Microsoft buys off AOL for $750 million

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Gates decided to make IE free simply to "cut off their oxygen" -- that is to drive Netscape out of business by giving them no way to make money. This is also why Internet Information Server was made free and bundled in with Windows NT. It worked very well: Netscape instantly lost over $30 million a year in revenue.

Microsoft forced software developers to install IE in order to access online help for tools, and forced developers to install IE on customer machines in order to use features of Windows that had nothing to do with web browsing (the common controls DLL).

I see you read LOTS of newspapers. Unfortunatly, you get a very biased interpretation. You are not wrong about most of it, but you are also way off on some stuff. Integrating the browser into the OS was the next logical step in the evolution of the the webbroswer and OS. Yes, MS was convicted and everything was true about what they did. But Netscape didn't put up much of a fight. Netscape basically just fell over and died w/o throwing a single punch. Competition is the key to innovation and capitalism. Netscape had many options available to it to fight back, but it chose not to do any of them. It just sat there and let IE win. THAT is what I hate about netscape. MS innovated many features into IE and made IE lots better than Netscape. It was Netscape's job to innovate and win back their customers, or at least try. But it didn't. It didn't even try. Now, it complains. Netscape got what it deserved. It deserved to die. It sucked. AOL doesn't deserve all that money. They bought Netscape and sat on it and got what they deserved, the death of Netscape.

Actually I experienced some of it firsthand. I was an CS undergrad (BS CS '91) at the time MS put a false error message into the Win3.1 beta to imply there was a reason it wouldn't run with DR DOS and have been a full-time DOS and Windows software developer (C++ / MFC) since '93 so I lived through the games with forced IE installs and forced IE distribution to use the common controls.

As to Netscape not trying to compete: MS spent half a billion dollars of Windows monopoly revenue on IE development during the same period they destroyed Netscape's revenue stream (and R&D budget) by giving away IIS and IE and forcing their bundling on new PCs and servers.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: manly
It's nice to see DaveSimmons lay out a solid argument based on facts, and XZeroII's rebuttal based on his personal disdgain for Netscape accuses Dave of bias.

I agreed with Dave! What are you reading? Put down the crack pipe before posting. I just added more. If you can prove that I am wrong, feel free to prove me wrong, but don't just flame me for no reason.

To be clear, you added junk to the argument, which I summarized as your "personal disdain for Netscape". Obviously, the fact that MS repeatedly violated the law over a period of time to wreck Netscape's business model has no influence on you. What you fail to grasp is that it was illegal anti-competitive actions that primarily won the browser war, not the innovation you credit to MS, nor the meakness of Netscape's response.

At the time, Netscape was a small company with roughly $100 million in annual revenue. They simply could not compete going forward with Goliath if MS illegally "cut off their oxygen", as Dave put it (I'm pretty sure he's alluding to an internal MS email).

As far as the reasons for flaming you, since you asked, they're obvious (and numerous). In this thread alone, you unabashedly show that what drives your opinion is your intense hatred of AOL: "100x more evil than MS" and similar mocking for Linux: "They stole EVERYTHING".

I've seen a number of your software-related posts over time, and on technical matters, they're of a similar childish level. I'm not here to flame anyone for sport, but to point out obvious deficiencies in argument. Plenty of people disagree with me, but they usually have more to backup their argument than "put down your crack pipe" retorts or standard AOL bashing.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: minendo
Actually millions of subscribers are keeping the company alive.

I think the word you meant was IDIOTS. Of course, I would accept Lamers, too.

How are they idiots for wanting to use something that's convenient and simple to use?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Gates decided to make IE free simply to "cut off their oxygen" -- that is to drive Netscape out of business by giving them no way to make money. This is also why Internet Information Server was made free and bundled in with Windows NT. It worked very well: Netscape instantly lost over $30 million a year in revenue.

Microsoft forced software developers to install IE in order to access online help for tools, and forced developers to install IE on customer machines in order to use features of Windows that had nothing to do with web browsing (the common controls DLL).

I see you read LOTS of newspapers. Unfortunatly, you get a very biased interpretation. You are not wrong about most of it, but you are also way off on some stuff. Integrating the browser into the OS was the next logical step in the evolution of the the webbroswer and OS. Yes, MS was convicted and everything was true about what they did. But Netscape didn't put up much of a fight. Netscape basically just fell over and died w/o throwing a single punch. Competition is the key to innovation and capitalism. Netscape had many options available to it to fight back, but it chose not to do any of them. It just sat there and let IE win. THAT is what I hate about netscape. MS innovated many features into IE and made IE lots better than Netscape. It was Netscape's job to innovate and win back their customers, or at least try. But it didn't. It didn't even try. Now, it complains. Netscape got what it deserved. It deserved to die. It sucked. AOL doesn't deserve all that money. They bought Netscape and sat on it and got what they deserved, the death of Netscape.

Actually I experienced some of it firsthand. I was an CS undergrad (BS CS '91) at the time MS put a false error message into the Win3.1 beta to imply there was a reason it wouldn't run with DR DOS and have been a full-time DOS and Windows software developer (C++ / MFC) since '93 so I lived through the games with forced IE installs and forced IE distribution to use the common controls.

