Slashdot Mirror


Has AOL Ruined Netscape?

Anonymous Coward sent it: a scathing, three-page ZDNet article that claims the AOL purchase has turned Netscape into a shadow of its former self, that morale there is low and employee turnover is high, and that the company is now mired in bureaucracy, caught between Sun and AOL managements. The article was so sad, I almost wanted to cry by the time I got to the end.

4 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Netscape is dead ? But Mozilla lives ! by JPMH · · Score: 3
    Massive staff turnover... job losses... plunging morale... and comments like

    But while the Netscape brand may live on for some time, it is quite clear to many current and former Netscape pros that the culture they helped create behind the name is long gone. But while the Netscape brand may live on for some time, it is quite clear to many current and former Netscape pros that the culture they helped create behind the name is long gone.

    "We defined the Internet culture. We were really the first 'dotcom' startup," says one former Netscape facilities exec. "I loved my time at Netscape ... but it's a completely different company now."

    The most interesting thing about this article, I thought, was how little of it applies to Mozilla.

    Post jwz, it seems that morale at Mozilla has just been getting better and better. Developer turnover appears to be very low -- the same names are still appearing week after week in the status reports as 12 months ago. There's now a real confidence and enthusiasm that they are on a realistic timetable to deliver a world beating product -- and soon. Mozilla's culture is alive and well.

    Yeah, it sounds from this article as if the rest of Netscape has taken a beating. Sic transit gloria mundi.

    But as a consumer brand Netscape is defined by the browser. With Communicator 2000 in the next couple of months also including some of the goodies AOL has been keeping on its secret list, the Netscape brand is going to be back with a bang.

  2. What about Mozilla? by pwb · · Score: 4

    I have been watching the browser wars with much interest in the last several months. This is because I manage a project developing Java applet based database clients. I find both browsers very buggy and don't particularly like either. At the moment there just isn't anything better. Unfortunately because of the slow movement at Netscape for the last year, I see Microsoft gaining quickly in performance and features, and will probably blow by Netscape in the next year.

    I see IE as the biggest threat to Linux . The reason for that is I see the browser becoming the desktop of the future. If IE is the only real browser left, then Micrsoft will have an even bigger and stronger monopoly on "desktops" than they have now. Microsoft isn't about to make a Linux version of IE. And with out a good browser, Linux will never make the transition to the desktop from the server. (Taking over the server market I see as just a matter of time.) Part of my assumption here is that the next killer App will be built on top of a browser. And if IE is the only serious browser in town, then Microsoft still holds all the cards, (and a couple of spare Ace's).

    So from my point of view Mozilla is more important to linux than gnome/kde. Having said all of this, I have a question. A freind of mine and myself have talked about putting together a Mozilla distribution CD that contains "up to the week" source code, and the latest Milestone binaries currently found on mozilla.org. If you could buy one of these CDs, would you buy it? Would you report bugs or help with the Mozilla development? The only problem is that because of the rapid change in code and binaries, glass mastered CD's are out, it takes too long to have that done. And quick turn around for CD-R's is a bit higher per disk ($5-6). If you would buy and use a Mozilla distribution CD , mail me at Noble. Also we need people who can help set up the distribution for others OS's (Windows and Mac). I think we have Linux (and most unix) covered. E-mail me if you have time and knowledge to help with that.

    But most importantly, help Mozilla anyway you can.

  3. It ain't AOL's fault. by hatless · · Score: 5
    For one thing, the buyout made millionaires out of most longtime Netscape employees. Bolting the minute one vests is a perennial problem at tech companies, and it's getting worse.

    Second, Netscape's Unix-oriented tech culture started to hurt them when focus shifted towards usability features and cute UI flourishes in 1996. This was clear both on the browser side
    • the tedium of installing plugins, the horrors of SmartUpdate
    • their miserable signed-applet security dialogs

    and on the server side
    • the stubborn insistence on browser-based interfaces for server administration; client Java wasn't good enough but a native GUI would have made many admin tasks easier. Between their awful web admin UI and their poorly-documented config file format, Apache was easier to administer
    • for all their open APIs, and with all due respect for their LDAP servers, would it have killed them to bundle modules for native-OS authentication (at least NTDOM and NIS) with their admin server? This sort of thing came across as arrogance and contempt for the customer.

    I don't, however, fault them for their lousy tech support. I always found their server support group competent and responsive. It wasn't their fault that the product engineers would leave nasty bugs unfixed for release after release. That's why Apache's so compelling. And unless you had a special relationship with Microsoft, mediocre support like Netscape's was far above average.

    AOL and Sun bought themselves a troubled company with a faltering product vision, and they knew it. That doesn't mean Mozilla's not great technology; it is. And it doesn't mean Netscape's server line isn't good. It is. That's why their mail, web, directory, cert and app servers are the basis for the iPlanet line. But both the client and server groups at Netscape were sorely lacking product architects with customer and market focus.

    In this regard, the buyout offered Netscape a chance for redemption. If AOL can be made to care about Mozilla, their understanding of customer-focused (as opposed to geek-focused) usability can help it in ways XUL and XPFE as rallying slogans couldn't. And though Sun is still coming up to speed as a software vendor, they at least know how to listen to their customers in designing products in a way Netscape never did.
  4. Flash, attention-grabbing story...but inaccurate! by elig · · Score: 5

    Having lived through all of what the author describes, this article simply distorts Netscape's past year of history in order to create a flashy, attention-grabbing story --- even if it's of questionable accuracy.

    1. Attrition: Yes, people have burned out and left Netscape. But, you know what? New, enthusiastic employees of equal or greater caliber --- excited about the work that's being done at Netscape, and already trained from hacking on the Mozilla source code --- have come back to replace them in full force. The net effect is zero.

    2. Netscape culture: Guess what? For most employees, the culture *hasn't* appreciably changed. Employees' dogs and children still have company badges, and we drink all the beer we want. ;) Yeah, it takes a few months to order a new computer, and we see an AOL logo at company meetings. So what? Personally, I think AOL is a great company to work for, whether perceived as "cool" or not.

    3. 5.0 Release Date: The author provides no evidence that the turnover has resulted in the one year delay in the Communicator 5 beta. Which is convenient --- because no cause and effect relationship exists between these two events. As many Mozillans have pointed out already in far more detail, the delay came about from a ground-up rearchitecting of the entire product. (And anyone who is bothered by this can go to http://www.mozilla.org and help ship a browser; whining here won't do jacksquat.)

    4. Barry Schuler's comments: I attended that meeting. Barry **never** made these comments. He was, however, busily serving up a barbeque after the meeting, as Mr. Barksdale himself would have done. (Another AOL executive, in fact, did make these comments, but the journalist is, in my opinion grossly stripping the comments out of their intended context, which would have been obvious had he attended the meeting.)

    Based exclusively on my personal experiences, it looks to me as if this journalist sought to write an article about a topic, and then wedged the facts to fit his original preconceptions. We ain't dead yet. ;)

    --- elig@prometheus-music.com's personal $.02.