Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Andreesen Offers New Browser 'Rockmelt'

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the that-poor-horse dept.

DrHeasley writes "Rockmelt, available for the first time Monday, is built on the premise that most online activity today revolves around socializing on Facebook, searching on Google, tweeting on Twitter and monitoring a handful of favorite websites. It tries to minimize the need to roam from one website to the next by corralling all vital information and favorite services in panes and drop-down windows. 'This is a chance for us to build a browser all over again,' Andreessen said. 'These are all things we would have done (at Netscape) if we had known how people were going to use the Web.'"

185 comments

  1. $10 says this fails miserably by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I mean, this Andreesen we're talking about. He's still looking to stay relevant when his best days are over 10 years behind him.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except Andreesen didn't write it, his VC firm funded it. Considering Andreesen has also invested heavily in Digg and Twitter, I'd say he has a decent track record there.

    2. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I won't take that bet. He has a point that the Huddled Masses use their browsers -- nay, the entirety of teh intrawebz -- for those limited purposes, but the set of people who use their browsers in such a limited capacity intersected with the set of users who would have the motivation and technical awareness to seek out and install a new browser and start using that by default is small to nonexistent.

    3. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo bad mod....sorry.

      I wouldn't take that bet either.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    4. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's possible. More likely you're going to see solutions like Google gears. Or whatever equivalent included in the browser is. By the time you've implemented enough of the standards for that sort of limited browser to work, you might as well implement the rest of them.

    5. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that "creating a new browser" is, when the changes are basically UI layer, pretty damn simple and cheap(and this isn't really a new thing, any VB n00b has been able to drag and drop the IE's rendering engine into their application since forever, Firefox's UI is very nearly just a specially shaped web page wrapped around the web page(yo dog, I herd you like web pages...), and now webkit is the new hotness for basing browsers around).

      I'd be very surprised if it does too much supplanting of the main players, or otherwise sets the world on fire(especially since he is basically just moving the classic 90's "portal" concept out of the webpage and into the browser, which means that any web player with a "portal" style site can offer 90% or so of what he does; but without the download/install) but assuming it has anything resembling a revenue model, either present or plausible future, he should be able to keep the venture going more or less indefinitely at very low cost.

      When you have something that can survive essentially forever on very slim resources it is hard to "fail miserably". Even if you fold, the losses are reasonably constrained, and you don't have to make that much money, or create some plausible promise of future profits, in order to be self sustaining or better. I would be seriously shocked if this "Rockmelt" ends up contributing a single technological innovation to browsers; but having a few UI guys reinventing a combination of IFrames and RSS feeds on top of some FOSS browser base isn't hugely expensive or rocket-surgical.

    6. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that he has the Huddled Masses approximately accurately characterized; but I think that his major problem will be the fact that you can deliver the vast majority of what his browser promises in the form of a webpage that will work with pretty much any current browser(perhaps not quite as elegantly, since you won't be able to interface with the drop-down menus and things; but webmail isn't as elegant as client-based mail, and that is all the rage, on convenience lines...)

      You've been able to embed multiple sites and information sources in a single page since IFrames, which I'm fairly sure were a feature of one of unfinished portions of Babbage's Difference Engine. Web-based RSS? Similarly old news. Google search boxes? I'm pretty sure that Google's site has one of those... With all the Web 2.0 stuff the kids are going on about these days, you could probably even make such a shambling composite of a site look and feel fairly elegant.

      There is probably that last 10% or so which cannot be done as a simple web page; but the pace of development and the rate of "creative inspiration" in the browser market is huge. If they come up with anything genuinely cool, it'll be a Firefox plugin in two days, a Chrome plugin just after that, a native Opera feature in the next point release(available in the beta version in three weeks, for the Opera die-hards) and being hailed as Steve Jobs' latest brilliant breakthrough in UI perfection in the release of Safari accompanying OSX 10.N+1...

      The problem is not so much that he is wrong; but that being right on that point is going to be a very hard distinction to sell...

    7. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Tridus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I won't bet on it failing until Gartner predicts that it'll be making $2 billion in revenue by 2014.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    8. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can this fail, when it is the equivalent of nailing a "Nielsen Box" to the user's forehead?

      Hey! Why browse spy sites? You can deeply integrate surveillance and intrusive tracking experiences in your browser itself!

      Never have that "I'm all alone" feeling, ever again.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      $10 says this fails miserably

      Well, that depends on how you look at it.

      If you read the words, it says "federal reserve note" and some other stuff.

      But then if you read Hamiltons stoic face, it says "All your coke goes past my face first. LOL"

    10. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Digg? Twitter? If that's a decent track record, the guy who invented fingernails on a chalk board is batting a thousand.

    11. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      invested heavily in Digg and Twitter

      he has a decent track record there.

      So which is it?

    12. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      perhaps not quite as elegantly, since you won't be able to interface with the drop-down menus and things

      I don't think you give enough credit to a dedicated UI and how it influences people's perceptions. Look at the excitement (?) over new Windows releases that add pretty UIs and not much else. Or the multiple iPhone apps that could be a simple webpage. That dedicated UI, dedicated functionality has something to it, I think. IFrames and tabs have been done; maybe people want something else.

      Now, that being said, I have no idea if Rockmelt has a UI that actually makes any of this worthwhile. There's no Linux client from as far as I can tell, so I guess I won't be testing it out.

    13. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      having a few UI guys reinventing a combination of IFrames and RSS feeds on top of some FOSS browser base isn't hugely expensive or rocket-surgical.

      Who says it has to be? I don't think it's going to take over the browser world, either, but it could be useful to a lot of users. Providing a simpler interface, as compared to tabs or IFrames, for the four or five things I use the web for sounds intriguing. I don't know that Rockmelt will actually do that, but it's worth giving a try.

    14. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by pellik · · Score: 1

      But these sets don't have to completely intersect for the browser to get used. For example, my wife is going to love this.

    15. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Amouth · · Score: 1

      seemed interesting - so i looked at it.. first thing that through me off is - to get an invite you have to do it on facebook - which i refuse to bother with so i can't even do that .. (really a web browser that requires you to sign up for a different companies web based service before you can try it?)

