AOL Lays Off 50 Netscape Coders

xcable points out a CNET story which begins "America Online on Tuesday said it has laid off 50 employees involved in Web browser development at its Netscape subsidiary amid a reorganization of its Mozilla open-source browser team," and offers a reminder that "AOL recently made a deal with Microsoft to use IE in future AOL releases." This adds a bit more detail to yesterday's (updated) story about the establishment of the Mozilla foundation.

Comments

If...

[Soukyan]

If Mozilla surpasses IE in the next couple years, do you think AOL will try to bail on Microsoft? This could get interesting. The litigation is over for now so the browser wars must begin again... as if they ever ended.

Re:If...

[keith73]

It could happen. As Peter-Paul Koch theorized in this article (slashdot thread).
MS may lose ground in the browser market because they have frozen IE at version 6 SP1. The next version, 7 will only be available on the next Windows OS. With that a few years away, then the adoption of the new OS and browser taking another few years, the other browsers out there, Mozilla and Opera mainly, will make gains in the market because of standards, constant updates and new features being added, support for new technologies that may emerge in the next few years, etc.
In other words, IE will become the rabbit, taking a siesta under a tree while a bunch of turtles slowly creep by.

You can't simply dismiss the possibility with a wave of the hand.

- keith

Re:If...

[arth1]

You don't have to build a monolithic do-it-all middleware language parser in order to support stylable front-ends. What you DO need, and which Mozilla totally lacks, is a well-defined and specced down API.
The "pile some more pasta on the heap and hook up to whatever ends are sticking out" isn't a good programming design. Even if it covers a 5 lb XUL meatball.

I don't mean to troll here, but there ARE different methods of approaching projects, and I don't think the model of Mozilla is as good as, say, the Linux kernel model. Not because of lack of control, but because of a lack of a predefined API. Sure, XUL has it's own API, but it's more volatile than liquid nitrogen, and all the inconsistencies and lack of enforced limits make up a HUGE portion of the bugzilla bugs, causing delays and a product that's less than it could have been.

Personally, I'd like to see NO middleware layer, but a well-defined API that anyone can use, but so well defined that it can't be ABused, letting people write the frontend in anything they like from Motif/C to Tcl/Tk. Don't abstract the engine by layers of self-glorifying pork, but define the interfaces narrowly and specificly.

Finally, I'm sorry to see the job cuts, but as a business decision, I can fully understand why AOL decided on this. Much as I love Mozilla and Netscape, taking 7 years to produce something that's only marginally better, and only capturing a couple of percent of market share -- it's not really a project that's done well, and the same amount of money might buy other improvements for AOL.

As I see it now, 1.4 might be the last major release -- the firebird/mozilla integration will undoubtably take place, but with 50 developers and monetary support gone, I doubt it will be to its full potential, and only be a footnote in the history of browsers. But I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:If...

[CharterTerminal]

90% of the people in the world that use a web browser only use it because that's what browser was there for them to use.

An excellent point, and one that tends to get overlooked. Not only do most people use IE because it's already there; believe it or not, most people use IE because they don't even realize that they have other options. Don't get me wrong - I've done more than my fair share of Mozilla advocacy. Or rather, "attempted to do." This is how it usually goes down:

Them: "Hey, what's that? That's not Internet Explorer."

Me: "Nope, it's a different browser, called Mozilla. It blocks popup ads, and see how clever the tabs are? I can have several different websites open at once, but my taskbar isn't all cluttered."

(Long silence.)

Them: "More than one website open at once?"

Me: "Right. Like say I opened one website, and I read half of it, and I wanted to come back later, but in the meantime I decided to go to another website. See?" [clicks tabs to demonstrate]

Them: "I never do that."

Me: "You've never opened more than one website at a time?"

Them: "No."

Me: "Oh. Well... then... err... but surely you'd rather use a browser that blocks pop-up ads, right?"

Them: "Pop-ups are kind of annoying, but I don't like to download software and install it and stuff. I'd rather just live with the pop-ups."

Me: "Okay. Um. Well. As long as you're happy, I guess that's the important thing." [weeps quietly]

(I'm not kidding. I've had this exact same conversation with three different people in the last two weeks alone. Except for the weeping. I was kidding about the weeping.)

