Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Internet Explorer The Internet

AOL Builds New IE-Based Browser 360

Posted by michael from the mozilla-deemed-harmful dept.
jfruhlinger writes "According to News.com.com.com, America Online is preparing to release a free AOL-branded browser that is 'based on Microsoft's Internet Explorer technology.' The browser will be available to users who don't have AOL as their ISP. I admit that I find this development baffling -- not only does AOL already own a browser, but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Builds New IE-Based Browser More

AOL Builds New IE-Based Browser

Comments Filter:

  • How can I put this nicely (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:53PM (#10475328)
    Okay, I can't.

    AOL is for dumb users. IE is for dumb users. This is a perfect match.

    (This will probably get me modded as flamebait, but in the old days of Slashdot, it wouldn't.)
    • Omg. AOL and IE... it cant get any worse.
    • It ain't flamebait if it's true.
    • You can't, but you did nonetheless. AOL provides a service, namely the distribution of free frisbees.
      And IE creates work for us all. Something about "looking a gift horse in the mouth" applies here.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @08:24PM (#10476384)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:How can I put this nicely (Score:5, Interesting)

        by yog ( 19073 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:27PM (#10476912) Homepage Journal
        While I don't dispute your analysis, I would offer a "devil's advocate" reason why AOL would put out this IE-based browser. They've been using IE for years and surely they have put a lot of time and, perhaps more importantly, money into adapting it to their purposes.

        Some bean counters in their marketing department are going to say, we've invested all this money in this IE-based thing so let's get something out of it, put out an AOL-branded browser just to keep up the name brand recognition. Who knows, perhaps MS paid them to do it.

        I believe that they didn't buy Netscape for the browser so much as for the portal and name recognition. Even today, Netscape is a household name and that's worth gold in the strange, illogical world of marketing. Remember also that Netscape open-sourced its browser before it got acquired by AOL (as I recall). AOL didn't need to buy them just to get its hands on the browser source.

        We techies may think they have made a dumb mistake but it's worth watching and waiting to see how the market responds. AOL may have fallen greatly since the market boom days, but they're still a marketing force to reckon with. We techies wish they'd adopt the "good guys" like Gecko and Firefox but they have to be convinced they'll make money off it first.
        • The bought Netscape for the chance to wield a big stick over Microsoft in the form of an 'alternative browser' during the lawsuit. I don't believe there was any other reason.

          When Microsoft handed over the cash, AOL gutted Netscape. There might still be a portal, but count the number of employess in AOL West (Netscape) and I doubt it's a tenth of what it was in 2002. They couldn't even build Netscape 7.2 in house because there was no one left in Netscape to do it - they paid Mozilla.org to build it.

          The l

      • Actually... from what I hear (which may very well all be rumors) AOL engineers actually got sick of waiting for IE to implement standards, features, and new protocols. Most websites already work with IE despite how broken it is, if a site uses ActiveX, then AOL needs its users to be able to use that site. Because of this they are grudgingly using IE as a base and then extending it from there. I could see this one day being ported to firefox when more people use it, but business is business and right now the
      • AOL? What? Oh you mean the internet.

  • Microsoft plus AOL = Evil (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:53PM (#10475331)

    Microsoft last year granted AOL a seven-year royalty-free license to use IE technology in its products. The license was one of many concessions that Microsoft offered AOL as part of a $750 million settlement in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Netscape in January 2002.

    However, one source familiar with the new software said the Microsoft settlement and IE license did not play a factor in AOL's decision to develop its own browser.

    Yeah, right...

    Evil A + Evil B = More evil!

    They are scared of google. If you can find your email and web searches easily, why do you need AOL's portal? You don't.

    Google is going to release a browser that is just AOL for free. Pretty content filling the screen all over the place making the daily news, email, messaging free and easy for everybody.

    AOL and microsoft-- they both know this. This is their answer.

    God help us all.

    • That is a pretty good point. Considering this coming right after the buzz about the Google browser, this may not be only for the tin foil hat crowd.

      This is probably the result of one of them corporate brainstorms.

      Boss: They're taking our aolusers, what do we do??

      Dennis: Do what they're do....

      Boss: I'VE GOT IT! Build our own version of what they're offering!

      Dennis: Very good idea, sir!
    • Evil A + Evil B = More evil!

