Slashdot Mirror
AOL Plans A Standalone Browser
Patik writes "America Online is creating its own standalone browser, aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations. The browser will be based on Internet Explorer but will include other features such as tabbed browsing that displays a thumbnail of the page as you pass your cursor over it. The browser will also integrate AOL's media player and will be able to access AOL-only content."
Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed? Whatever policy stands against the AOL client will most likely shoot down this AOL Browser too. PHBs don't want people playing on the Internet during company time, and people are going to be hard pressed to show a business-reason to be accessing the AOL-exclusive entertainment content on company time and resources.
This seems like at face value a project that won't reach its target audience and therefore is doomed to failure.
I wonder if this will be any worse than their previous integrations with IE.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
KEWL DUDE
AOL had a browser. In fact, they had a whole browser company. They chose to run it into the ground, like seemingly everything else they've touched. (Proper respect for at least funding Mozilla development, though)
Now they plan to introduce a bloated IE shell (of which there are already several superior ones) with the intent of allowing their customers access to AOL's premium content. First of all, there is nothing left on AOL that the rest of the world would be particularly interested in. The global, public Internet has already won resoundingly against AOL's private little sanitized domain.
And then they finish off with this bit of idiocy:
Clearly offerring another program to install will solve the "people can't install our software" problem.
Why doesn't AOL at least work on improving their horrible web portal if they're so keen on getting people to access their worthless content? Oh that's right, they did... they made it all flash. How delightfully MODERN!
What a worthless company. I bed Ted Turner still shits his pants daily thinking of the mistake he made merging with them. Everything AOL touches turns to shit.
Does it have an automatic "A/S/L?" post button for forums?
The concept seems to be taking a bad Internet Provider and intergrating it with a bad Internet browser. Will probably be successful.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Why don't they just re-brand Firefox
Oh wait, they already did that, Netscape...
So why don't they just use Netscape?
Or if they are dead-set on using IE's rendering engine, they should just re-brand Avant Browser, Maxthon, or one of the multitudes of other IE-based browsers with tabbed browsing and other nice features. Or they could just buy an uber-license from Opera for thousands of licences, I'm sure it would be cheaper than developing their own software.
Seriously, with all the costs of pressing those CDs, doesn't AOL need to save some money somewhere?
Le français vous intéresse?
After reading the article, I still don't understand how this is going to help people install the AOL branded special version of IE onto a companies machine. Instead of the AOL software, they still have to install the browser? I doubt that many of the corporate IT guys are going to be willing to install something with AOL in its title on a company machine.
On sticking with an IE based browser, Pearce-Parkins said, "The company stuck with IE so users won't have to make "a leap of faith." Good idea in concept, but honestly I don't believe the users would ever notice there would be a difference between browsers, so why not go with something that would probably be easier to work with?
Guess I better hold out my judgment until the browser gets on the scene, but AOL's massive content library would do well for its subscribers if it wasn't solely tied to their Client.
Stormy
http://www.stormyshippy.com/
Thumbnail tabs? Hm, sounds a lot like OmniWeb. :)
- oZ
// i am here.
Good move. Make a brower for employees who can install AOL stuff on their computers out of the most vulnerable browser out there. Oh yea, system administrators are going to love this!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
will include other features such as tabbed browsing
Now even AOL will have a better browser than Microsoft.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Way to go AOL, welcome to the party. What exactly did you do with Netscape (acquired in 1998 iirc)
Somebody's hands at AOL must have been greased!
Otherwise, how can one explain the reason behind this move? AOL already has a browser, can get full access to Firefox code (which has some of the features they are looking for), and surely know(s) the problems associated with the IE engine.
It does not take a person with a PhD to see that someone must have "eaten" really big.
The question, then, is just how the devil do you expect these lusers to install other AOL software, such as a browser?!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!
