Slashdot Mirror
AOL Builds New IE-Based Browser
jfruhlinger writes "According to News.com.com.com, America Online is preparing to release a free AOL-branded browser that is 'based on Microsoft's Internet Explorer technology.' The browser will be available to users who don't have AOL as their ISP. I admit that I find this development baffling -- not only does AOL already own a browser, but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"
If I recall AOL as a Settlement from Microsoft got the right to use IE in their program or even as a browser like this for free for like 7 years. thus the use of IE here. why spend money developing your own browser when you can use someone elses for free and just put a little front end on it?
though there wasnt much detail in the article, I suspect it is simply going to be ie with an aol 'skin'. I suspect they dont have access to ie source code....
Until that day arrives, Micro$oft continues to dominate the browser market and owns 90% of it. Hence, AOL, like any other commercial company, will back the de facto standard. Since 90% of the market is Internet Explorer, most web page designers will build their pages to be compatible with Internet Explorer (IE). AOL has an economic motivation to use IE technology as the basis of the new AOL browser.
Similar reasoning applies for office applications. Most programmers prefer to write office applications for Windows instead of MacOS because Windows dominates the market.
Apple missed the boat ... er ... luxury superliner on that "one".
You should read There must be a pony in here somewhere (reviewed by me on Slashdot) to find out AOL's real strategy. Netscape was not bought out for its software technologies.
Netscape was bought out so that the marketing department called up Microsoft and told Microsoft they wanted an AOL icon on each and every desktop with newly-shipped Windows. For like 2 or 3 years Microsoft did exactly that, which brought AOL who knows how many customers that paid for the service. Distributing Netscape-based browser to the AOL subscribers would have no financial benefits for AOL whatsoever.
First I want to say that I hate AOL... Im just trying to figure this out.
But I would think they are *trying* for the best of both worlds...
AOL has better content controll from years of being "family friendly", however they have built their browser into a portal platform. Besides the sheer quantity of suck that AOL brings, one of their worst problems is that its not that easy to just type in a address and go, thats where IE comes in.
I think their stand alone browser might appeal to end users looking for content control without having to install the AOL software on their computer and getting AOL's portal services.
The browser will probably be available to AOL users to provide them more ease of use, while allowing them to still moderate what their children see through the browser.
Again.. I hate AOL, its the devil, but this is the spin I see AOL trying to put on it.
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
from Bush and Co.
While AOL may own Netscape, they probably found that a lot of sites out there were still IE specific and they couldn't afford the support costs for angry users who couldn't visit them. I'd probably do the same thing if I were running that project.
(Score:-1, Wrong)
This won't necessarily force AOL users to upgrade - I know plenty who use AOL 6 or earlier! But it will be a significant force that Microsoft can use to get more people to give them money.
I don't know why AOL is building on IE, but I can see many good reasons why Microsoft would want them to. There are a lot of AOL users out there, and that's a lot of revenue Microsoft could gain.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this came out so soon after the deadline for appealing the antitrust settlement passed. If I'm right in believing that the new AOL will only run on XP, then it's possible the antitrust lawyers for the hold-out States would have had ammunition to attack (although probably not destroy) the settlement.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
the problem is that AOL is already build around the IE engine for it's HTML stuff, so I can't see why AOL was ever any more secure than IE alone.
Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
A friend's mother recently bought a computer (which it was up to me to get working), and the thing came infested with AOL. Not only was there AOL links everywhere, and AIM running at startup, but the system manufacturer had set every instance of I.E. to an AOL branded Netscape browser. Going to program files -> Internet Explorer revealed, you guessed it, a app to sign up for AOL. The regular address bar in windows had been replaced by an AOL bar, which also fed everything through the AOLified Netscape (the normal address bar had been turned off by default and, once on, was shoved almost entirely off the side of the window).
It was a mess, quite frankly. Welcome to the future.
The ______ Agenda
Already exists -- to some extent... http://www.aolcheckout.com/aol-pc/aol_02.asp "Of course, the AOL Systemax PC runs on the award-winning Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition operating system for incomparable performance and stability." I guess its not AOL OS but from the screen shots ive seen they did some work with the UI ... prolly added spyware or something heh.
I have accepted Provolone into my life!
