AOL Drops MSIE for Netscape in Mac OS X Beta

Kitzilla writes "AOL introduces an 'Aquafied' client for Max OS X, and pulls the plug on Internet Explorer. It's AOL for Mac, Version 2: now with a tasty Gecko filling." news.com has a story. I wonder if Mac OS X will ever ship with a Netscape/Mozilla browser. I wonder if Mozilla will be shipped with Windows clients in the future. I wonder if this will pave the way to a a full-fledged Linux version of AOL. I wonder if this will ignite another AOL/MS war. I wonder how 24 will end this Tuesday.

Comments

Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[jdb8167]

This could be a very bad thing for the Mac in general and OS X in particular if AOL doesn't actually switch their Windose users too.

I use Mozilla and love it but it isn't nearly compatible enough with the lousy websites out there for your average AOL user to use.

Now if they do the same for AOL on MSFT Windows then that is a whole different story. That is a very good thing because it will force many of those poorly designed websites to actually do W3C compliant sites. That will be good for everybody except Microsoft's monopoly.

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Dephex Twin]

This could be a very bad thing for the Mac in general and OS X in particular if AOL doesn't actually switch their Windose users too.

This is a *very* good point. If AOL moves itself completely over the Mozilla, then that will probably force a change in the compatibility of lots of websites. But if AOL only moves its minority of OS X users, those users will just feel alienated, and perhaps go for the "superior" Windows version, and therefore an x86 box.

So this is actually almost bad news, unless we're just seeing a preview of what is going on in all versions of AOL.

mark

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Dark Paladin]

I wrote about this this morning, reposted here:

As reported on The Register, which was really a repost of an article from Compuwire, AOL has announced that in its next upgrade to their AOL client for Apple's OS X, it will use Netscape by default. (And just for those who want another link, Spider-Man is cool).

Most people (well, me) assume this means that AOL is using the Macintosh crowd as a testing base, then will make the same move on the Windows side of things by changing their PC client's default from IE to Netscape. The move won't really hurt Microsoft - it will still own 80% of the browser market, and since both Netscape and Internet Explorer are free, neither company will start having shifts of money.

But this isn't so much about money, as it is about control. AOL knows that their are two reasons Microsoft pushes Internet Explorer. Control of standards, and control of eyeballs. With every Windows computer that ships, it has Internet Explorer on it. And it's home page is MSN, Microsoft's media system.

Control the Eyeballs!

Netscape, by comparison, points to Netscape.com - which contains the collective linked knowledge to all things AOL/Time Warner. Links to news articles on CNN, Cartoon Network, and all else.

It's about the eyeballs. AOL wants you to see Time/Warner stuff, Microsoft wants those eyeballs to check out MSN. Both companies have a lot to gain by keeping your attention. AOL/Time Warner wants you to know all about their movies (like the upcoming Power Puff Girls movie, or their cable channels, or their electronic entertainment partnerships, or, just as important, keeping you signed up with AOL.

MSN has its wants, with its line of cable shows, plus all of the other Microsoft goodies, like Gamezone, Hotmail, Expedia and other services - which keep you plugged into the Microsoft system, and keeps those dollars coming in.

Control the browser, control the world

Just as important as the eyeballs is the technology that drives what they see. At last year's E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo), AOl and Sony demonstrated using AOL on the Playstation 2 system, at the same time that Sony talked about running Linux on the Playstation 2. Now, almost a year later, Sony is getting ready to start shipping their hard drive/Ethernet/modem combo unit for $150. And AOL sees a large market place - one where there are more TV's than computers, and a $200 Playstation 2 in plenty of homes.

Odds are, Microsoft isn't going to make Internet Explorer for the Playstation system (not with their own Xbox on the market) - let alone for Linux. But since AOL has been sponsoring the creation of Mozilla, the Open Source browser Netscape is based on. Mozilla has been ported to nearly every operating system in existence - Linux, Macintosh, Solaris, and, of course, Windows. And across all operating systems, it provides the same look and feel - so now it doesn't matter what operating system you're using to surf the web/check your mail/chat with your friends on - Netscape looks the same. And you can bet it will be easy enough to develop and port to the Playstation 2 as well.

The implications could drive a shift of development. Suppose you're a web developer at this second, and you want to make sure people visiting your web page see all the whiz bang stuff. Right now, you spend most of your time making sure that Internet Explorer sees the page perfectly - then concentrate on the other browsers out there. Microsoft is happy, because to make sure IE looks the best, odds are you'll use Microsoft technology, which means you're spending Microsoft money (note: not Microsoft Money - different thing).

Netscape, being built on Mozilla, is HTML 4.0 standards compliant. That means that anything written for Netscape is certain to work with every other browser out there - including Internet Explorer (as long as Microsoft codes IE to be fully HTML compliant).

So now the web developer, in a post AOL-switching-to-Netscape time, has a new choice. Program your web site for IE, then for all the others - or make your web site HTML 4.0 standards compliant, and know that all browsers will render it correct the first time. There will still be questions about plug-ins (like those who like to use Flash enabled web sites, but by changing that over to Java, which runs on as many operating systems as Mozilla, developers can code around that hurdle. HTML 4.0 standards mean that anyone's tools can be used - Open Source, proprietary, or otherwise. Which means less money to Microsoft, and more power everyone else.

Maybe the move to Netscape won't change the world overnight, or drive subscribers to AOL. But it keeps the competition between the two companies alive.

And for most of us, competition is a good thing.

As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.

Re:does anyone really care?

[Anonymous Coward]

IE is by far the better browser in terms of compatibility with the majority of websites. Mozilla is just not being developed fast enough.

Hmm... not sure if you are trolling or not. With that second sentence, I'd have to say yes. Anyway, when something doesn't work in Mozilla, but does in IE, it's 99.99% certain that it's a bug in the website code, where it isn't correct HTML/ECMAscript/CSS. So, a more accurate statement would be "IE is by far the better browser at guessing at what brain-dead authors meant to do."

Re:does anyone really care?

[drwav]

Anyway, when something doesn't work in Mozilla, but does in IE, it's 99.99% certain that it's a bug in the website code, where it isn't correct HTML/ECMAscript/CSS. So, a more accurate statement would be "IE is by far the better browser at guessing at what brain-dead authors meant to do."

This is absolutley correct, a lot of people at college used to start arguments with me about how IE is the best browser (I was using Netscape Communicator at the time, now I use Opera v6.02, thinking about trying Mozilla too). They always give me the argument that all websites work on it, when in reality it's all because IE is very forgiving on errors in the HTML code (one of my favs is when people don't have the closing </table> tag in a table. It displays fine in IE but it wouldn't display in Netscape because Netscape knew it was bad code)

Now I'm sure some of you are saying "the browser should be forgiving, a lot of people simply can't write W3C compliant HTML and I shouldn't have to miss out on their page just because my browser won't forgive a few mistakes" what I say to that is that forgiving browsers promote bad HTML coding (also the fact that most amature web designers only use IE to preview their sites doesn't help much either). Of course real pros know that not everyone going to their site is going to use IE and so they try very hard to make compliant code, but a lot of the internet isn't pro grade and unless people are forced to write proper HTML (just as programers are forced to write proper C code) then people will continue to make webpages that don't display correctly in all browsers.