The answer, then, is not to create a new standalone browser, as AOL plans to do, but rather to create an Explorer plug-in that will install itself through the security holes that Microsoft has so thoughtfully installed in their software--the very same ones that allow hackers, crackers, cookies, 1337z h4x0rz, spyware, worms, viruses, spam, adware, malware, the RIAA, MPAA, and the anti-Christ himself to do anything with your computer that you cannot do, all while making the user interface so automatic and friendly that you, yourself, cannot access your own files, though these external users, programs, and entities can--to take control of the computer and place AOL software without the Administrator's permission.
Yeah. That's a good idea.
"Butters, GOD DAMNIT!"
Why not...Oh, I don't know... Use Internet explorer? Build a plugin for the proprietary content.
Or use Netscape for that matter; they do own the company.
Talk about lack of focus.
Why is it that so many failing companies insist on doing things the hard, expensive way? Or did I answer my own question?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
This is the best joke that I've heard all week. A company that owned Netscape and who manged to run it into the ground is planning on bringing out an IE variant browser.
Why don't they just burn money - it would cut out the middle man.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Could it be that AOL wants to get people used to tabbed browsing to the point where they can't live without it, and then switch them over to an AOL-branded Firefox with the next upgrade? Yeah, yeah, it's not likely, but it's an idea...
Keep in mind, I signed onto AOL in like... 1992 maybe? Based on what I've seen on other peoples' computers, it's only gone downhill from there. It's bloated, tends to cause Windows problems in corporate environments, etc. Where do they get off? The last thing IT managers need is AOL encouraging imcompetent users to install software. Someone seriously needs to put them out of their misery. How can we expect to accomodate cross-platform / cross-browser web applications in the future if we continue to muddy the waters with nonsense?
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
We already defacto banned IE on the Engineering network at the uni i work at, so i seriously doubt my department would allow this piece of crap to be installed either. Since moving over to mozilla / firefox, our spyware calls have dropped radically (easily 75-80% drop this semster) and allowing anything based on IE, let alone a AOL product, is just stupidity at its best.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Without the obvious payoffs or other leverage from Microsoft to continue using MSIE and its components for their software tools, what other reasons are possible or likely for AOL's motivation in doing such things? After all, AOL owns Netscape and because of that, it has a perfect tool to enable a secure internet experience for their users. Need ActiveX? There are plug-ins that allow ActiveX to work I've heard... never used them but I've heard they exist and they work.
My assumption is that Microsoft has somehow influenced AOL to continue with MSIE dependancy. But I'd rather be able to consider other possibilities as well -- but I cannot think of any. Can you?
AOL decides to stray farther and farther from the standard norm, taking the 'KISS' suggestion of software for granted.
Not only is this new browser coming, but they've announced a special line of email programs that require their own processor to use. These processors are identical in every way to the Intel Pentium 4, except for they are underclocked to 100MHz, and are missing pins to make it incompatible with current hardware.
AOL is also developing its own language, called AOLinguish, which will sound similar to Enlgish, but will be totally different in every way!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This has been discussed two months ago here, no?
America Online is creating its own standalone browser,
:-D.Stop trying to make the shit taste better.There are already stuff available that do that.
Try Avant Browser
Does stand-alone mean that it wouldnt take the OS with it when it crashes ?
Maxthon
Netcaptor
Just STOP re-inventing the wheel !
fifteen jugglers, five believers
I bet this bloatware-IE-based browser will startup half as fast as IE, and have a 5x-10x speed reduction in loading times for web pages. So, it will be 3x-4x faster that 28.8k dial-up, so long as you have at least DSL-speed.
Why is everyone assuming that they are not going to use mozilla? We have had a half dozen stories about AOL projects over the last couple weeks, and everyone on slashdot is acting like they are all describing completely independent projects (and thus a waste of duplicate effort), when it seems to me the stories are the product a bunch of blind reporters feeling-up the same elephant.
We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.
Their decision to use IE makes perfect sense - it is the best way to ensure compatibility with as many sites as possible, and I would argue that most of the security problems that IE has are how the surrounding shell handles files/scripts/plugins - not the core itself. Lastly as firefox becomes more popular and more sites render correct in both IE and Firefox, they can swap engines out without the users noticing as much as they would now.