Take a moment to reflect on the target audience of AOL. Just reflect; you know what they're like. They're not really stupid, but they're just not exactly hacker types.
...
Now think about what happens in that person's brain when they see an AOL icon in the corner of the browser window.
"I'm using AOL!"
Now imagine what happens inside the person's brain when AOL tries to sell them the AOL service.
"I'm already using AOL! Why would I pay for it?"
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
They do make it as hard as possible to cancel. Not only do they make you dial a special cancellations number, which is not published, and barely staffed, they also put the poor saps that work that particular line in a very tough spot - they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only, and one where the simple fact that the customer has the number to dial indicates they've already waded through a lot of shit to get there, so they're pretty determined.
I doubt that giving you porn numbers is official policy, but having seen the incredibly disrespectful ways that AOL reps are required to treat customers that want to quit, I wouldn't really be surprised.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
While Working at Time Warner Cable we had to switch from Lotus Notes to AOL Mail when we merged. Ha Ha. - I remember it like yesterday. Their crappy software conflicted with the MS Networking in a few crappy Win 95 computers that caused them to stop talking to the network. During our few calls to "corporate tech support" we were offered "Long Distance" plans during the calls.
Their new plan to use IE technology when they own Netscape is perfectly logical when viewed in the context of previous "management" exposure.
So AOL's plans seem to be buy something at it's highest cost (like Netscape) - turn it into crap - cut losses by laying people off - watch stock value plummet - fire management - quit with huge severance package.
Do you know what's funny?
Microsoft killed Netscape, and AOL gobbled it up. And out of which, Mozilla was born.
Now Mozilla has come back to bite IE in the ass -- Firefox is simply the best browser out there.
And now, AOL is teaming up with Microsoft, at a time when IE's marketshare is definitely receding.
Who says there isn't justice? It's almost poetic.
"They do make it as hard as possible to cancel. Not only do they make you dial a special cancellations number, which is not published, and barely staffed, they also put the poor saps that work that particular line in a very tough spot - they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only, and one where the simple fact that the customer has the number to dial indicates they've already waded through a lot of shit to get there, so they're pretty determined."
I actually used this to my advantage. During a really bad few work months, I was forced to give up my regular ISP, and those free AOL CD's started looking pretty good. I signed up, intending to cancel after the free trial. Lo and behold, at the end of the trial period, I received a bill for a month's service. I called up the customer service droid to complain loudly, and was offered apologies and another month of free service, which I accepted. The next month, another bill came, and I repeated the cycle. This ended up going on for well over half a year. Of course, I never actually USED AOL. I just established the connection, then fired up my regular utilities. End result: seven months' free internet with a loss to the Forces of Satan of some $170.00 or so. Fairly played, I think.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Agreed.
The problem with Microsoft is that they're so stuck up that they simply do not know HOW to comply with standards.
Last week, I had asked the designer of my company to come up with a new logo - and he had it out as a transparent PNG. And guess what? IE does not support Alpha channel in PNGs. So no transparency. D'oh!
Ofcourse, Microsoft's website had a long-winded solution of detecting the browser and using a DirectX object tag and what not to get IE to render the PNG. Huh?
And oh, someone on one of Microsoft's forums had commented that "we" Opensource evangelists should stop trying to invent new things and stick to older formats like GIF. What a dumbass. GIF supports just 256 colours, and if you want rich transparency at an economic size, PNG is the way to go. But no, MS won't let that by now, will they?
I'm largely technology agnostic, but it is this kind of attitude that really really puts me of. And being a corporate entity, we cannot afford to say, to hell with all IE users.
And now with AOL teaming up with IE, it just seems more stupid than ever. Sheesh, two companies that have absolutely no respect for standards or compliance with a bad trackrecord of trying to stifle innovation. Should be fun.
Kinda ironic that in July 2003 AOL made a $2million donation to the Mozilla Foundation, and now their releasing an IE-based browser. Why not base it on either Firefox or the Gecko rendering engine?
"With Microsoft, you get Windows. With Linux, you get the full house" - unknown
While I don't dispute your analysis, I would offer a "devil's advocate" reason why AOL would put out this IE-based browser. They've been using IE for years and surely they have put a lot of time and, perhaps more importantly, money into adapting it to their purposes.
