Clearly the market is changing, and having that icon is not worth what it once was. People have name-brand recognition of ISPs, and there are other ways to reach users. But, in marketing, you never want to cut off an advantage, especially one as prominent as being featured on every Windows machine.
And, in exchange, Microsoft is asking AOL to kill REAL. What is that called - when you give something to a competitor in order for them to hurt another competitor ?? Collusion ???
Microsoft: "You must use Windows Media exclusively, and ban Real Audio."
AOL: "We would like to use both"
Microsoft: "Unacceptable. You must also allow us access to your Instant Messenger."
AOL: "That's going too far"
Microsoft: "If you do not, then we will be forced to exclude AOL from Windows XP"
"We're disappointed that talks broke down"
--Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan.
Which one? There's only three left. Plus AT&T. And MCI sold GTE to Verizon. Qwest is talking with Microsoft. Sprint and Cingular?
Netscape tried that. Remember Judge Jackson's "findings of fact"
If the internet is Poland and Eastern Europe, what is the West?
Yeah, if P.T. Barnum's analysis is right, that only gives them one customer a minute. (Assuming no one ever stays a sucker, or reverts to moron or newbie-hood)
like Netscape
As much as I'd like to see AOL disappear, at least from my desktop when I install Windows XP, they aren't making any demands. They are asking to include their product in Windows, essentially, buying ad space (on your hard drive) from Microsoft, who is threatening to refuse their *right* to "fair" competition. It would be like all three major networks (NBC owns UPN and ABC owns WB) refusing to allow cable to buy advertizing (if the networks were all owned by one company, and if cable was owned by a different company)
It would be a different story if Microsoft did not allow advertising at all to be packaged with windows.
ps. DoubleClick is probably Microsoft's next target. Look for Eudora/Opera pioneered functionality in IE6
MS wants access to AIM...AOL says no...for now
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
I think Micrsosft really needs this deal with AOL, if only to look like they are being less monopolistic. If they put both MSN and AOL on the desktop it shows that they are not abusing thier monopoly, at least in the ISP area. It makes be wonder if AOL is holding that fact over Miscrsoft's head and making them jump through hoops to get this deal. I wonder how bad Microsoft really does need this deal.= \=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
Check this out. :-) (if you have QuickTime... no porn, but some "bad" language.)
--
--
I like to watch.
AOL may still be "#1", but as more people become Web-savvy, many will inevitably dump AOL for cheaper, more reliable ISPs. This is a pattern which many, many Slashdotters have followed -- you get a new PC, sign up for AOL, eventually learn what the hell you're doing and realize that AOL is crap, and get a regular ole' ISP account which, while crap, is an improvement in service for less money. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I can't believe that any business whose mission statement is "find morons and newbies and bill monthly them until they get a clue" will succeed in the long run. I hope that people eventually realize that AOL is just like Apple -- while some of their customers are professionals with legitamate reasons for needing the company's services, most are pre-teen girls and grandmas who are looking for the LCD path to computing.
--
--
I like to watch.
Microsoft is a software company. Though they do hardware and internet access, they still have their power and revenues mostly from software. Microsoft has MSN, has Hotmail, MSN messenger, all of that stuff, so that even if they don't eventually dominate in those areas, they have chips to bargain with.
AOL was an ISP, together with Time Warner, a media company. Yes, they bought Netscape, a software company. But their revenue certainly don't derive from selling software. They give their software away. Why did they buy Netscape? so they have something to bargain with, this includes AOL Instant Messenger.
I suspect that they both would continue investing in all those things, but it makes so much more sense for them to combine forces - Microsoft provides the software and platform, AOL provides the service. Neither one of them really need the non-core business that they got into. If they wanted, they could sell of their own portions of the non-core business to the other and still maintain some of the advantages, if they join forces. Is this likely to happen? Probably not. But if Microsoft has their way, joining forces with AOL will benefit both of them tremendously. Mozilla? Netscape? It doesn't matter. Who are the potential losers? us.
We will have less choices in things. Without AOL's support in Netscape and to a significant degree, Mozilla, the very likely scenario is that most future PCs will come bundled with Windows XP, AOL, IE, etc. That will become the "norm". If these two companies join forces with one of the baby bells, or if they figure out some other way to get to the broadband access user base as well, then they will be unbeatable.