As to Netscape not trying to compete: MS spent half a billion dollars of Windows monopoly revenue on IE development during the same period they destroyed Netscape's revenue stream (and R&D budget) by giving away IIS and IE and forcing their bundling on new PCs and servers.

I realize that and you have a very good point. However, paying $40 for a web browser is highly unrealistic. A web browser is quite simple and netscape was doomed from the start with it's pricing scheme. I believe that what MS did was the right move. I can now use a web browser common crontrol to create my own browser in about 5 minutes. MS made that happen. They encapsulated an entire web browser into one simple control which can be inserted into any application. This was the future. Netscape didn't realize that. If Netscape had it's way, we would not have web browsers integrated into applications, or the developer would have to pay a large fee to use it. I agree that MS suffocated Netscape and Netscape didn't have much of a chance (with their business model), but my problem is that they didn't even try to put up a fight. They just accepted that they lost the war and died. Now they get rewarded for not fighting. That's not capitalism IMO.

 

[sharkeeper]

Microsoft will help distribute AOL CD-ROMs to PC builders around the world, which could help stabilize AOL's sagging subscription numbers. Under the deal, Microsoft will provide AOL software discs worldwide to "system builders"--smaller PC manufacturers that obtain their Windows discs from authorized Microsoft distributors.

I guess I'll have to dedicate a microwave oven for the sole purpose of destroying all of those unwanted AOL CD's!

-DAK-

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: manly
It's nice to see DaveSimmons lay out a solid argument based on facts, and XZeroII's rebuttal based on his personal disdgain for Netscape accuses Dave of bias.

I agreed with Dave! What are you reading? Put down the crack pipe before posting. I just added more. If you can prove that I am wrong, feel free to prove me wrong, but don't just flame me for no reason.

To be clear, you added junk to the argument, which I summarized as your "personal disdain for Netscape". Obviously, the fact that MS repeatedly violated the law over a period of time to wreck Netscape's business model has no influence on you. What you fail to grasp is that it was illegal anti-competitive actions that primarily won the browser war, not the innovation you credit to MS, nor the meakness of Netscape's response.

At the time, Netscape was a small company with roughly $100 million in annual revenue. They simply could not compete going forward with Goliath if MS illegally "cut off their oxygen", as Dave put it (I'm pretty sure he's alluding to an internal MS email).

As far as the reasons for flaming you, since you asked, they're obvious (and numerous). In this thread alone, you unabashedly show that what drives your opinion is your intense hatred of AOL: "100x more evil than MS" and similar mocking for Linux: "They stole EVERYTHING".

I've seen a number of your software-related posts over time, and on technical matters, they're of a similar childish level. I'm not here to flame anyone for sport, but to point out obvious deficiencies in argument. Plenty of people disagree with me, but they usually have more to backup their argument than "put down your crack pipe" retorts or standard AOL bashing.

I admit, I hate AOL and I hated Netscape at the time. However, my comments are true AFAIK. If you find a comment that I make to not be true, let me know and I will evaluate your response and possibly retract my statement. I have done it many times before. Sometimes I use extreme examples to make a point (such as the Linux example) but I still believe it's true, and if you disagree, I will be more than happy to listen as long as we keep the flames to a minimum. If you choose to just criticize me or flame me w/o backing up your statements, I will respond angrily because I hate it when people do that.

 

[yllus]

I swear, Microsoft is the IMF of the technology world.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Microsoft was convicted of abusing their Windows monopoly power to damage Netscape. The settlements were to determine the penalties for their criminal behavior.

Unfortunately, from what I've read, there's a deficiency in federal antitrust statutes. They don't attempt to penalize offenders, but rather are limited to trying to balance the playing field going forward. Nor can remedies address "ill-gotten gains" racked up over the years.

So on just the browser issue alone, that's why the settlement is hilariously ineffective now that IE has 90% market share.

That's analagous to a convicted felon being given only probation if he promises to never break the law again (which MS had previously done with the FTC in writing anyhow). At least in that case, the probation officer has relative expertise in monitoring the offender. In this case, it's highly political as to whether Judge Collar-Kotelly can effectively perform the analogous task (by all accounts, she's trying seriously to).

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: yllus
I swear, Microsoft is the IMF of the technology world.

M$ is actually the Standard Oil of the technology world.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
As to Netscape not trying to compete: MS spent half a billion dollars of Windows monopoly revenue on IE development during the same period they destroyed Netscape's revenue stream (and R&D budget) by giving away IIS and IE and forcing their bundling on new PCs and servers.

I realize that and you have a very good point. However, paying $40 for a web browser is highly unrealistic. A web browser is quite simple and netscape was doomed from the start with it's pricing scheme. I believe that what MS did was the right move. I can now use a web browser common crontrol to create my own browser in about 5 minutes. MS made that happen. They encapsulated an entire web browser into one simple control which can be inserted into any application. This was the future. Netscape didn't realize that. If Netscape had it's way, we would not have web browsers integrated into applications, or the developer would have to pay a large fee to use it. I agree that MS suffocated Netscape and Netscape didn't have much of a chance (with their business model), but my problem is that they didn't even try to put up a fight. They just accepted that they lost the war and died. Now they get rewarded for not fighting. That's not capitalism IMO.