Whaaa????

[Bob Abooey]

They laid off 50 workers and the article claims that to be less than 10% of the Netscape workforce?????

What the hell are all those guys doing there?

Maybe this shouldn't be a suprise....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

As long as Steve Case was there, AOL was never going to cozy up to MS. Now that he's gone, you'll probably see a lot more of this now that AOL has to run themselves as a profit making concern.

They've sort of laid off Mozilla as well...

[jkrise]

$2 mn. for 10 coders for the Mozilla project isn't much, after you consider other expenses. I think AOL is acting as I'd predicted some time back - quick death for Netscape, slow poison to Mozilla, and surrender to the IE devil...

But then, to expect better from a company that settled a lawsuit with MS (for the latter's guilty conduct, mind you) is a bit too far.

-

Re:They've sort of laid off Mozilla as well...

[jkrise]

Wait a minute, there are 10 coders working on Mozilla and 450 (down 10% from 500) working on Netscape

Therein lies the tragedy - AOL has already made up it's mind to kill Netscape - why not disband the entire team?

Why have 45 Netscape developers for 1 Mozilla developer, when Mozilla users are more than 100 per Netscape user?

It's pretty clear AOL is just caving to the MS arm-twisting; doing that to Netscape, the one good American software that really scared the shit out of MS is - well, unpardonable. It's the exact opposite of freedom, and standing up to be counted.

Long Live Netscape!
-

AOL != Netscape anymore

[mblase]

Looks like AOL is trying to untie itself from Netscape and Mozilla as much as possible. By establishing and funding the Foundation, they continue to make the browser possible without tying themselves to it. The seeming hypocrisy of AOL using the IE browser (so they can stay on the Windows desktop) while developing Mozilla is now resolved.

Saddening, but understandable from a business perspective. Hopefully every one of those coders will be rehired by the Foundation so they can continue to do what they do best, with or without AOL's direct support.

Re:Huh?

[Isofarro]

I thought AOL was going to be using Netscape as their browser, the whole point in buying them?

Probably just to get the rights to sue Microsoft for monopoly practises. Now the court case has been settled (much in Microsoft's favour) there's no need to hold on to an ex-$4.2 billion dollar company.

Can AOL users finally get better software?

[philipsblows]

I'm guessing there are some legal strings attached, but I wonder whether a fully AOL-capable version of Mozilla, distrbuted almost like the original AOL virus itself (in this case, I would, for example, bring over an install CD to help my AOL-using parents to move beyond IE... even better if they could get around AOL 7.0 or whatever they're using). Yes, they can use whatever browser they want, but how about an email client that works?

Is there a legal barrier in place to prevent this, especially from former (and whoafully under appreciated) employees ? Since AOL never followed through while they were there, I think the only real justice at this point would be to let loose better, cross-platform software for the AOL userbase out there. Who knows, maybe some linux users will make the switch to AOL...

As an aside, a few troll comments here and there have suggested that now IE can be the one true client to create web content for... I give such commentary little credence, but is the SCO action on IBM (et al.) and the AOL action on Mozilla just bad timing, or is the fact that Microsoft money flows to both make any more interesting their coincidence?

Just a thought. Posted using Moz 1.4, by the way.

IE

[loconet]

So AOL promised MS to use IE in their next versions (is this only for AOL windows?). How does the future plan of IE not being stand-alone affect this AOL using IE issue? Will MS release a special "IE for AOL" version? Will AOL not include a browser and just use IE APIs straight from Windows? What about non Windows users? Macs?

Netscape Probably Hurt AOL Sales

[reallocate]

too bad, but not unexpected. Remember, AOL's purpose in life is to make money, not promote alternatives to Microsoft.

Tieing yourself to a browser more than 9 of 10 people don't want to use seems like a good way to cut sales, not increase them.

AOL's folley

[drgroove]

50 developers is 10% of the Netscape work force... however, AOL's 'official' position is that they're still supporting the browser & the web portal.

aol official position

AOL is making a *huge* mistake by not using the Gecko engine as the core of their browser/ISP product. Right now they're using Gecko as the core in their Compuserve and Mac AOL product, but still using IE in the Windows product. Seems like they could streamline their internal coding operations by standardizing on one code base, which would ultimately save them more money than letting developers go.