      Or perhaps these two wrongs will make a right? What if it's THE BEST BROWSER WE'VE EVER SEEN!!111 ROTF LOLOL!!11

      Sorry... I forgot to use firefox instead of that new AOL browser. It turned everything I typed into leet speak!

    • Re:Microsoft plus AOL = Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Combuchan ( 123208 ) <seanNO@SPAMemvis.net> on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:21PM (#10475567) Homepage
      Does it seem odd to anyone that AOL settled an antitrust suit not by better leveraging their own product but by gaining free access to someone else's? What kind of "antitrust settlement" is it when the actual terms therein strengthen the offending product's hold on the market? AOL's acquisition of Netscape finally makes sense--it was never about the browser, they just used it to get free Microsoft technology for seven years with the added benefit of having the Netscape "brand" (whatever that's worth) at its disposal (see Netscape's showing up as a discount ISP/free email/netscape.com, etc). AOL doesn't seem to mind at all that Microsoft is a monopoly, or we'd see real settlements like forced distribution of Netscape products with new copies of Windows.

      I really hope karmaic justice bites AOL in the ass for this one. Settling a lawsuit with AOL in the manner they both did was like the non-agression pact signed by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. From near everything that the company has done, Microsoft doesn't want to play nice, cooperate, or form joint-ventures with anyone. Sooner or later, Microsoft is going to look at AOL's position in the "content" market and attempt to eradicate them from it--probably using IE technology that they both agreed to share.

      --sean
    • Do you know what's funny?

      Microsoft killed Netscape, and AOL gobbled it up. And out of which, Mozilla was born.

      Now Mozilla has come back to bite IE in the ass -- Firefox is simply the best browser out there.

      And now, AOL is teaming up with Microsoft, at a time when IE's marketshare is definitely receding.

      Who says there isn't justice? It's almost poetic.

      • And now, AOL is teaming up with Microsoft, at a time when IE's marketshare is definitely receding.

        I agree. While the IE market share is not going down very fast, it is slipping and will continue to do so. What is needed is /. geeks to get firefox on their friends and loved ones computers. Be it MS Windows, Linux or Mac OS. I just reformatted a computer for a church friend who had _TONS_ of spyware thanks to IE. They are an older couple who know squat about a computer. I put Firefox on and put a big

        • Agreed.

          The problem with Microsoft is that they're so stuck up that they simply do not know HOW to comply with standards.

          Last week, I had asked the designer of my company to come up with a new logo - and he had it out as a transparent PNG. And guess what? IE does not support Alpha channel in PNGs. So no transparency. D'oh!

          Ofcourse, Microsoft's website had a long-winded solution of detecting the browser and using a DirectX object tag and what not to get IE to render the PNG. Huh?

          And oh, someone on one of
      • "Microsoft killed Netscape, and AOL gobbled it up. And out of which, Mozilla was born."

        And so at last the beast fell and the unbelievers rejoiced. But all was not lost, for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them. For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror.

        The Book of Mozilla, 7:15 [wikipedia.org]

  • Because they can for free. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ryokurin ( 74729 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:55PM (#10475345) Homepage
    If I recall AOL as a Settlement from Microsoft got the right to use IE in their program or even as a browser like this for free for like 7 years. thus the use of IE here. why spend money developing your own browser when you can use someone elses for free and just put a little front end on it?

  • What's next? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Bogue ( 652570 )
    AOL OS?

  • not really based... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 10 Speed ( 519184 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:55PM (#10475348)
    though there wasnt much detail in the article, I suspect it is simply going to be ie with an aol 'skin'. I suspect they dont have access to ie source code....

  • If closing it is anything like trying to cancel... (Score:5, Funny)

    by joseph schmo ( 223532 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:55PM (#10475354)
    *user clicks close button*

    [POPUP:] Thank you for being an AOL Browser user! I'm sorry you have decided to stop using it. I'm going to go ahead and leave it open for a few more minutes, for FREE.

    *shows [OK] button only*

    ermmm...

    • Re:If closing it is anything like trying to cancel (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:10PM (#10475470)
      I've had a really bad experience trying to cancel AOL some years ago.

      I don't know whether the person on the phone accidentally gave me the wrong number or if they were trying to throw a hint at me. I called their customer service center and asked to cancel the account. She fought tooth and nail to get me not to cancel (of course) and finally gave me a phone number to call in order to cancel. Okay, but there was one problem when I called.

      "To talk live to a hot, horny girl, press 1."