      Second - i figured i'd watch the video and just see what they are doing - looks like chrome with side bars and a lot of extensions - then i saw him say something about landlord and it had an icon showing Tron-Guy on it.. at that point i just ignored my browser window and moved on to more e-mail.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    16. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I'm in a slightly different set: I want identity in a social browser, but using an open standard like XMPP + extensions (see any number of developing social networks, like OneSocialWeb) so that all this same stuff works but I don't need Facebook.

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    17. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's worth giving it a try, but as the bugs in Firefox 4 beta is reminding me, if it omits a feature that a user finds themselves missing, the user will go back to the browser with that feature.

      (In my case the toolbar hides certain buttons, including the one that toggles the bookmarks sidebar, when the menu bar is made sticky. That showed up somewhere between 4b2 and 4b6. And it's bloody annoying that a button I probably clicked 40 times a day isn't there any more. It made me go use Chrome for a few days.)

    18. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by certain+death · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is just AOL for the 21st century...nothing to see here but what we want you to.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    19. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Nobody, me included. My point was simply that to "fail miserably" one really has to do something horribly expensive, horribly deleterious to one's future options, or something like that. Since doing what Rockmelt is doing is relatively easy and relatively cheap, it is virtually impossible to "fail miserably".

      That's actually a virtue of their venture. Since the majority of their work is done for them, they can give it a shot on a shoestring.

    20. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea yea, you can karma whore by hating on them (hell, I hate both sites as well), but for a VC firm there's only one thing that matters and that's ROI. I'd say both sites have worked out pretty well for Andreessen in that regard. You'll note my original post never claimed this browser would be any good, it was in response to someone claiming it would fail because Andreessen was involved.

    21. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      Considering that the browser is made for people who mostly use sites like facebook; Yes, Really! Requiring a facebook account to receive an invite is a perfectly reasonable way to target the correct audience.
      Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this product will crash and burn. Most browsers are made to appeal to the entirety of the web. Browsers that appeal to only one portion of the web ever be niche (flock). The fact that there's a business strategy backing this one makes the whole thing reek of failure to me.

    22. Re:$10 says this fails miserably by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Digg? Heh.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  2. Flock by Zouden · · Score: 3, Informative

    Isn't there already a browser that does this that no one uses? Why create another browser for no one to use?

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Flock by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were already many MP3 players, touch phones, tablets etc out there before Apple released their iDevices. Just because things have failed in the past doesn't mean they can't take off if you design and market them well.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Flock by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Q: Why create another browser for no one to use?
      A: $10 million in funding

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:Flock by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flock was my first though too.

      And why the Flock hasn't cannibalized the FireFox might to be the response to the question why this are not so big news. Power of the web is the power of change: yesterday it was Altavista and news groups and Yahoo boards, today it is Facebook and Twitter and Google, but tomorrow it might be all gone replaced by some new trend in how we share and search for the information.

      And the power of change is what would keep the specialized browsers in a niche for quite some time.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    4. Re:Flock by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe someday it will be replaced by a large number of "pages" with useful content grouped into "sites" than can reference other useful content with "links".

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    5. Re:Flock by wondafucka · · Score: 1

      Isn't there already a browser that does this that no one uses? Why create another browser for no one to use?

      No one uses it? In addition to their normal habit of dismissing niche software / hardware as DOA, Slashdot veterans are suffering from a phenomena where they dismiss and can't understand the third wave of internet users. The user group that is larger than we ever were. Prepare to be left in the dust by the mass's desire to use our precious internet for what we perceive to be inane and pointless.

      --
      postmodernsideshow.com
    6. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website. People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.

    7. Re:Flock by somersault · · Score: 1

      MP3 players may not have been failing before the iPod, but they were hardly taking off either.

      All the big companies are infringing on each others' IP these days. Whether they're infringing or not is not the important thing, it's whether they decide it's worth it to sue.. it's like a giant game of chess.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Flock by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_(web_browser)
      Yes sounds great version 3 will use the Chromium rendering engine, works on Linux, mac, Windows, FreeBSD.
      The real new trick will be in the tracking, ads, "evercookies" ect.,br> To get users to keep everything running at the same time in the same application, sending back realtime bulk 'value'.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website. People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.

      Maybe you missed the text "Built for Facebook and Twitter" under the giant Download button in the middle of the page or the "Watch the video to learn more" link right under that. Or are you still using Lynx?

    10. Re:Flock by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      I played with Flock once. It was a bit interesting, but not as neat as, say, simply having my smartphone pull down and merge address book entries from Facebook, GMail, etc.

      I like the StumbleUpon approach much better. But I still wouldn't share any of my browsing habits with anyone on Facebook or Twitter, no. I pretty much only occasionally share URLs with the people in my IRC channel. But I suppose that just goes to show how old skool I am :P

    11. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, I saw that, dickwad. What does that mean? How do I find out what that means without downloading and installing software? Flock's web page is spectacularly unhelpful when it comes to these basic (and I would think very common) questions.

      Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.

    12. Re:Flock by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Most nerds I know still have their own websites, or at least are members of very specialized website forums such as ArcadeControls. But regular people and most family members have Facebook accounts.

    13. Re:Flock by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Damn Slashdot and its "no editing allowed" forums. I forgot to close the link tag in my post above and now I can't fix it.

    14. Re:Flock by kamochan · · Score: 1

      Prepare to be left in the dust by the mass's desire to use our precious internet for what we perceive to be inane and pointless.

      Ha! I've already been left in the dust once. This whole "web" thing is 99.9% protocol overhead, and 99% of the content is junk. I want my nn back, it had at least smaller overhead.

    15. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.

      You didn't look very hard. Check the top of the screen, Support -> User Guide.

    16. Re:Flock by vlueboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe you missed the text "Built for Facebook and Twitter" under the giant Download button in the middle of the page or the "Watch the video to learn more" link right under that. Or are you still using Lynx?

      This. is. Slash-daaaat!
      C'mon, AC. We're supposed to browse with modern graphical browsers manually tweaked to turn off flash and any images. Videos links where we expect transcripts for TFAs are stringently dismissed.

      Joking aside, they have a huge IMG box that repels us because it looks like flash and has PNG-images rather than text covering browser-purpose soundbites. The only text inside is "I agree..." and the popup video link. We skip watching because video reviews and conferences cannot be skimmed. Besides, Noscript has some hurdles if you click it.

      I say geeks will kinda hate the site if they don't have a repo in their OS, and only geeks and their kin/locally-supported-sheep will get to flock to Flock. The rest of the world coming into the site from IE is clicking through from Wikipedia and won't care to try it out.

    17. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No man that's not even close to the sort of thing I'm talking about. The clue is in the name: "User Guide". I'm not a user, should I be?

      Why are you defending this obviously stupid design decision? Do you make websites like this? If you do, please stop.

    18. Re:Flock by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because many users (including me) had never heard of Flock, or never even thought that there might be a Built For Social Networking browser, and thus would never have looked.

    19. Re:Flock by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      You didn't look very hard. Check the top of the screen, Support -> User Guide.

      Firstly, that's a user guide, not an overview of the features. Secondly, he shouldn't have to "look very hard". Thirdly, if you have a web site design which means that potential customers have to go into "Support" to find out what features your product has, then you've failed.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    20. Re:Flock by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I agree. Flock sounded interesting after reading a couple of posts here, so I went to the site. I still have no idea what it really does other than a "social browser". Not to mention the support page, FAQ, etc. are devoid of any help for installing on Linux, even though they offer a download. Some forums mentioned instructions, mostly be getting a .deb from another site, but none of those worked either.

    21. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They abandoned Flock (Firefox) for Rockmelt (Chrome). Just amending the comment.

    22. Re:Flock by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Whether they're infringing or not is not the important thing, it's whether they decide it's worth it to sue.. it's like a giant game of chess.

      Gooooood analogy. That's perfect.

    23. Re:Flock by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      All the big companies are infringing on each others' IP these days. Whether they're infringing or not is not the important thing, it's whether they decide it's worth it to sue.. it's like a giant game of chess.

      Been there, done that. Back in the day, when electronics patents were dominated by a handful of US companies with big labs, they ended up simply cross-licensing all their patents to each other in order to avoid the game. That left the big players in great shape, as they didn't have to worry about getting tripped up by patent holders with pockets deep enough to pursue long drawn-out court cases. Made it tough on the little guys, though.

    24. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that the site necessarily needs a gigantic plain-text bulleted list of things that it can do right in the middle of the page? The vast majority of people browsing the web nowadays (hint, it's the Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/Whatever crowd) have browsers that already have Flash installed, so watching an introductory video is not out of the question for them. This is a browser pointed at the people using those networks, who are generally not that computer savvy, who would (much rather, I'd say) watch a video to figure out if it was something they'd want to mess with rather than reading a list of points they may or may not understand.

      Beyond that, if you're even remotely curious about what something can do, since when did the User Guide become an invalid source for information?

    25. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so true!

    26. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that mean? How do I find out what that means without downloading and installing software?

      It boggles my mind that you've been modded insightful for asking what "Watch the video to learn more" means.

      FWIW...if you're hesitant to watch a video and would prefer a feature list and screenshots, you're not in their target demographic. The people they're targeting are those who have embraced the latest trends (a.k.a. sheeple) are the type that see "Watch the video" and click it before finishing the sentence. The sentence could end with "...to download a virus" and they'd still click it.

      But seriously...the video is a contrived screen capture showing what the browser does. If you're curious what Rockmelt is about, WTFV!

    27. Re:Flock by Doomdark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If and when their business idea is to get people interested, yes, they might want to focus bit more on making it blatanly obvious what they offer. I am sure there are many whose attention span is long enough to spend a minute digging for information; but there are many who do not, and after rather short amount of time give it up with "screw that, whatever" attitude. So unless they intentionally want to reduce audience it would seem like a good idea to, yes, make it ridiculously obvious instead of just possible to find out.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    28. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Introductory videos being your main introduction are a stupid idea, not because of esoteric technical/philosophical reasons (I have and use Flash! I even use Facebook, and Flash in Facebook). They're a stupid way of going about things because they expected to make noise. A lot of people are often already listening to music, or in a room with someone that is listening to music/watching television/having a conversation, and would rather not be interrupted by some stupid video that is done better with pictures and text.

      It's not like this is rocket science. Virtually all the major browsers make a damn feature of their features:

      Opera has a link to this right in its splash box:
      http://www.opera.com/browser/

      and Firefox this:
      http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/

      Chrome has this:
      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/more/index.html

      Even IE has this:
      http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/features/faster.aspx

      All these took literally split seconds to locate on the page. The Flock page is a mess.

      P.S. I used to use Flock, so I was idly curious about what it does nowadays. I couldn't be bothered tracking that down on their convoluted so I left. Nice going designers!

    29. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      The video's title is "Over half a million views!". Forgive me for not immediately clocking that was the main way of knowing what the hell Flock actually does. It's also in the footer, not the splash box or the main navigation. I can not imagine what's going through the heads of the designers of that site.

    30. Re:Flock by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      I worked at walmart the year mp3 discmans dropped. They took off. They outsold regular discmans 2 to 1. The zen was selling reasonably well. They were definatly not failing before the ipod, and they weren't doing badly either. Sure this was all in the confines of one store, but there wasn't exactly a huge marketing drive behind these devices. The local public just picked these things up because it was obvious they were the next big thing.

      Apple was in a good position to offer everything that the market needed to grow. They had a brand. They created the itunes store. They fenced this all in because it was obvious that this was a growing market.

      Flock isn't exactly getting used well. People aren't 'buying' it more than the regular browsers. Sure it's obvious that social web is a growing market, though a new browser specific for social media is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that market is. Websites that aggregate all your social media are flooding the landscape. They're much more accessible to people than downloading and installing new software is.

    31. Re:Flock by flowwolf · · Score: 1
      This link is on Firefox's main page: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/video
      This link is on Opera's main page: http://www.opera.com/browser/#video-intro
      This link is on IE's main page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/videos.aspx
      This link is on Chrome's main page: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/index.html (same one you provided, except you didn't notice that each bullet point is an simple intro to a provided video)

      I think you're over reacting about Video on the web, and I can't understand how anything about what you've said is insightful. None of those pages really tell me anything about what the browser really does. Most of it is buzz words, but I guess if thats informative for you.. Also it only took me a split second to find the user guide on flock's page.