Also, by using the Gecko engine in the product, they could in theory start offering AOL on Linux-based PC's; while that might sound like an unprofitable venture at first, I can't imagine all of those people purchasing Lindows-based PC's at Walmart not wanting AOL as their ISP ... and Walmart sure is selling a whole lotta Lindows PC these days.

Re:fuckin whatever

[Lysol]

Honestly tho, who fucking cares!? I mean, I'm sorry to those that lost their jobs, definitely - this is not directed at them. But as far as the AOL shitbag goes, you had to see this stuff coming from a mile away. They are not even remotely the same AOL that Case or jwz worked for. They are one of the largest media companies in the world!

All these biz guys understand the M$ biz guys. They're all about numbers and not innovation, so the bloodletting is beginning; nothing anyone can do about it.

Now, that said, Mozilla is the key here. I don't think it will die in the forseeable future. Combined with Linux gaining more and more ground, there must exist a free, open browser. Sure, Konqueror will hang around, but Mozilla will still have a larger user base. And companies that depend on that, like Redhat, IBM, Sun (once they ditch Netscape 4), and others, they will put development efforts into it. And if the Moz Foundation gets really strapped for cash, then just move it to SourceForge or Savannah.

Point is is that there is no use thinking or worrying about AOL or Netscape anymore. They've been goners for some time. Mozilla is the focus and given the 'freeness' of the code, it will continue to live on regardless of cut funding and developers. Granted, it might slow, but no worse than IE.

I for one am sorry my fellow coders are out of a job, but I have all the faith in the world for Moz cuz I think it's a great browser. I mean, c'mon, if the C=64 (long live the C=64!) can still live after all these years, why not Moz?

Re:Netscape?

[GeckoFood]

With Netscape circling the drain for so long, it was just a matter of time. Netscape was too far gone to be salvageable anyway. Mozilla has been a much better browser, almost from go, than Netscape ever was, which is a little surprising since they were based on the same code base.

On a related topic, I have fiddled with Mozilla and Opera and compared them, and I think it's safe to say that Opera's claim of being the fastest browser out there is incorrect.

Now that AOL has made a deal with the devil, Netscape's demise went from anticipated to guaranteed. I hate to see Netscape go, as it was a viable alternative at one time and some people out there still prefer it.

Sigh

[4of12]

So Microsoft has more than enough cash on hand to buy out AOL/TW.

If the marketplace were completely free and unfettered, you'd think that Microsoft would, rather than pour money down the hole that has been MSN, simply buy out AOL with its 30 million subscribers.

But Microsoft won't do this because they know they can't; that the DoJ would immediately ask questions about unfair market consolidation were such a buyout offer made.

So instead MSFT pours money into MSN and leverages its dominant products of Windows, Office and Explorer to subsidize MSN.

As AOL dies slowly over a few years, this will be viewed as "OK", the marketplace in action, and no inconvenient questions will be raised except by AOL management and stockholders.

Since MS can rely upon a steady revenue stream from Windows and Office to subsidize its efforts into taking over new markets they enjoy an advantage that AOL and other competitors simply don't have.

People buy Windows and Office like they're a standard, a necessity, that's no more avoidable than paying gasoline taxes.

Yes, Microsoft has the enviable position of just collecting taxes - like a government. And competing against the government is a no-win situation.

It is a foregone conclusion that AOL will lose. They will wither to nothing, or simply to a marginally-sized pet, like Apple, who would have died long ago if Microsoft had decided to not release Office for Mac.

Does this mean that AOL will abandon pre-XP users?