      I have no idea whether she gave me the wrong number (I read it back about three times to confirm) or she was hinting to me to "go fuck myself" because I wanted to cancel.

      • Re:If closing it is anything like trying to cancel (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Arker ( 91948 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:49PM (#10475786) Homepage

        They do make it as hard as possible to cancel. Not only do they make you dial a special cancellations number, which is not published, and barely staffed, they also put the poor saps that work that particular line in a very tough spot - they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only, and one where the simple fact that the customer has the number to dial indicates they've already waded through a lot of shit to get there, so they're pretty determined.

        I doubt that giving you porn numbers is official policy, but having seen the incredibly disrespectful ways that AOL reps are required to treat customers that want to quit, I wouldn't really be surprised.

        • Re:If closing it is anything like trying to cancel (Score:4, Insightful)

          by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:12PM (#10475974) Journal
          Well, I usually tell them that I'm leaving the country.

          That works like a charm everytime, and they just can't argue against that now can they?

          Ofcourse, I had a bad experience once when the guy wanted to know *why* I was leaving the country.

          Ehmmm.
        • "They do make it as hard as possible to cancel. Not only do they make you dial a special cancellations number, which is not published, and barely staffed, they also put the poor saps that work that particular line in a very tough spot - they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only, and one where the simple fact that the customer has t
        • they are supposed to talk you out of cancelling, and if they cancel too many accounts in a day they will be fired. They get bonuses for NOT cancelling - even though they're answering a line that is for cancellations only

          Well then, why don't we put the number on here? Random people could phone up and pretend to be convinced not to cancel... everyone wins!

          Michael
        • I wrote this [blogspot.com] about a year ago. True story.

          My dad is a real character and loves to mess with people on the telephone. More on that in a minute. The family has had an AOL account for seven years now, and the last three years no one has used it much. Dad has broadband, and my sisters have moved out and gotten their own Internet access, though they still use the e-mail and IM accounts. However, he's remained an AOL subscriber because they simply will not let him cancel.

          First off, they make it very difficul

    • Re:If closing it is anything like trying to cancel (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And, if you actually manage to close it, it puts your pops up messages periodically asking if you'd like to reopen it...

      (Anonymously to protect the shame of having once been an AOL user oh so long ago...)

  • Well, the answer is: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Artifex ( 18308 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:56PM (#10475358) Journal
    Anyone who's still locked into AOL and hasn't left yet must obviously be very trusting of their brand. Not only that, but an AOL-specific version for their customers means easier troubleshooting. Don't forget that MS has abandoned IE upgrades for the older generations of Windows installations; hopefully AOL might release its own security packs later?
    • At the most, it's misplaced or blind trust.

      Many people have had AOL for a long time. For some their email address is @aol.com and that is the address they have passed on to everyone (this is a big lockin). For others, AOL may have been their first ISP and introduction to the Internet. Finally, many are simply complacent. AOL is not for trend-setters or the technical elite. It for those who don't care or know anything better.

  • Is there a linux version? (Score:5, Funny)

    by barcodez ( 580516 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:57PM (#10475366)
    Someone had to say it....

  • Here's why: (Score:5, Funny)

    by gulfan ( 524955 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:57PM (#10475376)
    why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?

    CUZ TEH INTERNET IS SO MUCH DIF3RENT WHEN UR VEIWNG IT WIT AOL!!1! OMG LOL

  • Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#10475380)
    I think it's rather simple.. they want to be synonymous with "The Web" (known to us as a collection of other things) to the average home user. I know plenty of folk who think AOL *IS* the web.. it can't hurt their business.

    Now, as to who would want an AOL branded IE, I know I wouldn't, but I imagine they will introduce some value-add to make it interesting to the typical non-technical user.

  • AOL browser rocks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#10475381)
    NOW I CAN AUTOMATICALLY POST IN ALL CAPS!

    but the damn slashdot filter seems to know I'm using AOL.

  • Wow...just...wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Beller0ph1 ( 812228 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `1hp0relleB'> on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#10475382)
    Alright, so AOL is the bane of the internet. AOL users really aren't the most knowledgable users on the internet either. So pairing up AOL users with Internet Explorer (known for its holes and exploits) will just make the worm and virus problem worse. I mean, with all the popups with IE and AOL users used to pretty flashing content through AOL...means a lot of infected machines.

