Slashdot Mirror


Netscape.com Loses Its Identity

wh0pper writes "Digital Trends has a great opinion piece about how Netscape has lost its identity again in regards to their wanna-be Digg portal. One interesting fact I was not aware of is that Jason Calacanis is the person behind the new beta Netscape portal. A choice quote: 'If this business model sees the light-day and it looks like it will, Netscape readers will change from the baby-boomers of yester-year to a younger audience more interested in Jessica Alba's Bikini or Britney Spears than real intellectual news.' I've tried using the new beta Netscape site, and personally hate it. The little link to the external site and the frame to keep you on Netscape's site are deal killers for me. Does the general audience think it can compete?"

42 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Net-who? by Kelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As far as I can tell, AOL has never been entirely sure what to do with the Netscape brand name.

    They seem to have bought the company mainly to use the browser as a bargaining chip against Microsoft ("We'll switch to Mozilla if you don't give us a good deal!"). Since they secured the new deal for the IE engine and jettisoned the browser development staff they've abandoned Netscape-the-browser at least twice, both times changing their minds. There was the surprise release of (IIRC) Netscape 7.2, which as near as I can tell involved merging the latest Mozilla Suite with their local tree, and then there was the outsourced chimera of Netscape 8.

    They aren't interested in Netscape the browser, but they have this brand name that they don't want to waste, and they keep trying to come up with something to do with it. They tried it as a classic portal, they tried it as a low-cost dialup service, they tried it as a webmail service, they tried it as a toolbar, now they're chasing another trend, trying to jam the square peg into yet another shaped hole.

    It makes about as much sense as it would make for, say, Coca-Cola to buy Dr. Pepper, then retire the soft drink flavor and start marketing Dr. Pepper spice racks.

    (Oh, and Britney Spears -- does the youth audience still care about her, or is she already passe?)

    1. Re:Net-who? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > trying to jam the square peg into yet another shaped hole.

      Aha! So that's why Paris, Britney, and Jessica are featured so prominently.

      Seriously. From the current netscape.com front page, at least a third of the content is of the form...

      * Men Have Biological Baby Clocks, Too * These Questions Can Freak a Man Out * 10 Things You Never Want Her to Say * You Want to Be Sexy? Don't Do This * See Soccer's Hottest Young Stars * Dating's Best and Worst Moments--Ever * First Kisses: The New Rules * 5 Ways to Let Her Know She's Hot # 64% of Men Have Done THIS by Age 29 # Brutal Breakup Lines: Heard These? Solutions: 5 Sex Problems That Aren't

      That's not a brand. It's a cheap rehash of Cosmo.

      It is, however, unsurprising, considering the demographics of AOL's customer base.

    2. Re:Net-who? by dancpsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They might as well make it an MMORPG while they are at it. That probably would get more users than Netscape 8 at least

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
  2. Age based? by Kesch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Netscape readers will change from the baby-boomers of yester-year to a younger audience more interested in Jessica Alba's Bikini than real intellectual news.

    I thought this sort of vapid interest was not delimited to certain generations.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Age based? by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heck, I can get real intellectual news lots of places. Jessica Alba's bikini, though? Mark me down for some of that.

  3. Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Netscape used to be the domanant web browser... back when we were using Windows 3.1, you needed a third-party DLL called Trumpet Winsock to implement TCP/IP, and RealAudio was the dominant streaming program.

    Then, Microsoft came to the party and knocked out the entire industry by illegally bundling competitors to all three of these pre-.com-era startups. Where are these players now?

    RealNetworks still exists, but their proprietary audio/video codecs are used by nobody other than their bloatware RealOne product. Rhapsody is an also-ran in the digital music world.

    Trumpet? They're still supporting networking for 3.1, 95, 98, and NT, but they've never had another must-have hit the size Trumpet Winsock and likely never will again.

    And Netscape? They've officially deemed that there's no money to be made making a browser, and gave what they had for source code over to the Open Source community still uses the basics in the form of Mozilla. Netscape.com is just a domain that Time Warner keeps reformating. They've tried it as a cut-rate ISP, but United Online's Netzero and Juno have that game covered? They've tried it as a portal site, but realized that was redundant to AOL.com. So now they're trying it as a Digg knockoff... let's see how long that one lasts.