Which should make you really glad that there has been so much work done on Linux and the Open Source front, as well as the technological advancements that is slowly but surely making the PC disappear.
Well, to be Devil's Advocate, why in the world should they know what OS they are operating? Do you know what brand of motor is pumping coolant in your fridge? It shouldn't be necessary for a consumer to have be a tech wizard to use a browser, tho of course it is.
:) Someday we won't need tech wizards to get the car moving, and then what happens to all the arrogant tech people? Who will they be calling ugly dates then? I think they might be the ugly dates at that point... careful where you point that metaphorical gun, it might be pointing the wrong way...
It's sort of like the early decades of autos, when everyone had to be a mechanic to get home from a field trip across town.
Well, enjoy the wizardhood
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
Yeah, right. If they wanted to use Netscape, wouldn't they just go out and buy Netscape, then promise to continue development even though they're reaching exclusive deals with MS?
- --
Oh, yeah.... Tried that once. heh.
-----------------------------------------------
newbie Internet surfer
you seem to think most people get past this...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
shouldn't that be "Time has very little to do with infinity and jelly donuts"?
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
I read the first line of this story and thought: This reminds me exactly of the sort of news you'd see on CNN, describing peace efforts between two conflicting nations. Does that frighten the shit out of anyone else?
.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
What a silly statement. That's like saying Toyota is struggling to have any kind of success in the automotive arena other than their cars' popularity.
For a more likely idea of Microsoft's internet strategy, try this.
GenChalupa
Excuse me, my Carl Segan Mark-7 baloney detector just blew a fuse, so you'll have to enligten me. (Yes, the Mark-12 is the latest one, but the Mark-7 has worked well till now. :) )
Do you mean;
Pick any if they apply...or offer one that you think is more appropriate.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Where we differ is that I think Microsoft has;
...a trivially easy way to distribute these destabilizing binaries in the future through Windows Update (soon to not require user intervention by default).
...motivation to do it (see other threads).
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Here's what to me seems damn obvious. Contrary opinions are welcome;
AOL is simply the latest in a long line of victims both from before and after Lotus. Sometime between XP's release and the next major revision of Windows, MS will...
The only reason they aren't doing this now is that they had/have contracts, and the DOJ case hasn't completely gone away -- though I expect that the good people at Microsoft are betting on it.
Does anyone honestly think it would be any different?
^ - There were different competitive word processors in 123's hayday. 123 dominated spreadsheets. True that Lotus didn't help itself, and had a poor transition to GUI versions of 123, and the failed attempt at getting people excited about Improv (a great program btw).
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
First, DR-DOS. I can't argue that this is a matter of a Windows API breaking code, but it is an example of Microsoft deliberately introducing an incompatibility for the sake of defeating competition. This page explains that it was likely that only developers and computer makers saw this message because the routine (which was encrypted to prevent easy discovery) to display it was disabled before Windows 3.1 went to market (it was only in a beta, as you claim, but it still did significant harm to DR-DOS because computer makers saw it). The message was still present in the shipped binary, disproving the Microsoft assertion that this was all an urban legend, and this page has a utility you can grab (in addition to the source code) to find the message in Windows 3.1. The page also mentions that Microsoft QuickC under DR-DOS would emit an ominous message (but would presumably still run). So you can't say that malicious coding has never been on their mind and you can't blame people for being a bit suspicious when things break strangely.
Another example, though one I'm less likely to attribute to malicious incompatibility for the reason I give at the top of this reply, can be found under 'Smothering Freeware' on this site. Equally interesting (and also mentioned on this page) was the breaking of Professor Felten's demonstration in the recent antitrust trial of Microsoft that Internet Explorer did not need to be integrated into the operating system for the operating system to function. Felten had to provide his program to Microsoft as part of discovery and at some point between then and the trial his program no longer functioned properly. There was some speculation that Microsoft deliberately broke the program, though I tend to believe that their updates just didn't take the functioning of this program into account because, by definition, Felten's program was trying to convert Windows 98 into a non-standard state.