    • Re:Wow...just...wow (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Akai ( 11434 )
      the problem is that AOL is already build around the IE engine for it's HTML stuff, so I can't see why AOL was ever any more secure than IE alone.

  • IE branding (Score:4, Funny)

    by gammygator ( 820041 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#10475383)
    I'd use IE branded butt wipe, AOL for that matter, too.
  • AOL CDs....Now with more crap !

  • The Important Question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:00PM (#10475399) Homepage Journal
    ...of course is will AOL simply reskin the existing IE or will they actually write their own and address security issues on their own?

  • Answer: Micro$oft is still #1 in the market. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:00PM (#10475402) Homepage
    FireFox and its ilk will continue to grow in marketshare. If (and it is a big "if") IBM will back FireFox in the same way that IBM has backed Linux, then FireFox could easily grab 60% of the browser market.

    Until that day arrives, Micro$oft continues to dominate the browser market and owns 90% of it. Hence, AOL, like any other commercial company, will back the de facto standard. Since 90% of the market is Internet Explorer, most web page designers will build their pages to be compatible with Internet Explorer (IE). AOL has an economic motivation to use IE technology as the basis of the new AOL browser.

    Similar reasoning applies for office applications. Most programmers prefer to write office applications for Windows instead of MacOS because Windows dominates the market.

    Apple missed the boat ... er ... luxury superliner on that "one".

    • If (and it is a big "if") IBM will back FireFox in the same way that IBM has backed Linux, then FireFox could easily grab 60% of the browser market.

      IBM is not the silver bullet. We cannot go crying to them with everything. They have no interest in Firefox or Mozilla, nor should they.

      It's not like we're asking people to format their hard drives and install a new OS. It's just: visit a website, run an installer, migrate your current settings; and you're ready to go, as far as Firefox is concerned. This is

  • The reason for IE-based browsers coming out of AOL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:01PM (#10475409) Homepage Journal
    You should read There must be a pony in here somewhere [amazon.com] (reviewed by me on Slashdot [slashdot.org]) to find out AOL's real strategy. Netscape was not bought out for its software technologies.

    Netscape was bought out so that the marketing department called up Microsoft and told Microsoft they wanted an AOL icon on each and every desktop with newly-shipped Windows. For like 2 or 3 years Microsoft did exactly that, which brought AOL who knows how many customers that paid for the service. Distributing Netscape-based browser to the AOL subscribers would have no financial benefits for AOL whatsoever.
    • I haven't read the book, but that sounds wrong. The MSFT/AOL deal you refer to was in place for several years before AOL purchased Netscape. Even if this were not the case, you don't pay $4 billion ($10 billion, by the time the deal closed) for a company in order to get a deal with another company that will place an icon representing your service in their product so that there is a possibility that a user of their product will decide to click on your icon and then decide to subscribe to your service. Esp

  • Probably Crap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ogrez ( 546269 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:01PM (#10475410)
    First I want to say that I hate AOL... Im just trying to figure this out.

    But I would think they are *trying* for the best of both worlds...

    AOL has better content controll from years of being "family friendly", however they have built their browser into a portal platform. Besides the sheer quantity of suck that AOL brings, one of their worst problems is that its not that easy to just type in a address and go, thats where IE comes in.

    I think their stand alone browser might appeal to end users looking for content control without having to install the AOL software on their computer and getting AOL's portal services.

    The browser will probably be available to AOL users to provide them more ease of use, while allowing them to still moderate what their children see through the browser.

    Again.. I hate AOL, its the devil, but this is the spin I see AOL trying to put on it.

  • AOL's strategy (Score:3, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:02PM (#10475421)
    AOL must want a browser with all of the latest security holes, without the work.

  • But why on earth...? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Knx ( 743893 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:03PM (#10475425) Homepage
    "(...) but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

    I believe this is called "masochism". :)

  • Doesn't seem that crazy to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slagdogg ( 549983 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:03PM (#10475431)
    While AOL may own Netscape, they probably found that a lot of sites out there were still IE specific and they couldn't afford the support costs for angry users who couldn't visit them. I'd probably do the same thing if I were running that project.

  • It's obvious (Score:4, Funny)

    by Donoho ( 788900 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:04PM (#10475434) Homepage
    "why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

    It's a tech support warning marker.