    32. Re:Flock by adolf · · Score: 1

      All I saw on the damned website was a picture of two shoeless men who appear to be very happy to be sitting very close to eachother, enjoying a romantic sunset over the ocean together.

      Call me jaded, but if I was looking for romantic encounters with men, I don't think I'd start by downloading a new browser.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    33. Re:Flock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video's title is "Over half a million views!". Forgive me for not immediately clocking that was the main way of knowing what the hell Flock actually does. It's also in the footer, not the splash box or the main navigation. I can not imagine what's going through the heads of the designers of that site.

      Are you blind? It's also in the middle of the page, right under the giant Download button. It's a text link, so you might have missed it.

    34. Re:Flock by Z8 · · Score: 1

      Here you go. Perhaps they are saving bandwidth by putting the basic information about their product on another site.

    35. Re:Flock by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Going to Support and User guide to find out features instead of seeing "Features" in a main menu is a GUI faux-pas of theirs. GP is an RTFM apologist. You never hit Support links unless looking for Windows drivers or troubleshooting forums. The features are supposed to be well-known by the time you want to look at the manual. Or do the other mainstream browsers tout a manual as well?

      Their front page avoids static screenshots like they are the plague. The video shows stylized mockups and a few too subtly zoomed-out previews. Most viewers will see the stylized parts and think the small previews are just as stylized and not the real thing the other 90% of that animated preview is misleading without revealing the real Chrome look too overtly.

      Firefox is a success: it knows its target audience is NOT GEEKS ALONE and updated its landing page accordingly. Flock's website missed that boat. If we are to listen to the GP, then only patient candidates with no rush to really get into Web 2.0 (and probably latent techy-qualities anyway) will be satisfied that they're downloading what they came looking for. When the audience isn't 13-year old boys downloading the latest fun trojans cursorware or legit Roller-Coaster-Tycoon game, it costs much more in presentation efforts to convince ADHD visitors to be more than simply curious and actually download and install your product. Let's learn from Mozilla's top menu what Flock should imitate well

      Products / Firefox
      Features
      Under the Hood
      Security
      Customization
      100% Organic Software
      Tips & Tricks
      Videos
      Connect

      Then ponder on unnecessary nesting at Flock's site and all the users they miss because of it.

    36. Re:Flock by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the site necessarily needs a gigantic plain-text bulleted list of things that it can do right in the middle of the page?

      Exactly. You're probably using Firefox right now. Their site is guilty as you yourself chose to charge.

    37. Re:Flock by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      MP3 players didn't fail before the iPod. On the other hand, Flock failed before RockMelt. And where the iPod got massive hype, RockMelt has mostly been met by shrugging shoulders.

      Time will tell, though...

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    38. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      I am not objecting to having an introductory video. Sometimes they can be great, especially if I'm really unfamiliar with the type of software I'm considering. I was objecting to having a website so poorly laid out that it isn't even obvious that the introductory video is the introductory video (its title is "Over half a million views!"--WTF?), and no other means of getting a quick overview of features.

      I don't go to "Support" to find this stuff, that's for when I'm already using it.

      Look, I don't get what you're objecting to, except to be contrarian. Adding a "Learn More" link, straight after their "Built for Facebook and Twitter. Stay Connected." tagline wouldn't have hurt the design even a tiny bit.

    39. Re:Flock by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      There's no link visible right under the download button for me in Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Viewing the source reveals that there is a link there, but it's set to style='display:none'. Nice!

      (Yes, I have Javascript, Flash, and every other normal service turned on; I don't have adblock in Safari or Chrome.)

  3. An internet portal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now, where have I heard that idea before... and how did that work out for them?

    1. Re:An internet portal? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you mean Yahoo, actually still pretty well. Yahoo search is basically dead; but they have a significant stable of non-search properties with huge pageview. Said stable seems increasingly likely to become a vassal of either Bing or Google, dependent on them for search and advertising monetization; but it will be a vassal who brings a large number of eyeballs to the table...

    2. Re:An internet portal? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      [...] it will be a vassal who brings a large number of eyeballs to the table...

      Shrek: Well, actually, that would be a giant. Now ogres, oh, they're much worse! They'll make a suit from your freshly peeled skin; they'll shave your liver; squeeze the jelly from your eyes! Actually, it's quite good on toast.

    3. Re:An internet portal? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Though you're right about Yahoo! branded properties with huge pageviews and a large installed userbase... But the elephant in the room is a property most people don't think of when they think Yahoo! - Flickr.

      Google has tried to make a competitor, but like so many of their attempts outside of search they haven't really put much effort into it.

  4. Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are nice Chrome extensions with Chromed Bird that allow you to easily pull down a menu of Tweets, and have new tweets pop-up. There are entire existing browser projects like Flock designed for this purpose.

    Why do we need this?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So we don't have to use Chrome.

    2. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by nexttech · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hate to break it to you, But Rockmelt is based on Chrome

    3. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably for the same reason we have 122 Linux distros out there. Perhaps because choice is good?

    4. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both wrong. Based on ChroMIUM.
      Chrome, SRWare Iron and Rockmelt are based on Chromium. (there are a few others i forgot the name of that also use it)
      In fact, doesn't Flock also use it now? Yep, newest versions are using Chromium now.
      Know the difference, it could just save your life.

      Anyway, one huge advantage i can see right away with Rockmelt is that they added a sidebar. Currently, Chromium devs have been against those for some reason, they did eventually open up to adding a sidebar for tabs, so who knows, they could come to their senses.
      I don't know why they'd restrict everything to the horizontal plane considering they want to minimize the amount of chrome visible, while still being useful.
      Widescreens are becoming the norm these days, websites are still designed vertically, mostly in fixed widths between 600-1200. It is quite literally absolute madness to go against using sidebars.
      Although i'm in a small minority of people who would ditch everything UI based besides the tabs and the caption buttons, doing everything from the context menu of the tabs. (or even the website context menu)
      So far, i can only do this in FF and Opera. (Opera to a lesser extent)
       

    5. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by revlayle · · Score: 1

      Except it looks like it is totally built off of Chrome - that or they took a BIG UI cue from Chrome

    6. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but its based on Chromium, not Chrome.

    7. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by revlayle · · Score: 1

      Chromium - Chrome - splitting hairs much? And no, knowing the difference will not save your life.

    8. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by gnapster · · Score: 1

      Just what is the difference between Chrome and Chromium, exactly? Aside from branding.

    9. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That OR because when it's so easy to make your own off of someone else's source code, the market gets pretty well saturated with mediocre half-done projects.

    10. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      Why do we need all of the other browsers that we already have? Why have more than one search engine? Why climb Everest? You make it sound like the project is going to be a huge inconvenience, when you'll probably never hear of it again.

    11. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that Google's paid licensing fees for H.264, so it's included in Chrome. There may be other similar things added as well, but I don't recall any offhand.

      The branding is actually important, too. Chrome effectively has Google's stamp of approval, so you can expect support and stability, which are important for corporate use. If a Chromium bug wipes your company's data, it's your own fault for using unstable software. If Chrome does it, Google's more likely to be liable.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Like Flock, most of these features can be accomplished as extentions to Chrome as opposed to a completely seperate browser. Like the Flock project, if they released their changes as extensions rather than a completley different browser then it would reach a larger audience. And it might help Chrome reach a larger browser share rather than splinter the Chrome user market.

      This looks better than Flock admittedly, but again I'd like to see some of these features just get pushed to the upstream Chrome/Chromium project or get released as extensions.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    13. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If Chrome does it, Google's more likely to be liable.

      I take it you didn't read the EULA.

      14.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 13.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:

      (A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;...

      Granted you can still sue them, and eula might not be worth squat. But Google at least has no intention whatsoever of being held responsible for wiping out your data or anything else for that matter.

      Hah... /. won't let me post because of too many caps in google's stupid boilerplate. This is just filler to see how much regular text it takes to fix it. Looks like I need some more. Apparently it needs just about this much.

    14. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is Iron, but I trust it a lot more.

      http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

    15. Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I actually did read the EULA (one of my abnormal habits), but didn't remember that. As you pointed out, they could still get sued. Perhaps even worse, they can still get a PR nightmare to deal with outside of court, regardless of the EULA. By applying their brand, Google has invested their reputation in keeping Chrome stable and safe, so it gets a bit more trust.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook account by an00bis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Welp, count me out.

  6. We've seen this before by Papeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's got the same attitude as the Windows guys. He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

    1. Re:We've seen this before by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this whole problem is asking for a more Google gears style solution than a dedicated browser. Hell, even Firefox's Apps Tab is probably more useful for that purpose. I get that people experimenting is how we get new stuffs, but I can't imagine paying for that until it had gotten somewhere.

    2. Re:We've seen this before by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's got the same attitude as the Windows guys. He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

      And thus you demonstrate that you have no clue how most people spend their time on the internet, and that you are clearly not the target market for this software.

      That's fine. But, as is so common with Slashdotters, you presume that the tiny minority you are a part of somehow represents the majority of humanity. It's cute, but fantastically naive.

    3. Re:We've seen this before by aztektum · · Score: 1

      The average user will turn to a Slashdotter type for help when a problem arises. They'll be told to stop using a ridiculous browser that only works with a Facebook account and thus RockMelt will go the way of Cuil.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:We've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly what Windows does. What's your point?

    5. Re:We've seen this before by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      yet Zynga and Farmville march on...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:We've seen this before by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      the majority of humanity

      .... The Majority of Humanity are basically the homo sapiens equivalent of retarded sheep. Kinda makes you think fondly of the Nazi Eugenics program, really.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    7. Re:We've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would assuming someone is a part of a minority.

      Guess what, everyone I know except for two people(who love the shiny factor) find the new wave of interfaces unusable.

      Win7, iphone, jesus even KDE. Unnecessary eye candy in the way of getting work done, taking away the old systems that worked without an option for obfustication and bling is insane.

      HEY! Lets put rhinestones on the dashboard of cars! Oh wait, can't see anything if the sun's out. Which reminds me, my toyota actually has CHROME PAINT on the instrument cluster outlines...

    8. Re:We've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's got the same attitude as the Windows guys. He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

      And thus you demonstrate that you have no clue how most people spend their time on the internet, and that you are clearly not the target market for this software.

      That's fine. But, as is so common with Slashdotters, you presume that the tiny minority you are a part of somehow represents the majority of humanity. It's cute, but fantastically naive.

      By people, you mean gossiping, narcissistic mouth breathers, right?

      I'm sorry, but that's hardly a new market. Good luck breaking into that one and dominating.

    9. Re:We've seen this before by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Ironically enough, this is very much the goal of the next release of Windows Internet Explorer. IE9's very minimalist UI is designed to "let the page content shine through" or some such, and get out of the user's way as much as possible.

      I'd prefer a bit more customizability in the UI, as I feel they took out more than I like, but it's only in beta and it does do a fantastic job of maximizing screen real-estate for page content.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    10. Re:We've seen this before by TrailerTrash · · Score: 1

      He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

      As long as "work" is defined as sitting on Facebook for an hour hitting refresh every 10 seconds so you can monitor what the morons you went to high school with had for dinner, while waiting for Glee to come on, I agree.

    11. Re:We've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a pathetic attempt at a troll. Go back to 4chan, fuckface. Come back here after your balls have dropped.

  7. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm... all the browsers I know support bookmarks and offer rather easy access to them.

  8. Huh by Anrego · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems like the classic programmer issue of not googling before you code.

    This exists! Not only are there plugins to chrome and firefox for this very purpose, but I believe there are at least 2 actual browsers (which no one uses) built around this idea.

    This does not appear to do anything revolutionary, and certainly does not justify a completely new browser. This could easily have been implemented as an extension to existing browsers.

    1. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? Not all programmers develop applications over night. How do you know this wasn't started 3 years ago when FF plug-ins were crap and extremely limited on what versions they would work on?

    2. Re:Huh by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know this wasn't started 3 years ago

      Because this is built over Chromium, which only exists for two years. And Flock was already 3 years old and perfectly usable by that time.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    3. Re:Huh by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Its foundation is built on Chromium, the same open-source coding that spawned Google Inc.'s Chrome browser two years ago.