    In reality, these companies deserved a better fate. Too bad as soon as the Bush 1.01 administration came in, the Clinton Justice Department's case suddenly died. At least the EU is still trying to take a bite...

    1. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What utter crap. You actually think that Windows users should still be paying third parties any time they want to connect to the net, browse the web, or stream video? The Bush administration has been a plague upon the country, but dropping the anti-trust wackiness against Microsoft was the right way to go. The anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft have not resulted in one ounce of good for the consumer. It was all a matter of key industry players trying to use the legal system to subvert the free market.

    2. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by nuzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me get this straight: you want Microsoft punished for bundling sockets into Windows?

      Of course you were probably the first in line to bash them for not including something so basic.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    3. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by Infernal+Device · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RealNetworks deserves to be out of it's misery like a sick, dying animal. It only exists so that they can continue tilting at windmills.

      Trumpet needs to go away, if only to finally kill off the old dead versions of Windows. The one advantage of something that old is that apparently, nobody bothers to try and virus them anymore.

      As for Netscape? Cool name, but that's about it. Time to send it out to pasture.

      These companies did not deserve a better fate. They weren't fast enough, smart enough, mean enough or have deep enough pockets to be real contenders in the market.

      The one good thing that came out of all of that mess was Mozilla.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    4. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by jpmkm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No company has the inherent right to be in business and to stay in business forever. Why do you bring the Bush administration into this at all? Hell, what does any administration have to do with any of this? This is capitalism, no more, no less. Protecting companies like Trumpet and Real by prohibiting other companies from entering those markets is simply absurd. TCP/IP is a standard. Nobody owns it and nobody has exclusive rights to it. Trumpet offered an implementation of it. And so did Microsoft. How is Microsoft in the wrong? RealNetworks is barely relevant anymore mainly because their protocol sucks. The only reason they were relevant in the first place is because they were one of the first companies to offer streaming media. There are better protocols now. Again, how is this microsoft's fault?

      These companies didn't deserve anything. Companies come and go as markets change. Protecting these companies will only stifle innovation and competition.

      For the record, I'm not a Microsoft supporter. I don't care for their software and I don't use any of it. However, I do not feel the need to bash them with bullshit economics like you apparently do. Stop that.

    5. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it weren't for Microsoft, we'd be paying for a copy of Netscape 6.87 based on the Netscape 4.x codebase instead of running Firefox. Thank you, Bill Gates.

    6. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by jpmkm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is pretty shortsighted of you to think that there could not possibly have been another decent, free web browser.

    7. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do you bring the Bush administration into this at all? Hell, what does any administration have to do with any of this?

      Microsoft broke the law, whether you disagree with that law or not. The Bush administration, in its first weeks on the job, removed the experienced lawyers on the case and replaced them with young lawyers with no prior experience in monopoly litigation. The expert independant counsel was also mysteriously fired with no explanation. Bush sabotaged the anti-trust case by crippling the prosecution.

    8. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And Netscape? They've officially deemed that there's no money to be made making a browser,

      Tell that to Mozilla, which made $72MM from Google.

    9. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What law did they break, please inform me?

      OMG, they bundled a web browser with their operating system (and back in my Windows days I *still* used Netscape instead, because of *choice*), just what Apple and several Linux distributors do, not to mention mobile operating systems. Same goes for media player (who the hell would EVER use WMP? it skips; it sometimes even plays videos on half or double speed! in short, it's completely broken for regular viewing).

      OMG, they have a huge market share. I'm dying of fear. I was able to choose Netscape, I was able to choose Linux, and now a Mac. I don't see where there is *any* problem, nor what law MS allegedly broke.

    10. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by bjelkeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft broke the law with regards to how a monopoly is allowed to use its market dominance to break into other markets.

      --
      Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
    11. Re:Microsoft killed the net 0.x companys by hearingaid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Microsoft should've bought Trumpet.

      M$ owes Trumpet a lot; the reason everybody bought Win 3.1 machines for the Internet was because of Trumpet. Plus, their winsock was better than Microsoft's: easier to use, more flexible.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  4. All right kids... by dubmun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's the deal. Frames are baaaad. Mmmmmmkaaaay?

    --
    (end of post)
    1. Re:All right kids... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they're not bad. Misused frames are bad.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:All right kids... by Svet-Am · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you are aware that Google uses frames when you're viewing a Google Translate page or a Google Cache page, right?

