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

[usr122122121]

According to the article at The Register, this is the result of Microsoft-AOL disputes. Here is a quote from that article:

AOL has been using IE for six years, since it inked a deal with Microsoft to use the software in exchange for AOL icons being placed on the Windows desktop. That deal expired in January 2001, and the companies decided not to renew it after disagreeing on terms such as the default media player.

This being the case, I would find it highly unlikely that this is just a Mac OS X change.

The way I see it, this is the first step for AOL to migrate over to Netscape (remember... AOL-Netscape?), their own browser on all of their supported platforms.

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Gogo Dodo]

Another /. article reported that AOL is testing the Gecko engine for their Windows client.

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:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Dephex Twin]

Yeah, I think I saw that. My money is on them changing everything, really. I just hope that they do it all at once. If there's a period of several months where Mac users have transitioned but Windows users haven't, it could be some bad PR as well (though not as bad if Windows eventually changed too).

mark

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[foniksonik]

This could have something to do with Apple being the first and only OS / Software company to be able to strike a deal with AOL on their chat software AIM.

With Jaguar/10.2's imminent release and iChat compatibility with AIM via mac.com usernames this could really have an interesting impact on the interoperability/integration of AOL services with the Apple/Mac initiative.

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[White Roses]

I think a lot of Mac users already feel alienated. Ever been to the Mac ghetto in Best Buy? Or CompUSA? Or any other electronics retailer? Mac users are shunned by most developers (not always because of the developers - Apple did it's share of shunning as well).

But with X, Mac users are seeing a resurgence in support, which is nice. Macs also, strangely, seem to be spearheading standards compliance in a variety of networked applications (Apple's proprietary stuff is still very proprietary, though).

On the other hand, AOL has always used Mac users as guinea pigs. AOL started out as a Mac program exclusively, and as time passed, support waned. Plenty of other companies followed suit: cut your teeth with great apps on a great system, then drop Mac support like a rabid weasel once you've made your money. Bastards.

Still, as a Mac user who has never used IE, I'm used to the alienation already. You can have my Mac when you pry the mouse from my cold, dead hand.

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Dephex Twin]

I think a lot of Mac users already feel alienated.

Yes, but I'm talking about potential first-time Mac users. This kind of person buys a Mac, gets AOL going, and then finds that many webpages that work on friends' PCs don't work on this Mac. This is the kind of alienation I'm talking about, not what hardcore Mac users have been feeling to different degrees for the past 10 years.

AOL has always used Mac users as guinea pigs

I wouldn't say that the initial release of AOL was using the Mac as a guinea pig. This was the early 90s-- Windows was not the totally dominant platform and was unarguably inferior to the Mac OS. So AOL was initially Mac-only because this made good business sense. Later they supported Windows, and then gradually Windows took a more dominant role in the market, and in AOL's support.

Anyway, my main underlying point is that having only the Mac version of AOL use Gecko IMO is bad, both for Apple and for AOL (though worse for Apple).

mark

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[White Roses]

I see your point. I just don't think it's as bad as it seems. AOL lives mostly off in it's own world, even now. What version of IE is under AOL? 4? Maybe 5? So it's already a dark horse in the world of IE. The change from dark horse to black horse isn't so bad, IMHO.

How many Mac users use AOL and IE 5.1 (which is installed on OS X)? I think (and this is just an assumption from a small set of known AOL users I deal with) that unless there is a specific web application that they must use, they'll stick with AOL's browser no matter how crappy it looks, and never venture forth to an external browser. I know a finite number of external browser users who are connected via AOL (why bother - Earthlink gives you that capability), and I don't think overall it's siginificant across all of AOL.

Apple will survive. It's prospects are looking up when all else in tech is looking down. AOL, I think, has more to lose by pushing Mozilla/Gecko than Apple does, because if they screw it up, the users will blame AOL, not Apple, since most Mac users can tell the difference between a program and an operating system (Hear that, Redmond? There is a difference!). If AOL is doing it, rest assured that they thought about it first and have a plan in mind. Transitioning Mac users is a test, primarily to see if they can support all the calls it might generate. Not really a good idea, a lot of Mac owners are self-supporting (we have to be). Once they see how easy it is, Windows will be next. Why else would they have thrown all this money at Netscape development?

