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

[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

[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: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!