    User: My system is slow and unresponsive and it keeps asking me if I a bride from Soviet Russia
    Tech: Uh, ok sir. What Operating System, web browser/version,
    User: I've got Microsoft Windows ME with Internet Explorer from AOL.. [click... dial tone] Hello?
  • why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?
    To be, like, all cool and stuff?

  • AOL is good/evil... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:05PM (#10475443)
    AOL buys Netscape. AOL is good!


    AOL sticks with IE in a deal with the devil! AOL is evil.


    AOL buys Nullsoft. Definitely good!


    AOL axes Gnutella, Justin leaves for greener pastures. AOL, clearly evil.


    AOL uses wxWindows in AOL Communicator [aol.com]. AOL is obviously good!


    AOL releases a branded version of IE. AOL, definitely evil.


    Look, AOL is a big fucking company. They are going to do lots of good and evil things, because there are lots of people making decisions at different levels of the company. Do they have a coherent browser strategy? Not really. Have they tromped on the corpse of Netscape? Definitely.


    There's finally a good browser based on Gecko (Firefox) and they've basically abandoned the Netscape browser. But AOL is just dealing with the reality of who their user base is and what they expect (the trailing edge of the Internet revolution, if you will - these people think IE is great, and will think a better IE is even better). And for all I know there may still be deals in place keeping them working with MS on the browser front - for a long time they were locked into that deal to get pre-installed AOL with Windows. Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see an AOL-branded or Netscape-branded version of Firefox come down the pipe 4 or 5 months from now too (post 1.0, of course).


    As for the rest of us, let's just enjoy the cool shit that AOL occasionally produces, and continue to ignore the rest of the crap that will invariably come out of them.

  • my guess (Score:3, Funny)

    by molnarcs ( 675885 ) <csabamolnarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:05PM (#10475444) Homepage Journal
    I admit that I find this development baffling -- not only does AOL already own a browser, but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

    That's easy to explain. First they tried something logical. Buy netscape. Open up codebase. Attract zillions of developers. Use enhanched codebase for own brand. Whatever.

    It didn't work out as they expected. So now, they must think: we tried something that made a lot of sense and it didn't work. Maybe if we try out something that doesn't make any sense it will work. Simple and logical.

  • Among the reasons I dumped AOL was that unholy combination of IE and AOL insinuating themselves into the registry. I am sure AOL retains some real marketing geniuses who know some reason why this is a good move but it is beyond me entirely.

  • I'm scared. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:07PM (#10475451) Homepage Journal
    Think about this, for a moment. The new IE only works on Windows XP or later. (They're not releasing fixes for earlier Windows releases.) So, if AOL is going to move to the newest IE, they must also be making an XP-or-later-only version of AOL.


    This won't necessarily force AOL users to upgrade - I know plenty who use AOL 6 or earlier! But it will be a significant force that Microsoft can use to get more people to give them money.


    I don't know why AOL is building on IE, but I can see many good reasons why Microsoft would want them to. There are a lot of AOL users out there, and that's a lot of revenue Microsoft could gain.


    I don't think it's a coincidence that this came out so soon after the deadline for appealing the antitrust settlement passed. If I'm right in believing that the new AOL will only run on XP, then it's possible the antitrust lawyers for the hold-out States would have had ammunition to attack (although probably not destroy) the settlement.

  • Antitrust Definition

    "Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition: antitrust legislation."

    Then why is every antitrust settlement against Microsoft involves "concessions" that only result in an increase in Microsoft's monopoly position?

    Was not one of Microsoft "concessions" in the governments case to donate hardware and Microsoft's software to schools!!!! This is a page out Apple's marketing plan. Microsofties must

  • Especialy given the security conserns around internet explorer. In fact, wouldn't they be worried about liability?

    Oh, that's right. Computer software dosn't need to actualy 'work', or 'not leave you vulnerable to hackers' or anything fancy like that...

  • ...they don't do ANYTHING not in their best interests.

    they already own a browser

    Yes, but Mozilla/Netscape doesn't given them (I suspect) a boatload of cash from a company that wants marketshare, marketshare, marketshare. AOL desperately needs cash- ever since the merger, they've been hemorrhaging money because the index finger doesn't know what the middle finger is doing- and neither even knows about the thumb.