I agree with you somewhat -- $40 for just the web browser was unrealistic. But if the market for browsers hand't been poisoned we would probably have seen "browser suites" of browser + email client + other tools (website copier, ftp client, html editor ...). MS would probably have done this themselves if the the OS and application companies were separate companies. Businesses even today are paying per-seat license fees for the Outlook email client.

(ed) and an HTML rendering control is certainly useful, but it could easily have been done as a browser-neutral API. Though Netscape definitely dropped the ball on that one -- one reason AOL chose IE over Navigator was that Netscape's developers hadn't seen the need to make their browser engine modular enough to support that kind of embedding (which AOL needed for their look & feel).

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
As to Netscape not trying to compete: MS spent half a billion dollars of Windows monopoly revenue on IE development during the same period they destroyed Netscape's revenue stream (and R&D budget) by giving away IIS and IE and forcing their bundling on new PCs and servers.

I realize that and you have a very good point. However, paying $40 for a web browser is highly unrealistic. A web browser is quite simple and netscape was doomed from the start with it's pricing scheme. I believe that what MS did was the right move. I can now use a web browser common crontrol to create my own browser in about 5 minutes. MS made that happen. They encapsulated an entire web browser into one simple control which can be inserted into any application. This was the future. Netscape didn't realize that. If Netscape had it's way, we would not have web browsers integrated into applications, or the developer would have to pay a large fee to use it. I agree that MS suffocated Netscape and Netscape didn't have much of a chance (with their business model), but my problem is that they didn't even try to put up a fight. They just accepted that they lost the war and died. Now they get rewarded for not fighting. That's not capitalism IMO.

I agree with you somewhat -- $40 for just the web browser was unrealistic. But if the market for browsers hand't been poisoned we would probably have seen "browser suites" of browser + email client + other tools (website copier, ftp client, html editor ...). MS would probably have done this themselves if the the OS and application companies were separate companies. Businesses even today are paying per-seat license fees for the Outlook email client.

(ed) and an HTML rendering control is certainly useful, but it could easily have been done as a browser-neutral API. Though Netscape definitely dropped the ball on that one -- one reason AOL chose IE over Navigator was that Netscape's developers hadn't seen the need to make their browser engine modular enough to support that kind of embedding (which AOL needed for their look & feel).

I agree

 

[IBuyUFO]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
A bargain: they get off easy for using the Windows monoply to destroy Netscape, and by offering use of IE for free they give AOL no reason to continue development on Netscape. And they make sure AOL keeps IE as its browser engine.

This is right up there with funding SCO's fight against linux in defend-the-monopoly cleverness.

I think it's more like netscape destroyed itself by being static instead of adapting to the changing need of the users. Netscape sucked then and it sucks now and there's no question about it. There is no netscape in my computer and never will be installed.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
A bargain: they get off easy for using the Windows monoply to destroy Netscape, and by offering use of IE for free they give AOL no reason to continue development on Netscape. And they make sure AOL keeps IE as its browser engine.

This is right up there with funding SCO's fight against linux in defend-the-monopoly cleverness.

I think it's more like netscape destroyed itself by being static instead of adapting to the changing need of the users. Netscape sucked then and it sucks now and there's no question about it. There is no netscape in my computer and never will be installed.

I agree which is why I use Mozilla

 

[ElFenix]

kinda hard to innovate when you don't have any revenue because your biggest competitor is giving their product away...

 

[Marauder-]

Eh - IMO Netscape was slowly losing out anyways - it was too big and clunky. By the time IE4 came out, it was over. I think if there was something more like Opera out, then that'd be a more fair battle seeing as how the early versions of Opera were slick w/o any extra junk.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Marauder-
Eh - IMO Netscape was slowly losing out anyways - it was too big and clunky. By the time IE4 came out, it was over. I think if there was something more like Opera out, then that'd be a more fair battle seeing as how the early versions of Opera were slick w/o any extra junk.

Except that part of the reason it bloated up is the same as with RealEvil -err- -Player: once the app is forced to become free (because of MS) the company has to flail about with portals, banners, popups and other junk in a desperate attempt to get every possible penny of side revenue out of the application.

 

[psianime]

Confusing

-psianime

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
A bargain: they get off easy for using the Windows monoply to destroy Netscape, and by offering use of IE for free they give AOL no reason to continue development on Netscape. And they make sure AOL keeps IE as its browser engine.

This is right up there with funding SCO's fight against linux in defend-the-monopoly cleverness.

Regarding the SCO case: They got owned hard by Novell.

 

[bonkers325]

Originally posted by: manly
Microsoft to pay AOL $750 million

gimme the dough

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: fumbduck
i see nothing about "buying off" in the article.

seriously, i was hoping to read that MS was gonna buy the AOL portion of AOL/Time Warner and let Time Warner be what it always should have been.

I seriously hope you dont think AOL by itself is only worth $750 million. That should have given you a clue.