      --
      [move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
    3. Re:All right kids... by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's called sane, normal use of frames - to split content over two websites. Using frames as a LAYOUT tool is a disasterous step in the wrong direction. Using frames to trap users is just plain evil.

  5. Link to the beta by jellings · · Score: 5, Informative
  6. The Netscape Name Is Now Worthless by divide+overflow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The name "Netscape" now carries no special weight. AOL would be better off trying to leverage their existing proprietary features (AIM, user logins and stored information, etc.) to integrate some new features into the services they provide and bring them to new consumer markets.

  7. Why a young audience? by 011011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand why they would want to target an audience that they already have captured for the most part with AIM. A young audience's expendable income may have a larger percentage of expendability, but it's not like they make a lot of money.

    math: 100% of $10 is less than 10% of $200

    If they wanted to make a decent portal, they really should consider either making their audience choices a little larger or tergeting an audience with a better marketability. Sure kids will snap at ANY next best thing, but more mature consumers have the power to keep it going.

    1. Re:Why a young audience? by 011011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm, yeah. Thats what I said. $10 is less than $20 dollars.
      While it is not based on hard evidence or research;
      $10 a week allowance
      $200 a week wages

      the one with wages (adult) may only have 10% of their wages to be expendable income

      Therefore, a childs expendable income ($10) would generally be less than an adults expendable wages ($20).

      Congrats you can do math and therefore grasp my point.

  8. Framing that issue by Bill_Royle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think I'd call what Netscape has been "real intellectual news".

  9. Not A Chance by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's pretty rare when a big corporation sets out to compete with some popular grass-roots movement and actually gets it right.

    It will gain *some* traction. They're going to throw enough money behind it to get people checking it out. And of those who do, a small percent might actually use it. But they're not doing it better than their competitors. It's not really innovative. It's just a "me too" (a phrase I'll forever associate with AOL and its users) site.



    Calacanis being behind it probably gives it less cred with me than if they'd hired away Cmdr. Taco or one of the Digg or Fark founders to do it. Calacanis is a suit in sheep's clothing, and nothing good comes of suits.

    - G

  10. The link by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FYI - the 'new' site is http://www.beta.netscape.com/

    I agree about the frame. It's huge.

    And the comments are about as high quality as Digg.
    The first comment, in the first story (about hooters), is:
    It's all about the Wii.

    I think that sums it up.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:The link by Compuser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt they would do it, but with a bit of cleanup it could be a decent site.
      Just remove all images from the right side of the screen, kill the ads in the
      middle of the frame, and finally remove the junk at the bottom of the page
      (nobody's gonna look there anyways so might as well save bandwidth).
      As it is, the site is too busy and it is hard to focus on the stories. Story
      selection seems weird - it is just news. Nothing to provoke a serious
      discussion. The commenting link is very small, as if the designers were
      afraid someone might actually post a comment.
      I also don't get their voting system. It'd be one thing for me to rate the
      story on a scale, say from 1 to 10 and then post the average rating next to
      the story. That way user input has some meaning. But what does it mean that
      10 people voted for a story? Ten out of how many? How is that related to the
      quality of the post?
      Bottom line: it is not crazy for AOL to run a community discussion website -
      forums were their core business for a while. But this website shows that that
      they have surprisingly little clue about their core business.

  11. They bought Netscape for the visitors... by VGfort · · Score: 2, Informative

    thats the reason AOL bought Netscape to get the people who were going to netscape.com AND those that were downloading and installing Netscape, so they could put those AOL links in there also. I remember years back some article on the web that AOL was getting info on what sites people browsed from Netscape 6. It was like spyware bundled inside the browser.

  12. ugh. by arudloff · · Score: 5, Informative

    et tu, slashdot? ;)

    I have the pleasure of working as the lead developer for the new netscape.com.

    We've been in beta for approximately 31 hours. We haven't even taken over the domain yet (and won't for awhile). The response has been overwhelming. It's the most valuable feedback we could have ever asked for though (and frankly, we expected a lot of it...) The frame navigator and the pop up new windows for instance, are things that annoy folks to no end -- duh, right? Well internally, it's an odd 50/50 split -- they are both designed from the start to be user preferences, configurable for each person. We'll get there in time, right now we're focused on measuring reactions to features and design changes. I know the definition of "beta" has changed.. but.. uh... it's beta. ;)

    Are we attempting to be a "digg killer?" Not at all. We're attempting to iterate on the concept of social news for a completely different demographic. We're trying to create an honest, fun, interesting portal. Did digg kill slashdot? It's faster and has more daily content, yet people come here for discussion -- Slashdot's strength. We may not be "there" yet, but again, this thing is a brand new project, about 4 months old, and has only been publically accessible for less than two days.

    Thankfully, we all have pretty thick skin here. It's been enjoyable talking to folks and seeing what the concerns are. Hopefully we can evolve this thing into the great product we all have in mind. I do appreciate everyone who has taken the time to send us their thoughts by e-mail or blog post. We're actively reading them and responding as much as we can. Let us know what your concerns are, and we'll try to address them (where we can, that is.. we don't like tons of ads just like everyone else.. just the nature of our position right now)

    1. Re:ugh. by Grrr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thick skin can be a boon or a curse. It can allow one to weather the storm or serenely ignore what needs to be heard...

      We're trying to create an honest, fun, interesting portal.
      ...for thirteen-year-olds.

      I look at this latest development, following so many other baffling ones, and feel a dull ache. Once I was happy - even eager - to send bucks toward Jim, Marc and Jim. How depressing to think it would've been a mercy to retire the company name long before the conception of the beta's k3wl arcade labyrinth. It's like a mutated descendant of GEnie gone horribly wrong.

      <grrr />
    2. Re:ugh. by akorvemaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      One bit of feedback: the site can't be viewed if cookies are disabled. It just constantly redirects to http://www.beta.netscape.com/

  13. Confused Identity by eander315 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The new Netscape will not make it as a portal because they aren't aiming at any particular demographic (I can't believe I just used that word in a sentence). They seem to be abandoning the tech-savvy, intelligent for a younger, broader audience, but they aren't flashy and fun enough to entertain a generation trained to change focus and subject every 30 seconds. Customizable portals have already been done (Google, Yahoo, etc), and while they're great for news, stocks, whatever, they aren't great for building a feeling of community. A more static front page will get you a more homogenous readership, but the content must be active, funny, trendy, and engaging in a way that the intellectual and geek crowd have never really understood.

    Frankly, the Netscape name brand is probably not a good choice for this. I've never understood why the Netscape website has always been stretched so far beyond its original use. Netscape was a browser, not a portal, and as much as you try to make it otherwise, Netscape.com still just a place to get an alternative browser (it's just harder to find the link nowdays).

  14. Netscape is irrelevant. by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The success or failure of the Netscape brand no longer matters to AOL. They know they'll never see Netscape bring back the billions of dollars AOL spent on it - not that making money was ever the point of buying Netscape anyway. AOL now uses Netscape to play with differnt or new ideas without watering down the AOL brand. In a year Netscape.com will be something else, and the lessons learned from giving users control over content at Netscape.com will be applied to hundreds, if not thousands of other projects in the AOL/TW universe.

  15. I'll Marc Andreessen is rolling... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    in his gra....... err ...... cancel that...
    Seriously and ironically, Marc Andreessen IS an investor in Digg

  16. I must be missing it by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everytime this thread pops up, I go to netscape.com and I guess I'm just missing it - I don't see anything that reminds me of digg. It still looks like Netscape to me. Way too much coverage for what it's worth. There has to be more interesting news than this (since it's been covered twice tod on slashdot).

    --
    www.wildpad.com
  17. Age? by Spiked_Three · · Score: 5, Funny

    "to a younger audience more interested in Jessica Alba's Bikini or Britney Spears" who the fsck isnt interested in that? at any age?

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
  18. Framing third-party sites is bad (n)etiquette by adnonsense · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought that went out with the 90s, at least as far as the reputable portals go. It's rare that I agree with any actions perpetrated by Fox News, but I see they have the sense to include a "frame-buster" script on their site (as I do on all of mine), so clicking on the Netscape link led to the site I was expecting to see, not Netscape's "hijacked" version.

    Oh, and having linked sites pop up in new windows is annoying too.

  19. Total crap by tomcres · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Guess what the first operating system to include a bundled web browser and TCP/IP stack and dialer? Give you a hint... it predates Windows 95... it's Windows 3.1 compatible... it's...