I won't comment on whether this will help AOL, or whether people will go for it, but it certainly does appear to be part of a well thought out plan, not a bunch of random uncoordinated actions.
So AOL owns netscape. They just did a press release about re-releasing netscape. I cant remember exactlly how to phrase this, but Netscape is built off the same technoogy that mozilla and firefox are right?
So Netscape, mozilla and firefox are available, plus 1/2 a dozen other browsers.
So now AOL is creating a new browser, other then the one used in the AOL applicaiton, other then Netscape, and other then the other browsers that use the same technology, and the ones that exist today?
What is this biazzaro world!?!
TruePunk | Games
I'm sorry but you're wrong about the processor. With that amount of RAM anything over 1GHz, even a Celeron, is overkill. And those specs are otherwise more-or-less the same as my 2-year old pc which runs win98 or gentoo perfectly happily. OK so I get about 0.2fps in the UT2004 demo with it, but for your typical grandmother, and probably for your typical office worker, those specs will be fine.
I am trolling
we finally have identified which company Dilbert was modeled upon... :-)
Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
CNET
The cnet article mentions the seven year IE deal, but it doesn't make it clear that AOL is being forced to use that as its only browser (although it IS pretty late and maybe I'm just too braindead to glean the information). Anybody else have a better link or just a better interpretation of my link? All I came up with was this and a cnn article (which was much less informative than cnet's).
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
First impressions:
- it is a lot more reponsive than straight IE. The interface could best be described as "crisp"
- The thumbnails are extremely useful. Previews for tabs are a godsend when you have 15+ tabs open
- The zoom feature is amazing. Smooth scaling and fine detail.
- AOL seems to have done something to fix the broken caching in IE.
Having said that, there are still some problems- Form elements aren't fully useable when zoomed. Selects are a real bitch: completely unuseable at any zoom.
- It seems to share a namespace with other instances of IE. Named popups on the same site will cross post between the AOL browser and Explorer.
I find it rather funny that everyone here is slamming AOL for what appears to be well designed and implemented piece of software. The choice of the rendering component might be questionable, but for many people, Internet Exporer is a necessary evil. It's possible the interface is designed to be modular enough to swap Gecko in easily. My hope is that the Mozilla/Firefox devel teams take a good look at this browser without thier AOL prejudices getting in the way. There are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
That is very decent hardware for $300, and it also comes with a year of free internet at AOL. 12 months * $22 a month = $264. Retail, this PC is only costing the user $36. I doubt it's even close to possible to find anything near that PC for $36. So, Mr. Slashbot, can we stop the knee-jerk AOL and MS bashing and say this is a GREAT deal for new people to get onto the web?
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations
Many pieces of software do not need installation - they can just be copied to a directory and ran from there without having to touch the registry or any system files. I would suspect that this is what the client will do. It could be run from CD or the user's home directory and call the existing IE dlls instead of installing anything itself.
Ok, if your running NT,2k,XP do this:
Fire up reged32 (not the regular reged).
Find the run/rundll etc.. sections on the registry, and then change the access permissions so that they are read-only.
Hopefully that should stop XYZ from getting it's grubby exe in your startup.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I've "fixed" more than one computer by removing AOL.
It seems that AOL asks you during installation if you want it to be the "primary" way of getting to the internet.
Most AOL users don't know what this means, and they think they must answer "YES" to this question.
This creates a problem in most offices since AOL routes all DNS querys through it's DNS servers.
That will break windows 2000 and XP workstations that require DNS resolution to find their local domain controllers and member servers.
Answering "NO" to the "primary internet" connection question prevents the DNS problem - but how many AOL users are expected to know that?
-ted
Why in the world would AOL base their new browser on IE, a seriously flawed piece of software from a security stand point, instead of Netscape/Mozilla. They paid for Netscape and now Mozilla based browsers are considered far safer than IE. If I were setting policy at a company I would not allow the use of IE or any program based on IE simply because of the security problems.
AOL bought Netscape. Why not take advantage of that and when they bring out the new browser they could have commercials about how they built it on Mozilla because that way it's safer.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra