Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: So, Netscape is dead?

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Jul 18, 2003 at 02:32 UTC ( [id://275482]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to So, Netscape is dead?

Why shouldn't AOL stop Netscape development?

The value of Netscape to AOL was to provide a viable alternative so that they can avoid lock-in to Microsoft. It served that purpose, in recent negotiations it was obvious that AOL could choose to use it rather than IE, so on their recent 7 year deal Microsoft had to give them much nicer terms than they would have otherwise. Mission accomplished. (Mozilla never had to make a dime to be worth it to AOL, it just needed to be a viable bargaining chip. And open source was so much the better because it allowed them to spend less and get a more solid chip.)

Furthermore the browser market today is much healthier than the one in the late 90's. AOL executives look around and ask why they should fund a browser for 7 years so that they are better placed in the next round of negotiation. It is possible that Mozilla can survive without them. It is definite that Konquerer will (and it is getting support from Apple). Opera is chugging along and is already serving as an IE alternative in a lot of PDAs. AOL is running a business, not a charity. Browser lock-in doesn't look like a serious threat right now, and if it does in a few years, AOL can just get behind the most promising alternative browser of the day again.

Of course I would hardly be shocked if Microsoft's terms to AOL explicitly did include dropping Mozilla support. However AOL sees things, Microsoft would like to create serious browser lock-in when IE 7 comes out in a few years. Because if Microsoft can't, then their desktop monopoly will be more vulnerable. There is room for AOL and Microsoft to agree on this because they have different views of the likelyhood of success, and Microsoft's success is worth more to Microsoft than AOL loses in the same scenario. Besides which, AOL has had an internal management shift towards Time-Warner people. Who wouldn't necessarily think it the end of the world if AOL shed its currently less profitable online business and focussed on content (which they understand better).

Welcome to an example that illustrates the schism between open source and free software. Companies, like countries, don't have friends. They have interests. Sometimes those interests lead towards open source. Sometimes not. Which means that open source results in more free software, but won't get to RMS' dream of a free software world.

Oh, and about Perl, as long as a large enough population of people who care about Perl exists to be able to maintain it going forward, Perl is safe from being wiped out. That is the open source guarantee. It is not a completely solid guarantee, but it is better than nothing. For instance suppose that AOL had been carrying out this second supplier strategy without using open source, and you had become dependent on the second supplier. With AOL pulling out, you would be hosed. As it stands, you might not like it but are still OK indefinitely if Mozilla is good enough for you already.

If you want to understand the strategy decisions that AOL is making here (which are related to strategy decisions behind some other prominent support of open source - IBM's support of Apache and Linux comes to mind), I can highly recommend Information Rules.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://275482]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (7)
As of 2024-03-28 08:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found