    OS/2!!

    All of this talk about how Microsoft killed the internet is typical OSS/Mac/Commie fanboi rhetoric that picks on companies they don't like (like Microsoft) while ignoring companies that are supportive of their particular agenda (strange how IBM used to be the evil empire, but they embraced Linux, so they're "cool" now).

    My first experience with the internet at home was on OS/2 Warp 3.0, which came with the wonderfully easy to set up Internet Access Kit. This included the Web Explorer browser, a TCP/IP stack and dialer, and (OMG how evil of them to bundle this a la MSN!) the IBM Global Connection client and a signup wizard for IBM's own ISP.

    And OS/2 Warp 3.0 also came with a full suite of multimedia applications quite a bit more sophisticated than MPLAYER.EXE and SNDREC.EXE. How dare they bundle that in the O/S? They should make people download RealAudio Player and use that!

    Here's the simple facts: Any O/S worth its salt was going to have to include a TCP/IP stack as the internet became popular. Same thing with a web browser. After all, what on earth do you do once you're connected to the internet? At the very least you need an FTP client to fetch other software, but a web browser makes that much easier. Heck, IBM Web Explorer was atrocious! I typically used it to download Netscape or IE for Windows 3.1 and used that instead and never touched WebEx again! Same thing when Windows 95 started to include IE. IE 2.0 was utterly unusable. And 3.0 wasn't much better. But it was a way to easily go to www.netscape.com to download the latest version of Netscape.

    What really did Netscape in was that IE 4.0 was actually quite usable and feature-rich. Microsoft simply delivered a better product. Netscape decided to offer a bloated suite with their 4.0 release. Remember Communicator? With IE you had a browser and you had the option to use MS's lame Internet Mail and News, or you could get something decent like Eudora or Pegasus Mail. But with Netscape Communicator, you had this massive, crash-prone application that threw everything but the kitchen sink. And it took an eternity to download because it was so large. Eventually, they started offering a 4.x version of Navigator, but not at first, and it often lagged behind the Communicator version, so you were stuck with bugs and incompatibilities that were fixed in the newer versions.

    So get this straight... Netscape killed Netscape, not Microsoft. Microsoft simply offered a better product. With the advent of IE 4.0, there was no longer any reason to download Netscape because Netscape was the inferior product by that time. This is totally fair. It's called competition. So what if Microsoft bundled it with the O/S? As I said, you need something to be able to, at the very least, go get something better. Why would Microsoft settle for having such a cruddy and almost unusable browser as IE 2.0 was? Of course they improved it and made it fully functional. (I think the KDE developers realized this, too. In the internet age, you need a web browser in your desktop. Hence Konqueror. And while the first versions of Konqueror weren't quite up to the task of using it as your default browser, they too saw a need to improve it and today it is quite adequate as one's default WWW browser.) You all bash MS constantly for making bug-ridden crapware, but then when they actually make great improvements to IE, you then bash them because it's finally better than your beloved Netscape and pretty much puts Netscape out of business? Gee, shame on Microsoft for developing and improving their software. And this wasn't even just on Windows. I ran Mac OS 8 for a long time, and Netscape would be guaranteed to crash my computer- it was just a matter of time until it happened. If I ever had to use someone else's Mac and all I saw wa

  20. Censorship by ClamIAm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know Digg's policy on pulling stories, but I'm pretty sure Time Warner's is a little more strict. Will net neutrality articles get pulled (RoadRunner, Netscape dialup)? How about anti-DRM ones (warner pictures/music/cable, CNN/TBS/TNT/Adult Swim)? I really doubt they'll allow lots of stories that challenge the party line.

  21. Re:Um, netscape portal... by Baricom · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, the Netscape portal in the state it's in today is pretty boring, but when it first debuted in 1999, it was years ahead of its time. The major competition was My Yahoo!, and My Netscape had two killer features: the ability to drag-and-drop modules (imagine that) and a way to let publishers add their content to My Netscape, using a new file format called RDF Site Summary.

    Netscape was a visionary company. If Microsoft hadn't squished them, they would single-handedly control the Internet today. You still see some of their ideas manifested in a myriad of places - Mozilla, feeds, open-ended portals, and applications-in-the-browser (what some call Web 2.0).