[Dcnjoe60]

AOL has announced that it will use IE for the browser for seven years. Microsoft has announced that there will no longer be a standalone version of IE. So, if AOL is to still work on existing Windows boxes, then it must remain at IE6. But, it's hard to beleive that they won't want to move to the latest and greatest (tongue in cheek) IE when it ships, but that would force AOL to either maintain separate code bases or drop support for current versions of Windows. If they choose the separate code bases, then using the least common denominator approach, AOL won't be able to include future web features, because they don't exist in IE6. Dropping support for older versions of Windows, is a very calculated risk. There are two possible outcomes. Facing a forced upgrade, either AOL's would switch to a different ISP or shell out the bucks for a new version of Windows (and possibly new hardware). My bet would be to switch ISPs, but I'm sure AOL and MS are counting on people buying a new version of Windows, instead. If they are right, that's not a bad investment for MS $750M to get AOL users to all buy a copy of the next version of Windows. At 35 million AOL subscribers and a $100 upgrade cost, MS stands to gross $3.5 billion dollars. Not a bad return on investment.

yes, but it's spelled M-o-z-i-l-l-a

[cascadingstylesheet]

Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

Mozilla; yes of course.

1. Popup blocking.
2. Block images by server (waiting for block Flash by server ...)
3. Tabbed browsing.
4. Bookmark groups of tabs.

What's not to like?

Re:yes, but it's spelled M-o-z-i-l-l-a

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

Count me in -- I've been faithfully using both the Netscape branded browser and the Netscape portal for the last couple of years. Mainly as a way to thank them for funding the development of the single most important application on my desktop -- to say "This strategy is sound and you have my support."

Now that they've fired everyone, I'm not so sure about it anymore, and I may simply drop back to stock Mozilla (and choose a different home page).

This whole ordeal has made me do some thinking, though. I've talked to some people who simply won't even look at Netscape. The lackluster Netscape 4 and the disastrous Netscape 6 stick too much in their minds, even though Netscape 7 is a world-class browser that simply wipes the floor with IE, hands down. I wonder if Netscape is a dirty word at this point in time? Perhaps Mozilla is the name to push now. Certainly with users ... but it'll be an uphill climb to get webmasters and plugin authors to change from "This supports IE and Netscape" to "This supports IE and Mozilla." Naturally, we'd all prefer "This supports web standards" but for the stupidfolk among them (i.e. most of them) it's still much better than "Windows/IE only."

Thank you AOL for the initial $2 million in funding (but to Dick Parsons, I hope you rot in hell next to Bill Gates). Now it's time for others in the industry to both fund and push the Mozilla effort. IBM in particular ought to be assigning a boatload of developers to Mozilla, especially in the light of recent developments (such as Munich) in which they are partially responsible for the well-being of an increasing number of desktop Linux users. Without a world-class browser, the Linux desktop simply cannot exist. It's time for everyone to step up to the plate and make Mozilla not only replace Netscape as the brand everyone recognizes, but take the role of a well-liked brand. The name "Netscape" seems to be as poisonous as "WordPerfect" now.

I don't really understand the relationship, but...

[TrekkieGod]

Seems to me this has nothing to do with caving to MS...if I had "45 Netscape developers for 1 Mozilla developer", and virtually all of the new features came from Mozilla, I'd figure that I'm wasting a lot of money paying all those lazy Netscape developers too.

Then again, I don't really have an understanding of the mozilla/netscape relationship, just what I heard--mozilla started when netscape opened its code, aol gives mozilla money, aol gets all the cool stuff from mozilla and reinserts it into netscape. If it's more complicated than that and I'm missing something, please feel free to explain it to me.

What about AOL OS X? (Gecko-based)

[mactari]

Welp, I admit it. Looks like I was wrong. An AOL-supported Mozilla is dead.

What does this mean for the OS X AOL client? That's the one thing (Gecko-based OS X client is already out there) that made me think AOL'd keep going. Looks like IE 7 (or whatever) is going to have some really neat stuff. Enough that the MS licensing agreement with AOL makes it a good idea for AOL to kill Gecko as a back-up engine for its software.

Maybe the Safari embeddable engine is easy enough to use that AOL is going that way. Or maybe AOL OS X's engine will just fold up into proprietary software. The MPL allows that.

I don't feel *that* badly. AOL, whether it meant to or not, pulled the plug, strangely enough, immediately after Moz became the best browser on the market. That's good timing from where I'm sitting -- which is in front of a monitor, posting with Mozilla/Firebird.