Some bean counters in their marketing department are going to say, we've invested all this money in this IE-based thing so let's get something out of it, put out an AOL-branded browser just to keep up the name brand recognition. Who knows, perhaps MS paid them to do it.
I believe that they didn't buy Netscape for the browser so much as for the portal and name recognition. Even today, Netscape is a household name and that's worth gold in the strange, illogical world of marketing. Remember also that Netscape open-sourced its browser before it got acquired by AOL (as I recall). AOL didn't need to buy them just to get its hands on the browser source.
We techies may think they have made a dumb mistake but it's worth watching and waiting to see how the market responds. AOL may have fallen greatly since the market boom days, but they're still a marketing force to reckon with. We techies wish they'd adopt the "good guys" like Gecko and Firefox but they have to be convinced they'll make money off it first.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
What have you lost in OOo that you have in Mozilla? Who has taken something from you?
Get a grip
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Actually... from what I hear (which may very well all be rumors) AOL engineers actually got sick of waiting for IE to implement standards, features, and new protocols. Most websites already work with IE despite how broken it is, if a site uses ActiveX, then AOL needs its users to be able to use that site. Because of this they are grudgingly using IE as a base and then extending it from there. I could see this one day being ported to firefox when more people use it, but business is business and right now the business is still unfortunately with IE. This is also kind of a mockery of Microsoft by AOL because it shows how behind times Microsoft's browser is that AOL Engineers had to just take what they have and make it better rather, then wait around. People keep speaking negatively about this venture, but in the end I think it will be good. If nothing else, people will become aware of alternatives to IE (despite that it is used as its backend), making them prone to try more browsers in the future.
Regards,
Steve
Okay. I know this has been said like a hundred times but I need to get it out of my system: Why the heck would anyone want to combine the annoyances of AOL with the insecurities of IE? That's like putting mayonaise (AOL) on crap (IE). Or something. Okay, that was a bad analagy but you get the point.
Do the licenses of Mozilla and Netscape allow AOL to use developments in Mozilla for proprietary software? I'm not too clear on the specifics of how open source developments in Mozilla are migrated over to proprietary distributions of Netscape, if they actually are.
But if AOL has licensed Internet Explorer from Microsoft, then perhaps the deal includes the sharing of proprietary code both ways. If Mozilla code can become proprietary for AOL under the project's licensing scheme, then they could possibly pass it on to Microsoft. Microsoft could end up using developments for Mozilla for Internet Explorer to deal with all its current security issues under a closed source license. That could be the whole reason for this deal.
they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only
Well then, why don't we put the number on here? Random people could phone up and pretend to be convinced not to cancel... everyone wins!
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
When Microsoft handed over the cash, AOL gutted Netscape. There might still be a portal, but count the number of employess in AOL West (Netscape) and I doubt it's a tenth of what it was in 2002. They couldn't even build Netscape 7.2 in house because there was no one left in Netscape to do it - they paid Mozilla.org to build it.
The lawsuit might have been great for coffers, but it is monumentally short sighted and plain dumb in the long term to stick with IE. The last thing you do is tie yourself to your main competitors browsing technology. Why not let a mental patient shave your balls with a razor while you're at it?
Microsoft might be obligated to fix bugs AOL raises but so what? It's not like the browser code is being developed much anyway. If need be Microsoft can simply let the code go so mouldy that AOL loses years relying on it when clearer minds would have jumped to something better.
Secondly, while AOL is rotting away on an obsolete code base, MSN will suddenly relaunch around around XAML or some other tech. The result is AOL will look like a dinosaur and will haemmorage even more customers.
Neither scenario makes any business sense for AOL. Why do they even care what browser they use? They are supposed to be a media company - "AOL Anywhere". Adopting open standards means not paying for proprietary tech, it means more eyeballs can see your content. It should be open standards first and proprietary second. The fact is they already have to support Safari (since Netscape.com is the Apple portal) and Gecko (for the Mac OS X AOL client).
So it would make more sense for any standalone browser to be based on open standards. They could even skin a version of Firefox with a few extra extensions slapped on it. Use the browser as a test bed for the AOL client content and the scales should have tilted over enough to flip the client proper to Gecko. Once that happens IE is out of the picture completely and AOL is one step closer to being a media company again rather than Microsoft's bitch.