Finally, Kerberos in Windows 2000. Though that was broken from the start (i.e., it wasn't a change to break existing software on Windows), one could argue that it was specifically broken to discourage compatibility of a nature Microsoft didn't want between their system and competitors' systems. Or one could argue that Microsoft liked the technology but didn't want to invest any more effort into development than was necessary to meet their goals (compatibility with other Win2k, whatever other compatibility exists is purely a bonus). Discussion here (search for 'Kerberos') suggests that the incompatibility is a benign by-product of innovation. This (search for 'clickwrap') suggests that it wasn't... putting the specification of the Microsoft changes to the protocol under NDA clickwrap forces an incompatibility between standard Kerberos and MS Kerberos. A matter of perspective, to be sure, but a reminder that seamless compatibility is hardly a priority.
---
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
AOL was succesful long before it was pre-installed on any OS, and MSN was pre-installed on an OS before AOL, yet it doesn't have 25 million subscribers... I'm not saying preloading hasn't helped them, but to give it all the credit for their success is going too far. No, for that we have to give credit to the limitless stupidity of the public at large...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Of course, if AOL and MS don't settle, AOL will wind up having to carpet-bomb all its current subscribers with special "AOL eXtreme uPgrade" CDs.
As far as the IE/Mozilla situation, I think it's much ado about nothing. I fail to see how my usage or non-usage of IE would affect Microsoft's revenue stream one iota. IMO, AOL holds two cards which keep their vast clientele subscribed: their buddy lists and their chat rooms. Everything else, browser, keyword, media player, is immaterial.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Incidentally, AOL (v?)did not work with beta versions of WIN ME, I wonder if this situation will be any different. It would be nice to see a MS vs AOL TW lawsuit. Hundreds of lawyers on both sides...
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off hyper caffeineated
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off hyper caffeineated
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
It would only be natural for Microsoft to be yanking AOL's chain right about now. They have just spent I believe $20 million in a campaign to steal AOL's customers. Why should they put AOL on their desktop?
And as someone who has done support for ISP customers, I've personally experienced the pain of trying to remove both AOL and MSN from a users system. And the sad truth is that removing AOL is like cutting butter with a warm knife compared to removing MSN.
Once you have MSN on your system it floods your registry with all sorts of keys and don't even get me started on the DLL's it installs. Personally, as much as I don't care for AOL, I hope they are able to keep themselves bundled with Windows and keep MSN a minor player in the ISP field.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
AOL has little to lose in the deal -- if they want their software on systems, they can just pay OEMs to put it there. And Microsoft doesn't have a ton to lose either -- they can't use AOL as a marketshare crutch forever; all Microsoft cares about is ensuring that Netscape doesn't get a monopoly on browsers which would create a viable middleware platform.
AOL has too much to lose if their software isn't pre-installed, it was their key to success in the first place.
Huh? Michael, AOL's success owes nothing to being pre-installed on Windows. Or didn't you receive one of the endless AOL floppies/CD-ROMs?
In fact, Slashdot's mocking of AOL to the contrary, AOL is the perfect example of a company that can be successful despite Microsoft. Say what you will about AOL, but the secret to their success was the fact that any idiot could plop a floppy into the drive and it "just worked". In fact, for a long time it was totally self contained -- it found the modem and used it's own communication software. No Internet setup, no TCP/IP setting, no nothing. Boom! You're connected.
In fact, this should be a lesson to the Linux-on-the-desktop crowd about how to beat Microsoft. Make it simple enough, and the world will beat a path to your door. The other example is Apple, whose simplicity has kept them alive despite high prices, incredible arrogance, crapping on their developers, decade-behind-the-times software (up until recently), poor selection, on and on. The only thing they had going was simplicity, and it has kept them alive this long.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If AOL needs a new browser why not Opera? Opera is very fast, relatively small and reliable, the latest version even has a built in ICQ client. And I'm sure Opera would like a new revenue source.
I don't understand why MS would preload AOL on XP when they are just starting to kick-off their new aggresive ad campaign for MSN.