    Or, it could be as simple as "AOL customizations to Mozilla/Netscape take X hours and cost

  • New computers already have (something like) this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:14PM (#10475501) Homepage
    A friend's mother recently bought a computer (which it was up to me to get working), and the thing came infested with AOL. Not only was there AOL links everywhere, and AIM running at startup, but the system manufacturer had set every instance of I.E. to an AOL branded Netscape browser. Going to program files -> Internet Explorer revealed, you guessed it, a app to sign up for AOL. The regular address bar in windows had been replaced by an AOL bar, which also fed everything through the AOLified Netscape (the normal address bar had been turned off by default and, once on, was shoved almost entirely off the side of the window).

    It was a mess, quite frankly. Welcome to the future.

  • Let's not be too harsh on AOL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:15PM (#10475508) Homepage
    AOL put a lot of money into working on Mozilla and didn't pull any corporate shenanigans a la Sun's debacle with OpenOffice. Where would Mozilla be today had AOL/Netscape not pull millions of dollars of R&D money into building it up? Probably nowhere, or just now becoming remotely useful.

    OSS fans need to adopt a bit of political realism here. Corporate entities are amoral, and that means that they will side with those who best serve their owners' interests. It is thus in the interest of OSS users to actively encourage them to see OSS like Mozilla, OpenOffice and the Linux kernel as being in their interests to support.

    AOL has given a lot, and I can't think of them actually taking anything. Does anyone seriously expect the average AOL user to jump over to Firefox? It's hard to believe that people as smart as many OSS users are so detatched from the public that they don't see how incompetent most AOL users are. AOL knows that, most of us should too.

    The people who are hooked on AOL are not a significant enough block anymore to be the pivotal base to win over. If AOL is smart, they'll capitalize on their investment into Mozilla by making the Mac version of AOL software use Gecko. That's more than enough users to make a dent in the market. AOL, last I heard, had two million Mac users. That'd be over twice the number of people that downloaded Firefox 1.0PR.

    In the end, people should be amazed that AOL has given so much to OSS communities, without playing battered wife to the Evil Empire like Sun is doing now after their settlement.
    • ...AOL has given a lot, and I can't think of them actually taking anything.

      What about waste? What about whats-his-face that used to work on winamp. What about all the wasted bytes on my harddrive linking to "TRY AOL FREE". Now that shit pisses me off.. I bought a new 5.1 surround sound card (sound blaster live) and it automatically installed links to "Try AOL Free" on all the users desktops, the start ment programs and the top of the start menu, for that alone the bastards should be kicked in the balls.
    • If AOL is smart, they'll capitalize on their investment into Mozilla by making the Mac version of AOL software use Gecko. That's more than enough users to make a dent in the market. AOL, last I heard, had two million Mac users. That'd be over twice the number of people that downloaded Firefox 1.0PR.

      The Mac version of AOL already uses Gecko, and has for some time. Unfortunately, it's an old version of Gecko; roughly comparable to Netscape 6 if I'm not mistaken.

    • OOo: Care to clarify? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sparkz ( 146432 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:28PM (#10476916) Homepage
      AOL put a lot of money into working on Mozilla and didn't pull any corporate shenanigans a la Sun's debacle with OpenOffice.

      What have you lost in OOo that you have in Mozilla? Who has taken something from you?

      Get a grip

  • Maybe because they want people to be able to view all the non standards compliant banking, an e-commerce sites that only work with IE?

    Maybe because they don't want to use a technology that gets updated and re-polished all the time like Mozilla.

    Maybe they don't want to completely re-engineer their sortware or use open-source code so that others might hack their proprietary crapola?
  • but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?
    Because repeatedly banging my head into a brick wall just isn't painful enough? Just a guess.
  • I think this just shows that AOL is a big company, and can hire lots of idiots with MBAs.

    Anyone who is both willing and able to replace his browser isn't going to be interested in the AOL brand; that's notoriously for stupid grannies. In the windows world, only power users fiddle about with changing basic software like that, and power users have heard that there are modern browsers, like the new Netscape. What could AOL offer to make up for the shame of having their logo on your screen? Why, a skin for

  • Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
  • Do AOHELL 1users suffer from extreme spyware infection?

    Does AOHELL proprietary browser allow malware installation?

    Does AOHELL e-mail allows spam and worms through?

    Maybe AOHELL is sufficiently "shielded" to not suffer from those scourges...

  • AOL shooting themselves in the foot! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xant ( 99438 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:38PM (#10475700) Homepage
    Take a moment to reflect on the target audience of AOL. Just reflect; you know what they're like. They're not really stupid, but they're just not exactly hacker types.