      .. it can't be that old.

    4. Re:Huh by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      In general I agree with you, but I think it's worth pointing out that: 1) existing products in a niche don't necessarily preclude a new one from coming in and taking over the niche (such as iPods) and 2) you don't have to take over the world to make a handsome profit. It would be terrifically naive for Andreesen to try and take over the browser market with this thing, but that doesn't mean he won't be able to do better than Flock, which has essentially zero users, and make several million dollars in the process.

    5. Re:Huh by Anrego · · Score: 1

      I guess, although best case scenario I can see the exact same thing happening as happened to netscape:

      1) spend money developing something cool
      2) watch it get really popular
      3) profit??

      Where 3 really is the big problem. How does one make money off a web browser?

      I don't think the old method is gonna work any more.. that is majorly hyped IPO where companies hurl huge bags of money at you. So how do they plan to make a dime off this thing?

    6. Re:Huh by Doomdark · · Score: 1

      While I don't have knowledge of actual business plan, I think there is a good enough idea given that mr. A is actually investing at this point. He has reasonable track record; most people are not aware of exactly how many things he has been financing; and he would not throw money just for "cool stuff". For what it's worth I would suggest considering other social network investments he has made, and consider possibility of this particular piece working with others (read: making deals with other companies, with placements, cross-functionality and so forth). Money does not always have to come directly from users or indirectly via advertisement.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    7. Re:Huh by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      This could easily have been implemented as an extension to existing browsers.

      Or as a web page. Doesn't seem to be anything offered that couldn't be done on a web portal. You could probably write a few iGoogle plugins and do it in any browser already out there via some neat scriptfu.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Huh by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      How does one make money off a web browser?

      Revenue sharing with search engines. Send them searc traffic, and they'll pay you. That's what Mozilla and Opera are doing. And they are making quite a bit of money from it.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  9. Wow shiny by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    corralling all vital information and favorite services in panes and drop-down windows.

    You mean like tabs and bookmarks?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Wow shiny by uncanny · · Score: 1

      And, unfortunately, cookies.

  10. Rockmelt? WTH? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

    How did they pick that for a name? It's like they had two dart boards, one with nouns, the other with verb. At least some of the other web browsers' names made sense, (Navigator, Explorer or Safari). Firefox, Chrome & Opera don't really make much sense either, but at least they don't sound ridiculous.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

      How did they pick that for a name? It's like they had two dart boards, one with nouns, the other with verb. At least some of the other web browsers' names made sense, (Navigator, Explorer or Safari). Firefox, Chrome & Opera don't really make much sense either, but at least they don't sound ridiculous.

      It's not that bad. Look at it this way: one of the darts could have landed on "ass" and the other on "wipe".

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it, Opera sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

    3. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by btcoal · · Score: 1

      Chrome makes sense. It refers to the borders and toolbars on a browser.

    4. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe FaceMelt was already taken?

      (With my apologies for using a WoW joke)

    5. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by cindyann · · Score: 1

      It's not that bad. Look at it this way: one of the darts could have landed on "ass" and the other on "wipe".

      Something tells me that if they had, they would have thrown the darts again.

    6. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that calling it "FacePalm" might've been too on the nose.

    7. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Firefox doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

      It only makes sense if you know the history, and 99% of people don't.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    8. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by pahles · · Score: 1

      You mean, they wanted to have a name with an animal, and Firebird was already taken?

      --
      Sig?
    9. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It sets deep in your OS like stone and melts your privacy into one long term coherent outgoing data stream?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox doesn't sound ridiculous because it's... wait for it... THE NAME OF AN ANIMAL!

      Wtf is RockMelt supposed to be? Some type of alien bacteria that liquefies granite?

      lol @ captcha: relabels

    11. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by ekgringo · · Score: 1

      ...which Chrome pretty much has eliminated and is my biggest complaint about it. I mean I love the speed, but give me back my menu bar with a Bookmarks menu, damnit! Hell, the Mac version has a menu bar, why can't the Windows version have one?

    12. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by kjhambrick · · Score: 1

      And I suppose Magma or Lava were already taken ?

      http://www.magma.com/
      http://www.creative.com/products/mp3/

    13. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like phoenix or firebird are better names. I get phoenix and rising from the ashes of navigator. It's a great codename, but a terrible product name.

    14. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by toxonix · · Score: 1

      The history is Clint Eastwood, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)

    15. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Firefox doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

      It only makes sense if you know the history, and 99% of people don't.

      To make things worse, "FoxFire" (film) is what old people mis-remember when they want FireFox installed for the first time.

    16. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, not many of the younger generations have read that book or seen the film based on it.

    17. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by McGruber · · Score: 1

      "Rock" refers to the venture-capitalists' head(s), while "Melt" refers to the process of extracting cash from them.

    18. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Nah. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't dare beyond an "ass" incident.
      I hereby claim all rights to the eyeball, ow my eyes and balls browser.

    19. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockmelt isn't so bad, compared to Twitter.

      Twitter.

      ya rly

      After the kids get universal network devices skull imbedded and message each other by thought they're going to discover this thing their parents used called Twitter. And they will laugh about it.

    20. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      That's what he said. They don't make sense either. Then again, there's actually a reason why it's called "Opera". It wasn't just chosen at random.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    21. Re:Rockmelt? WTH? by btcoal · · Score: 1

      ...um, you can toggle the menu bars and the bookmarks on and off...I suggest you RTFM

  11. facebook? by leomekenkamp · · Score: 4, Informative

    RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook account.

    Ouch. With facebooks abysmal privacy record I am not going to use this browser.

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    1. Re:facebook? by nyctopterus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since the whole point seems to be Facebook and Twitter integration into the interface, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they aren't targeting the tin-foil hat brigade.

  12. so, basically... by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a browser for people like my mom. Perhaps that'll work, although most people fight back hard when they perceive they're using a dumbed-down tool. We want all the bells and whistles, whether or not we actually need them or know how to use them. Microsoft's latest iterations of Word and Excel demonstrate this admirably.

