Slashdot Mirror
Netscape-Branded ISP Launching February 2004
Guppy06 writes "I'm too lazy to change my homepage in Netscape 7 to something else, and that's where I discovered an ad leading towards what appears to be a trial run of a new Netscape-branded ISP. While this isn't as momentous as, say, Netscape bundled with AOL would be, they seem to be aiming at Juno and NetZero with their price of $9.95/month ($1.00/month to participate in the trial run ending in February). This may just end up being a fizzle, or it could be part of a two-pronged attack on MSN by AOL."
If this is true, I have to wonder what if anything it will do for Mozilla's exposure.
C|N>K
I have been hearing ads on the radio for it here already. Sounds like one of those accelerated/compressed dial-up services.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
I've been hearing commercials for Netscape as a broad-band-like ISP in Canada on the radio lately.
They are going to have a tough go of it, competing against Telus.
They claim,
"Netscape Online Accelerator uses advanced web acceleration technology to increase the speed of dial up service, using your existing phone jack and modem without the expense of high speed services such as DSL or a cable modem. No additional equipment is required nor is there any waiting for installation"
Sounds like some sort of caching strategy to deliver content faster.
Overall, sounds like a step backwards to me. I'll stick with my Shaw 300KB/second cable-Internet for $30 Canadian a month.
Ironically, the browser software included in the sign-up package is a Netscape-branded version of Internet Explorer.
Pretty sad when your browser sucks so much you don't trust yourself enough to use it.
"Brand Necrophilia"
...but is there anyone who associates Netscape with anything other than ugly bloatware? If you want to sell a product, is plastering the Netscape logo all over it the best way to go? When someone says "Netscape", images of "RealPlayer" and a bunch of crappy "Subscribe to AOL Now!" icons come to mind.
By doing this, AOL not only gets to split their already-fleeing-like-rats-from-a-drowning-ship userbase, but they also get to cash in on the incredibly lucrative and growing dial-up internet market. And of course, the crowning touch, capitalizing on the Netscape namebrand, which everyone associates with fast, quality service. Good move, AOL!
While this could be part of a 'two pronged attack' on MSN, I highly doubt that. It will most certainly be a fizzle if they are merely offering basic dialup service. Unless they have a standard 'dialup accelerator' or some other value added feature that sets them apart from the rest of the dialup services, there's not much more room in this market IMHO. Unless of course they start this as their 'basic' level of service and offer a very cheap broadband solution along side (eventually). I fail to see that happening so long as DSL lines have to be bought from SBC and cable lines bought from Comcast. ~Dan
This may just end up being a fizzle
Fo shizzle, my nizzle.
It just cheapens the Netscape name, one for which many of us still have fond memories. I would guess some of the key original Netscape programmers are pretty sad too.
I already posted a comment about this once, but I'll never forget how sad jwz's resignation letters were.
This one predates the recently slashdotted article about myths in open source by many years, and probably was the first one to call attention to the fact that (his own words) "you cannot just take a project, sprinkle it with the magic pixie dust of 'open source' and make it magically work".
And this one made me so sad when it came out I threw away all plans of making a career in computer engineering. Again his own words, "sometimes the only way to win is to not play".
Yes, he's kinda dramatic in a mexican soap opera way, but then I was 17, and was deeply struck.
I don't understand this.
The Netscape ISP brand has already been tried, and AOL dumped it. The ISP was low cost.
This was done in the UK a few years ago, it lasted for not long. I don't know whether the Netscape ISP was also introduced to other countries, though.
Given the outright incompetence in the overall strategic vision at AOL/TW, there's no telling if this new plan is an act of foresight or of desperation.
Still, I have to say that it makes sense to leverage both the Netscape and AOL brands. They're obviously positioning Netscape as the low-cost bare-bones option for dialup ISP service, and I bet that subscribers will be incessantly prompted to upgrade to the features found on AOL.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
... they're going to offer sub-standard service, and then blame Microsoft for having an MSN shortcut on their desktop when they tank.
This is what I get on my mac... Macintosh Users The Macintosh operating system is not supported at this time. Netscape currently supports Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Please check back in the future for a Macintosh version of Netscape!
Well, someone please send AOL a clue. When I see messages like, "The Macintosh operating system is not supported at this time," I feel like walking over to the code-monkey and smacking him upside the head. Why?
1) Hey, I might have Windows computer, but I'm at a Mac now and I want more info.
2) It's a friggin' ISP! Cripes, just tell me the dial-in number to use and I'll be OK.
3) The closing statement of "Please check back in the future for a Macintosh version of Netscape!" is MS-worthy in its FUD. Netscape certainly is available for Macs. Just b/c your proposed ISP doesn't "support" them, no reason to lead people to believe that Netscape is a Windows-only product.
Especially if they could figure out some way to download images in the background, and maybe throw in some chat rooms. Linux types would also appreciate a command line interface, so they could just jump directly to any part of the service by typing in a keyword. Yeah, that'd be cool.
AOL is getting hit from the top and the bottom. High Speed Access is erroding their customer base from the top, and Low Cost Dialups are attracting customers from the bottom. Having their own low cost Dial Up will allow them to at least get some money from people who are leaving them for a cheaper alternitive. Using the AOL brand name for the cheaper service would cause confusion (Why am I being billed 23.95? I saw an ad for 9.95!) so they needed a different name for it. They already own the rights to a well known name associated with the Internet, Netscape, so it was a natural choice.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
To me, the Netscape brand means browsers. After IE, it's probably the best known brand of browsers on the market. I've always thought the point of branding was to create a rock solid identity for a specific product, and then extend that product to new areas. For instance, Taco Bell creates a brand for Taco Bell tacos, and through incessant marketing convinces people that the slop actually tastes good. Then, once that brand is strong, they move on to marketing Taco Bell brand taco shells, that you can buy in any grocery store. You can see how there's a connection here, and how somebody who likes TB Tacos would be more likely to buy TB taco shells in the supermarket.