    Now think about what happens in that person's brain when they see an AOL icon in the corner of the browser window.

    "I'm using AOL!"

    Now imagine what happens inside the person's brain when AOL tries to sell them the AOL service.

    "I'm already using AOL! Why would I pay for it?" ...
  • 1. They are not too popular in their main business(internet access) 2. They buy netscape and screw it up.From being the best it goes to worst. 3. They buy Winamp(Nullsoft) and screw it completely.The worst version of winamp came after AOL bought it(v3 i think).
    What is it?? Do these guys hate profits or they tryin to see how much they can mess things up! . Weird.
    Now they wanna release a browser for people who already hate them.They've completely lost it and have no clue to where they've headed.

  • Clueless users (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fbg111 ( 529550 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @06:49PM (#10475788)
    but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

    B/c there are still plenty of clueless users that AOL does not yet monopolize, and ironically they won't have a clue that the browser is just IE with AOL logos on it and an AOL homepage.

  • Bad combination (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thaelon ( 250687 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:23PM (#10476056)
    Stupid users + insecure browser = why don't they just GIVE their computers away?

    Talk about a bunch of zombie machines waiting to happen.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:27PM (#10476084) Homepage
    but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

    Because not everybody is computer literate enough to know that AOL sucks. Granny aint going to care what some punk tells her if AOL is telling her they can make her internet simpler. I find it distasteful that people on here can't understand that the internet does not make sense to everybody, and that some people need assistance with it.

  • Never to much main for the n00bs :) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by node159 ( 636992 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @07:55PM (#10476243)
    They thought that their ciustomers wern't in enought pain all ready?

    I smell a conspiracy, maybe its a favor getting returned for the AOL link on every desktop :P

  • Old AOL joke: (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrbcs ( 737902 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @08:25PM (#10476388)
    "Think of the Internet as a Highway." There it is again. Some clueless fool talking about the "Information Superhighway." They don't know didley about the net. It's nothing like a superhighway. That's a rotten metaphor. Suppose the metaphor ran in the other direction. Suppose the highways were like the net. . . A highway hundreds of lanes wide. Most with pitfalls for potholes. Privately operated bridges and overpasses. No highway patrol. A couple of rent-a-cops on bicycles with broken whistles. 500 member vigilante posses with nuclear weapons. A minimum of 237 on ramps at every intersection. No signs. Wanna get to Ensenada? Holler out the window at a passing truck to ask directions. Ad hoc traffic laws. Some lanes would vote to make use by a single-occupant- vehicle a capital offense on Monday through Friday between 7:00 and 9:00. Other lanes would just shoot you without a trial for talking on a car phone. AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking bus with hundreds of ebola victims on board throwing dead wombats and rotten cabbage at the other cars, most of which have been assembled at home from kits. Some are built around 2.5 horsepower lawnmower engines with a top speed of nine miles an hour. Others burn nitrogylcerin and idle at 120. No license plates. World War II bomber nose art instead. Terrifying paintings of huge teeth or vampire eagles. Bumper mounted machine guns. Flip somebody the bird on this highway and get a white phosphorus grenade up your tailpipe. Flatbed trucks cruise around with anti-aircraft missile batteries to shoot down the traffic helicopter. Little kids on tricycles with squirtguns filled with hydrochloric acid switch lanes without warning. NO OFFRAMPS. None. Now that's the way to run an Interstate Highway system.

  • Mozilla (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roly ( 576035 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @09:55PM (#10476758)
    Kinda ironic that in July 2003 AOL made a $2million donation to the Mozilla Foundation, and now their releasing an IE-based browser. Why not base it on either Firefox or the Gecko rendering engine?

  • Internet Explorer taking code from Mozilla? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @02:26AM (#10477690)

    Do the licenses [mozilla.org] of Mozilla and Netscape allow AOL to use developments in Mozilla for proprietary software? I'm not too clear on the specifics of how open source developments in Mozilla are migrated over to proprietary distributions of Netscape, if they actually are.

    But if AOL has licensed Internet Explorer from Microsoft, then perhaps the deal includes the sharing of proprietary code both ways. If Mozilla code can become proprietary for AOL under the project's licensing scheme, then they could possibly pass it on to Microsoft. Microsoft could end up using developments for Mozilla for Internet Explorer to deal with all its current security issues under a closed source license. That could be the whole reason for this deal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close