[thelist] AOL/netscape was:Netscape 6 loads page twice

Daniel J. Cody djc at five2one.org
Fri Dec 8 15:13:44 CST 2000


Aylard JA (James) wrote:

> Daniel J. Cody wrote:
> 
>> you ask what they have to gain, but instead point out things that they 
>> would lose. Pointing to the licensing agreements with MS is a bad call 
>> because everyone knows that they got forced into using IE so they could 
>> get the icon on the desktop. You're defending Microsofts position of 
>> blackmailing and intimidating AOL in this case.
> 
>> 
>> 	Whoa! Forced to use IE in order to get the AOL icon on the desktop??
>> To me, it is an *extremely* equitable deal -- in fact, a deal in AOL's favor
>> -- to get their icon on the Windows desktop in exchange for using IE (who
>> *wouldn't* take a deal like that??). So in return Microsoft gets increased
>> browser share -- but at this point in the browser war, I don't think
>> Microsoft gets as much out of that deal as AOL does.
> 
Using a dominant market position to force a company to use your product 
isn't equitable.(on a side note, its been a long time since we've had a 
nice windows/os/linux/aol discussion, i'm happy :)  Further, AOL already 
had their icon on the windows desktop before this all started. MS used 
their market dominance to say to AOL, "Listen, either you make IE the 
default browser for your 15 mil. users, or we'll make sure any future 
customers never even hear about AOL."

It would be a good deal, as you mention, if it were a equal and fair 
exchange. If AOL didn't bow to the pressure MS was putting on them, 
millions of PC's shipped in the meantime would have had MSN icons on 
them instead of AOL icons, pretty much forcing AOL's #1 introduction to 
new users out of business.

Finally, you have to rememeber that at the time this was all taking 
place, it was very much the high times of the browser wars. In fact, if 
those 25+million AOL folks were using Netscape right now instead of IE, 
NS would have a 18% market share(based on the stats that jeff through 
out), and thats today. I'm not going to speculate, but things could have 
gone a lot different for IE if that deal wasn't signed. At the time, MS 
was out to get market share for IE and thats all they cared about. That 
landed them in court.. NS/AOL weren't the only people that this happened 
to. Read about how other companies got pressured into using IE:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-338435.html?tag=

>> Finally, you're ignoring the huge amount of people out here - myself 
>> included - that don't use windows for an operating system.
> 
> 
> 	Actually, you're in the minority -- a small minority, I think. You
> shouldn't feel any pressure to drop out of that minority and you should feel
> free to expand that user base through every means possible. But don't expect
> the average user to want to buy into something he or she finds confusing or
> foreign. Most people tend toward what is comfortable and familiar -- and
> right now, for most people, that is a Windows-based PC.

Granted. I'm not making the case here for people to use alternative 
OS's. I'm simply saying that the market is moving away from the typical 
Windows based PC as the main point of contact for the Web. One has to 
look no further than Japan to see this happening - something like 65% of 
people now use cell phones as the primary web surfing device.

> 	Dan, I respect you a lot, but honestly you're arguing utopia in the
> face of reality. AOL will make its decisions based on what's best for its
> bottom line, and not based on sentiment. That's real life. That's business.
> It's not blackmail.

Thanks for the respect ;) I know I'm arguing the utopian view a lot of 
the time. I also know that companies more often than not choose not to 
listen to people/groups like me. But, that doesn't mean I have to stop 
bashing some fucking managerial heads at large corporations to make them 
realize that a solid profit and some of my utipian ideas can live 
together happily..

To drill down ever more, I think its BS how computers aren't utopia. I 
mean, all we used to hear about was how great the Internet was going to 
be for the average Joe, how computers were going to empower the User, 
how computers would help us live a more productive, usefull, happy 
lifestyle. I mean, computers *should* be utopia, but they're not. Why? 
Because users have become conditioned to accept blue screens of death, 
rebooting their computer, data loss, lack of ease of use. To me thats 
like accepting the fact that I'm a slave to technology, I can't do 
anything about it, so why cause a stir? Acceptance of this kind of 
status-quo well.. sucks. And I, personally,  thinks thats bullshit. 
Thats why I talk about alternative OS's, software, ideas and that kind 
of shit.. and thats why i preach it(some would say too much ;) so often 
and so loudly.

At any rate, this spills into a whole different topic, one I'd be happy 
to share with you off list if you're interested :)

Thanks for your opinion, which I respect - its just that mine is 
different :)

.djc.





More information about the thelist mailing list