In any case, let AOL screw up the Mac client. It won't be the first time, and maybe I can finally get the last holdouts off AOL once and for all.

Disclaimer: I don't use AOL or IE, so maybe I'm jsut wrong. I am self-supporting, and so proabably think a lot more people are than is the case, so maybe I'm just wrong there, too. I'm also a Mac user, so my view of reality is skewed from the get-go.

Re:Bad thing if it is a Mac only change

[Dephex Twin]

Well, I'm also not worried about major problems for Apple, whatever happens.

But I think that if only Mac changes to Mozilla, then at best it won't make a difference-- but it almost certainly it won't be a plus.

But if all of AOL changes over to Mozilla, then then that changes this possible bad into an almost certain good, for Apple and the Internet as a whole perhaps (except Microsoft).

mark

Re:I wonder....

[b_pretender]

Do you realize that writing is a form of expression?
Do you realize that many writers use these methods to this to stress a redundancy, stress an iterative process or just to make you think about what you are reading?
Do you realize that Pudge isn't CmdrTaco so that we can give him the benefit of the doubt?

Re:does anyone really care? Yes... tides change...

[metacosm]

"Compatibility with the majority of websites" is a function of popularity and user-base. Some Facts:

• When netscape 3.0 was the major player in the browser market, pages where built and tested against it, and sometimes tested against IE if the developers had the time.
  
• When IE and NS both had 30+% market share, all developers made _sure_ sites worked correctly on both browsers.
  
• As IE continued to gain market share (and because it was illegally bundled with the Operating System), developers started building more pages and only testing them against IE, because IE was _always_ going to be available on every windows PC, this trend is how IE became the dominate player in the browser space (it also, to be fair, had a very good, battle hardened development team who made amazing progress between versions 3 and 5).
  

I personally think Mozilla is making amazing progress, and with the Java and Flash plugins, there are very few websites it will not work with.
I was wondering if you could point out a few incompatable websites, so that I could yell at them about not working with my favorite browser.

Also, worth noting is some of the "better" things about Mozilla. Such as

• Tabs
  
• Themes
  
• IRC
  
• XUL (ability to build true, rich GUIs for apps)
  
• Control
  
• Download Manager
  
• Form Manager
  
• Cookie Manager
  
• Password Manager
  
• Open Source
  
• Bookmarks stored in single file (easy to share and put on the web)
  
• Easy ways to reign in bad websites (see the Advanced/Scripts section under options, it is easy to kill pop-ups, bad javascript and other icky stuff websites do)
  
• Cross Platform
  
• Free (on all platforms)
  

Re:does anyone really care?

[DavidRavenMoon]

At this time Microsoft already developed their IE for years and the initial code base has been bought from another company!

Thanks for bringing that up! The true irony, is that the company was Spyglass, and the code was for the Mosaic browser. Mosaic was of course bought by Spyglass from a company also called Mosiac that made a little web browser called Netscape! Another interesting tidbit, is that MS paid very little for the code, as they worked out a deal in which Spyglass would be paid royalties with every copy of IE that MS sold ... but then MS decided to give it away for free, and Spyglass gets nothing in return!

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.

Re:does anyone really care?

[Refrag]

You have you history of the Web browser a little confused. Spyglass made IE, yes. Mosaic didn't make Netscape. Netscape was started by a group of people that left NCSA's Mosaic team.

Re:does anyone really care?

[G-funk]

(one of my favs is when people don't have the closing tag in a table. It displays fine in IE but it wouldn't display in Netscape because Netscape knew it was bad code)

I love that argument. You can't seriously think that netscape detects the broken html and makes a political decision not to show it! A missing could distort your page on IE. In netscape it would crash the browser. Obviously this shows that netscape was a superior product. One crashes, user gets pissed off with the browser, the other just goes on fine, user doesn't even know the html is bad. Yup, I can tell you which I'd rather be using.