But with this Netscape thing, I don't get it. If Netscape isn't a brand name for a browser, what is it a brand name for? And what does a browser have to do with purchasing internet access?
The funny thing here, is that AOL/Time Warner already owns the top brand in ISP's: AOL. So why not come out with a $9.95 "AOL-Light", which you then cajole customers into upgrading to full-fledged AOL? Using Netscape as the brand for an entry-level ISP makes no sense whatever, whereas extending the AOL name makes perfect sense.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
AOL is losing money to companies that are offering a cheaper service so now when a customer calls and wants to cancel they can offer them a cheaper service and still keep their customer.
Get Movie Posters
We discussed this in October ("AOL to Launch Discount 'Netscape' Internet Service", to the tune of 358 comments.
-Waldo Jaquith
Fact: Afer the disastrous merger, the TW people are re-gaining control of AOL/TW.
Fact: The AOL name is mud in the business world and approaching mud (slurry?) in the consumer world.
Fact: AOL has few friends among those regaining control of AOL/TW.
Predictions:
1. AOL/TW will drop the AOL part and revert to Time-Warner.
2. TW will start migrating AOL's content (such as it is) to TW branded properties.
3. AOL will start migrating its dial up subscribers to the Netscape branded service. "Just a name change."
4. Finally, AOL will cease to function as an ISP, and will channel everything through AOL.com, which will also eventually just whither away.
Good riddance.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
That's not something one would normally brag about in this forum.
I'm too lazy to change my homepage in Netscape 7 to something else
my only question is why anyone would still be using netscape when mozilla seems to be far superior. or is there something i dont know?
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
AOL is losing money to companies that are offering a cheaper service so now when a customer calls and wants to cancel they can offer them a cheaper service and still keep their customer
This is less than true; granted, AOL's suffered some encroachment on the bottom, but it's not nearly as significant as the destruction from above from broadband availability. Over 80% of the rural broadband customers the company I work for signs up comes from AOL - not from low-cost dialup. Those $5 to $10/mo. Internet users stay with their low-use plans. It's the $22 for AOL + second phone line to use all the included hours (at another $20 with taxes) = $42/month for crummy old AOL that gives consumers a very easy decision going broadband.
Consider AOL's focus the past 10+ years: "unlimited hours." They were never the low price; consumers that wanted a $10 or less service found plenty of local ISP options and in the past 5 years, Netzero, ad-supported dialup and various sub-$10 approaches flooded the market.
Reading AOL's 10Ks, they've been pretty clear that they don't see themselves in this market. Instead, they proclaim more of a value pricing model - lots of hours at a good price. The only problem is that their unlimited buffet quickly became a fare that was unpaletable to an increasing amount of consumers, especially those who spend more time online and were AOL's primary market. Somebody opened up a buffet next door, and for another $10-$20/month (about 50% to 100% the price of that second phone line, so in many cases, the consumer ends up saving money by switching), it's several dozen times the quality.
So I wouldn't expect they perceive this move as a defensive one. Perhaps, in fact, its a low risk (no AOL brand name at stake) move to test the waters on the sub-$10 market where they never have been strong. I'll contradict a previous post - this actually might make sense. After all, AOL's a cash cow and they're going to have to do something with all the dialup foundation to keep it competitive as the dialup market loses most of its upper 80% of consumer. They're going to be left with 100% price-based market.
Move the AOL operations over to the Netscape brand (and rebrand as AOL) and you've got another lease on life. This sounds to me as if non-AOL execs made this call. This is a move 1 year out from cutting over AOL to a low-cost, low-price operation and Netscape (in a rather perverse way) might actually end up being the beginning of the end of AOL.
Interesting move, Time Warner...
*scoove*
Nobody seems to have pointed this out yet, so I will.
Imagine for a moment that you're a phone-support tech working at, say, Dell or some other consumer PC manufacturer. You get a call from a customer who says they can't "get on the Internet".
You ask this customer, "What Internet service are you using?" and the customer responds "Netscape".
Until now, anyone hearing such a response could immediately recognize that the user was talking about their browser, not their ISP (which is what the question referred to). Now, that conclusion can't be made.
With the introduction of this service, someone who is "using Netscape" is either:
Needless to say, this makes it difficult to ascertain which is the case when talking to a user who doesn't know the difference.
I've talked to people before who thought Netscape was their ISP. Not quite as common as thinking Yahoo is their web browser, but not terribly unusual. Now imagine how annoying it will be for tech support reps when they talk to a customer who's using Internet Explorer with Netscape's ISP and insists their browser is Netscape...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I talked with those representing the Mozilla project at Comdex/LasVegas, They said that they were going to roll out the netscape branded ISP service. That is the true part. The fase part is that Mozilla/Netscape (Which Trademark AOL owns) Will only be involved as the name of the service, the Browser of choice will be Internet Explorer. Name Branded Marketing Strikes Again.
did the mods read the link? No where does it say that the service will come bundled with IE. The AC doesn't link to any statements backing up what he had said... and somehow it's informative.
from the TOS:
"You must have a personal computer with a modem connected to a communications source (telephone, wireless or broadband), a Windows-based operating system with an Internet browser, such as Netscape Version 6.0 or higher or Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 5.5 or higher, and an Internet-based e-mail software in order to access electronic communications"
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"