    1. Re:so, basically... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      although most people fight back hard when they perceive they're using a dumbed-down tool

      really? Then why so many people still use MS Windows?

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  13. summary lacks link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, Andressan built a new browser. hmmm, maybe I'll check it out -- but wait, first I have to go RTFA. So, now, for those who don't rtfa:

    http://www.rockmelt.com/

    as pointed out above, their "invitation" is tied into facebook. Maybe it'll be open to all in the near future?

    1. Re:summary lacks link by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      It's obviously heavily tied to facebook, why should it be open to anyone not on the site? Use another browser...

  14. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Me too.
    Yet somehow i'm not that disappointed. It's sort of like not being eligible for a free drool-tray because I haven't had a lobotomy.
    Oh well.

  15. Social Product = $10million Funding by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nice money if you can get it.

    It seems Mr Andreesen has $10 million burning a hole in his pocket. That must have been some sales pitch.

    Not bad though, mention "Social Web" with your product and it equates to funding.

    I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet" - it's a cubicle that everyone can share and allows you to twitter, facebook, search and share your poop.
    I'm going to need about $10 million to get me started.

    1. Re:Social Product = $10million Funding by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet" - it's a cubicle that everyone can share and allows you to twitter, facebook, search and share your poop. I'm going to need about $10 million to get me started.

      Call it Poop 2.0. Anything-two-oh attracts investors.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Social Product = $10million Funding by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Just as long as you realize that "Twitter Shitter" is not a good trademark to pursue.

    3. Re:Social Product = $10million Funding by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      OMG I have some great social web 3.0 synergies you can leverage with Rate My Poo integration! I call the patent!

    4. Re:Social Product = $10million Funding by tag · · Score: 1

      I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet"

      Meh. It's been done. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/

  16. You log in to RockMelt by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

    According to the Rockmelt blog

    RockMelt is the first browser you log into, it unlocks your Web experience with your Facebook friends, your feeds, your favorite services, even your bookmarks and preferences

    Wow! It unlocks the web experience! That does sound totally awesome!

    Wait, what?

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:You log in to RockMelt by lattyware · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love how it makes a big thing about being all 'on the cloud' - access your settings anywhere! Would be impresive if Mozilla hadn't just pushed out Firefox Sync across the board. This whole idea seems like something that would have been impressive 4 years ago.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:You log in to RockMelt by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I certainly can't think of any other browsers capable of synchronizing a set of data and preferences tied to login credentials... And definitely not one also tied to a best-of-breed email service, online document editor/collaboration environment, and rapidly ascending smartphone OS.

      I also can't think of one from a company whose user experience and marketing chops are so good that people actually pay for that synchronization service, along with the highest ASP in the business for x86 hardware, and the smartphone platform to beat...

      This should go perfectly. Nothing could go wrong.

    3. Re:You log in to RockMelt by paintballer1087 · · Score: 1

      RockMelt is the first browser you log into, it unlocks your Web experience with your Facebook friends, your feeds, your favorite services, even your bookmarks and preferences

      I'm not so sure about that, it seems like Flock does the same thing... Actually it seems like it does a lot of the same things.
      1. Built on Chromium
      2. Integration with Facebook/Twitter/Flikr/RSS feeds/Etc.
      3. Log in to the browser
      4. Syncs your preferences with that login

      So, basically this is a copy of the new Chrome based Flock that came out about 6 months ago...

    4. Re:You log in to RockMelt by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      Opera Link was introduced 3 years ago, and lets you do exactly that (back up all settings to "the cloud", included in the default install, etc.)

      I was pretty impressed, at least.

    5. Re:You log in to RockMelt by omnichad · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not the first browser you log into. MSN Explorer was a piece of crap that required a log in too!

    6. Re:You log in to RockMelt by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Flock needs to update their webpage so you can actually tell what the browser is about. I've browsed it and still have no idea. They also need to make it easier to install/use on Linux. There is a Linux download, but no instructions or FAQs or support documents. Some forum posts give directions, but they don't work currently, either.

      Rockmelt doesn't look any better on that front, though. I don't think they even offer a Linux client.

      -John

    7. Re:You log in to RockMelt by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      Curse you for reminding me of that nightmare! I had happily erased all memories of it...

  17. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? OH! HAHA! I see what you did there. You were implying you don't have a Facebook account! LUL!

  18. To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    He characterizes his browser as a step up from NETSCAPE...I guess no one told him...

    1. Re:To be fair... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Since Netscape is dead, what's a step up from dead? Undead? Run for your lives! Rockmelt is a Zombie Web Browser!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  19. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by Whalou · · Score: 3, Funny

    I watched the video and it almost makes me want to have friends!

    --
    English is not this .sig mother tongue...
  20. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by PhuFighter · · Score: 1

    I refuse to have my browser access my private info like that! Andreesen's company doesn't need to know my fb profile name or anything.

  21. Original Blog Post by wdebruij · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This blog post is the source of the story. Some quotes:

    "Share or tweet links often? Yeah, us too. No more wading through each site’s goofy share widget or copy-pasting URLs. We built sharing directly into the browser, right next to the URL bar. Like a site or story? Click “Share” and BAM – link shared."

    "Behind the scenes, RockMelt is always working on your behalf. Do you visit the same site 10 times a day, checking for new posts or updates? Well, RockMelt keeps track of all your favorite sites for you, alerting you when a new story comes out, a friend posts new pictures, or a new video is available. And when you open a RockMelt feed, the content is already waiting for you."

    None of this sounds world shattering.

    "Your friends are important to you, so we built them in. Now you’re able to chat, share that piano-playing-cat video everyone’s going to love, or just see what your friends are up to, regardless of what site you’re on."

    Browsing together with friends and commenting is promising. Others have tried and failed, but maybe they can get it right. Some more analysis at the reg.

    1. Re:Original Blog Post by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      "Your friends are important to you, so we built them in.

      A bit like Fred West

    2. Re:Original Blog Post by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Do you visit the same site 10 times a day, checking for new posts or updates?