This happens all the time on my coworker's machine. He insists on '98 because anything else is "too technical." IE can even be open beforehand, and then if you max out the CPU the whole shell crashes. I always give him such sh!t, but, actually, he still deserves it. And, I've seen this on W2K, too. So what happens when .NET starts going online? I kept wondering how M$ beat everyone else to market with WebDAV, and then I found out how their implementation doesn't really work.
However, I also think that every large company which offers such support for competing OSs on the desktop will make Linux work well on the desktop. (In the long run, it could undermine AOL's monopolistic tendencies as well if Jinx market share begins to equal Jabber developer share.)
I say, Hooray!!! One more possible attempt at collusion has failed!
And, BTW, I think that Linux IS ready for the desktop...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"AOL has too much to lose if their software isn't pre-installed, it was their key to success in the first place. And Microsoft has too much to lose if AOL moves over to a Netscape-based client. "
But those who want to see an open-standards-based, platform-independent Internet have much to gain if this deal permanently falls through. If AOL starts using Mozilla as its browser, that instantly creates a large user base for a non-Microsoft browser, reversing the strong trend towards Microsoft hegemony in that area. Meanwhile, if Microsoft stops bundling AOL in its operating system, fewer of the newbies will automatically sign up with them and fail to ever discover that AOL != The Internet. So AOL's and Microsoft's losses are gains for fans of a non-proprietary Internet.
--Dan
--Dan
Web Tips
For anyone that decides to get WinXP, there will be one less piece of crap they have to uninstall :-)
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
The King Is Dead (IE) all hail to the New King (Mozilla).
Who wanna guess how much IE's market share will plummet?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Ms doesn't have unlimited funds, they have pretty big reserves in cash, and more in non-liquid essests, but they certainly don't have unlimited funds.
More importantly, they won't spend unlimited money on lost causes. There is a difference between being a lossleader and being stupid.
Beside, AOL isn't your average innocent little company, you know.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
What XP means, in Mozilla's terminology?
Well?
Okay, I'll tell you.
Cross - Platform.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
You got it wrong.
AOL [ we contron the infromation resources]
MS [ we control the software ]
Intel [ we control the hardware ]
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Beside a really cool UI and the stability of NT.
Users don't care about the latter, but they sure do care about the former.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
DR-DOS, that was a beta version that poped an error message, wasn't it?
"Error 4463: Please call support." -- Number made up, I don't have *that* good a memory.
That wasn't present in the final, FWIW.
Blue mountian, no comment, I agree that it was wrong on MS side.
Breaking Felten's program is probably a side-consecques of the design of Windows.
Check Lotus & Sp6 for something similar.
Win2K & Kerebros, the protocol has a field for vendor spesific data, MS didn't extend it, the protocol's specification is flawed.
I understand that SP2 change it to the "normal" implementation.
Actually, I'm not arguing about whatever or not MS has shoddy bussiness tactics, I argue that they *can't* break Mozilla's compatability without breaking havoc on a lot of applications, including their own.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I'm sure AOL can come up with another way to get AOL to every human being in the world... How about this? Send installation discs through the mail to everybody with a mailing address. And then leave huge racks full of discs in stores and the sorts for the homeless! Sounds like a brilliant plan to me!
Just replace "Talks" with "Software" in the headline and you're good to go.
A second decade of excellence
Parish & Co. would tell you that AOL and MS won't work together because they are mortal enemies, since MS is killing AOL.
He may be viciously biased, but I like this guy. There's a refreshing purity to his sincere hatred. He's not promoting anything, just attacking MS, and he comes up with some good ammunition.
--
Hmm... AOL loses, Microsoft loses... why, that's good news for everyone! =^)
--
--
Mmm... delicious white marbles...
To be fair, AOL is probably one of the easier services for a novice to get up and running. To be realistic the service is garbage and most people realize this about the time they get a grip on the whole 'WWW' thing. It's kind of funny; I do tech support for a 'well known printer company'. After asking really open questions about the persons system and the issue they are having, I can guess whether they use AOL for an ISP or not with about 9*% accuracy based on the customers knowledge of simple questions like 'what OS are you using?' "i duno" 'what program did this happen in?' "i duno". My point (and I know you have been waiting for it) is that AOL is like an ugly date, it might kinda do what you had hoped for, but it sure as hell won't keep you coming back.