      This part intrigued me. I pretty much have the same 5 or 6 tabs open all day long and go back and forth looking for updates. If Rockmelt can provide me a better interface to do that, I'm interested. I don't discourage options, even if they don't work for me. :)

      -John

  22. Anreesen is a has been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another attempt by Andreesen to be relevant somehow. Why anyone listens to anything he says is beyond me. All he has ever done is take credit for the work of others at the NCSA Supercomputer center in developing the Mosaic browser. Every business he has been involved in since has gone under or failed in some way.

  23. Webkit or other engine by hey · · Score: 1

    I bet they didn't write a new rendering engine... probably using Webkit or something.
    So they basically just re-skinned a browser. But still might be useful for some users.

  24. Wow. I couldn't be less interested by dhammond · · Score: 1

    in a browser that further entrenches the same overblown social media sites that I'm sick of hearing about.

  25. Firefox has all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for some reason, the featured Firefox addons today, are mysteriously about Twitter, Favorite Websites, News Feeds, and Organizing Bookmarks. Coincidence ?
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

  26. Andreessen is probably richer than you by rsborg · · Score: 1

    And he's using his money:

    Andreessen is an investor in social news website Digg and several other early-stage technology startups, like Plazes, Netvibes, CastTV and Twitter. His latest project is Ning, which launched in October 2004.[11] He serves on the board of Facebook,[2] eBay, and Open Media Network, a combined Kontiki (VeriSign) client and media player, launched in 2005. Andreessen is now active in the blogging community. On July 5, 2009, Andreessen announced along with his longtime business partner Ben Horowitz, the formation of their venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, aimed purely at investing in the best new entrepreneurs, products, and companies in the information technology industry.[12]He is currently working on a new web browser, RockMelt.[13] On September 1st, 2009, an investor group including Andreessen Horowitz acquired a majority stake in Skype Limited.[14]

    Yeah, I don't think he's worried about "his best days" being over a decade ago.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  27. Rockmelt by dontgetshocked · · Score: 1

    I personally think it is a cool idea and have signed up for it.Having watched the demo it truly is a welcome NEW idea.Maybe Chrome and Firefox are paying attention.

  28. How timely -- Just what we need! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    I woke up this very morning and said to myself "Self, HTML5/AJAX development would benefit from a new browser having to be debugged, tested and developed against, especially one that can introduce a whole new paradigm and is more about showing off new features rather than perfecting old standards. In fact, the least standards compliant the better I say. Yes, self, we need more pain. We craves pain, we needs it. That's why we do web development is it not?"

  29. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mr. Andreesen,

    Let me get this straight.

    To get access to your browser beta, I need to let you:

    • Access my basic information

      Includes name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information I've shared with everyone.

    • Send me email

      email me directly at xxx@xxx

    • Post to my Wall

      post status messages, notes, photos, and videos to my Wall

    This is what you've learned in 15 years? What happened to just a "Netscape Now!" button?

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  30. More Cowbell by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    Just what we need - a browser built of smoke and mirrors.

  31. What's HTML? by H3xx · · Score: 1

    As long as it handles the GOPHER protocol I'll use it.

    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
  32. hindsighted morons by MichaelKristopeit128 · · Score: 0

    These are all things we would have done (at Netscape) if we had known how people were going to use the Web.

    yeah, and if you had, no one would have seen any value in utilizing the platform, and the services you're attempting to hijack would exist only in their own proprietary forms.

  33. Marc! Marc! You've Jumped The Shark by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    Bad call, you suck. You've taken your once great insights and whored yourself out for money-laundering of 10 million dollars.

    There's a fine line between brilliance and madness and you just jumped it.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Marc! Marc! You've Jumped The Shark by Seumas · · Score: 1

      How can we stop users from doing all this web browsing stuff that sends them all over the internet - even to small people and non-commercial, non-business, non-monetizable places?

      I know! We'll build a browser that only lets them browse Facebook, Twitter, Google, and any other website with multi-billion dollar valuation that slips us a few million dollars!

      Besides, anyone who wants to go to a website that isn't facebook or twitter is probably a terrorist or a pedophile!

  34. If only he had known... by bitfarmer · · Score: 1

    > Andreessen said. 'These are all things we would have done (at Netscape) if we had known how people were going to use the Web.' Yep, and if I had known how people were going to use the Web, I would have founded Google, Facebook, etc.

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
  35. We don't need browsers for this, we need APIs by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

    The idea of building a custom browser for utilizing websites doesn't really fit into the web.

    The future of web clients is the ability to use APIs from custom javascript.. Don't build custom UIs around these services as a 'browser'.

    If the service you provide doesn't offer an API? .. well. Good luck with that. Someday someone will and people will fondly recall your service as that thing people used to use.

  36. Obligatory Summation by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    Mozilla: Yeah! We'll call them "Thunderbird" and "Phoenix"! Yeah!

    Phoenix Technologies: We will sue you.

    Mozilla: Shit. Well, how about Firebird then?

    Firebird DB: We will sue you.

    Mozilla: Well fuck it... FireFOX then. That HAS to be available.

    Clint Eastwood: Listen, you punks...

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    1. Re:Obligatory Summation by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Mozilla: *lock* *load* *points AK-47 with grenade launcher* Yeah?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  37. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent! Rockmelt's plans are working as expected! Bwaaahahahah!!!

  38. Obviously just facebook bullshit by evanspw · · Score: 1

    to drive more eyeballs to facebook so those creeps that run it can sell your data to marketing droids.

    fuck off. stooges.

    --
    Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
  39. A chance to build the browser once again? by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

    Um, "a chance to build the browser once again"? It's not as if Marc has built *any* browser in the first place.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20030212202753/http://www.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html

    --
    Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  40. Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco by aidan.fairbanks · · Score: 1

    Yup, read that and simply closed that browser tab.

  41. Yay, another attack vector! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crackers unite! Another browser is here at your disposal.

  42. http://sparkbrowser.com fastest webkit browser by chrisreevesofficial · · Score: 0

    Sparkbrowser is the best browser available i dont know why people would want their social networks embedded in to their browser? talk about the ultimate distraction from work, or from productivity i bet if you download rockmelt your productivity will approach zero, and your time on social netowrks will increase on the other hand if you like to get your work done fast, and have time to go on social networks, download SPARKBROWSER http://sparkbrowser.com/ i have recently released sparkbrowser BETA on http://sparkbrowser.com/ tell me what you think