Is Netscape the Browser for the Next AOL?

There have been many rumors on developer forums over the last week or so that AOL is testing Netscape in the AOL software. They've all been just rumors until recently, when some news sites have posted quotes from real, live AOL representatives.

AOL spokesman Jim Whitney confirmed on Thursday that a beta version of CompuServe has shipped with Netscape as the browser, and that they've been testing it since the fall. He also stated that they'll be testing Netscape with the AOL service as well, which has a worldwide customer base of 34 million users. AOL 8.0, due to ship in the fall, is likely the earliest version of the AOL service that could integrate Netscape.

With AOL's purchase of Netscape in 1999, and with AOL letting its agreement with Microsoft to use Internet Explorer as the browser of choice expire in January of 2001, some feel it's just been a matter of time before AOL would start to roll Netscape out as the default browser for the AOL service. Microsoft isn't so convinced AOL will move its user-base away from Internet Explorer given that AOL has been threatening it for years but hasn't yet moved. This, of course, ignores the January lawsuit AOL filed against Microsoft. Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said, "AOL has had the ability to change browsers since they purchased Netscape back in 1998, so it's not surprising that they might make that decision. But Internet Explorer is by far the best technology because it provides users the best experience on the Internet. But the decision remains AOL's."

Jupiter Media Metrix analyst David Card walks away with the best quote to date, when commenting on whether or not AOL would really make the shift to Netscape from Internet Explorer: "Serious software companies don't ship open source. They may start with it but they build products on it. You just have to be serious about the business and I don't think they are serious (about Netscape)."

Some news bits:

• AOL testing new, improved Netscape
• AOL 7.0 tests Netscape browser
• AOL with Gecko Beta Released over at MozillaZine, where they ask for people to beta test the software.
• AOL Beta Testing Gecko-Based Browser, many discussions follow.

Track new links in the comments below, I think we'd all like to see the progression of this story.

Amazon Out of the Woods?

Back on January 21, Amazon had expected to report its first profit — a pro forma profit that would exclude many costs included in regular accounting and is often seen as a controversial method of creating good news where there may be none. Amazon has maintained that pro forma accounting is more appropriate for its business model.

However, Amazon posted a $5 million (1 cent per share) profit the very next day using standard accounting methods. Amazon used GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), which is considered quite an accomplishment for a company often viewed as the poster boy for creative accounting.

Wall Street tracking firm Thomson Financial/First Call had expected Amazon to post a pro forma net loss of between 4 and 8 cents a share, compared to a loss of 25 cents a share ($90 million, pro forma) a year ago. Amazon's GAAP losses last year were $545 million, or $1.53 per share.

Amazon was able to cut its operating costs in half this past quarter, which allowed for lower prices on core products, resulting in higher sales volume. Free shipping on orders over $99 (originally a holiday special, but permanent as of today) as well as bundled products are credited with some of that volume, according to Bezos. Licensing its e-commerce package to Target and Toys R Us probably hasn't hurt, either. International sales were up 81% from last year, with the Germany and United Kingdom offices breaking even.

Amazon is still in debt to the tune of $2.2 billion ($120 million a year in interest alone), although that debt does not come due until 2008. Amazon is projecting first quarter sales between $775 million and $825 million, with $810 million in liabilities in the fourth quarter, meaning that profit is already earmarked and unable to pay down its debt.

Related Links

• Amazon posts a profit at CNN
• Amazon posts its first net profit at News.com
• Amazon expected to report "profit" at News.com
• Amazon expected to post first-ever profit at The Register
• Amazon may spark new shipping war at News.com
• Analysts demand answers from Amazon at News.com from May 1, 2001

Juno - Free Email for Megahertz

The Details

As of January 18, Juno's new service agreement has been in effect. As with all service agreements of this nature, they notify you of a change, and if you continue to use the service, you are bound by it.

So what? Well, there's a new feature that Juno offers. In exchange for using their free service, you agree to let them run some software on your computer. Modeled after the distributed computing model, made common knowledge by SETI @ Home, Juno is planning to use the computers of its users to crunch data. Section 2.5 of the agreement details this below. The salient points:

• Juno makes you use a screen saver, possibly laden with advertisements, in order to run their distributed computing software. You cannot interfere with its operation.
• Juno can ask you to leave your computer on at all times so the software can crunch away. You, of course, absorb the electric bill.
• If you don't dial in often enough, Juno can call your computer and upload the data, whether or not you care. It is completely up to Juno's discretion. you could pay for the phone call, too.
• If the software kills your system, that's your problem.

But hey, it is a free service. What will be interesting to see is where people feel that free service is valuable enough to allow this software to run. And if it does, could this business model catch on. And how will people respond to the privacy issues? Juno claims it will all fall under their privacy statement, also amended January 18. Ultimately, will people care? Was there enough backlash against Yahoo! or Geocities to really impact them? Somehow I think this will really only affect the people who run SETI @ Home.

Excerpt of Section 2.5 of the Juno Service Agreement

You expressly permit and authorize Juno to (i) download to your computer one or more pieces of software (the "Computational Software") designed to perform computations, which may be unrelated to the operation of the Service, on behalf of Juno (or on behalf of such third parties as may be authorized by Juno, subject to the Privacy Statement), (ii) run the Computational Software on your computer to perform and store the results of such computations, and (iii) upload such results to Juno's central computers during a subsequent connection, whether initiated by you in the course of using the Service or by the Computational Software as further described below. In connection with downloading and running the Computational Software, Juno may require you to leave your computer turned on at all times, and may replace the "screen saver" software that runs on your computer while the computer is turned on but you are not using it. The screen saver software installed by Juno, which may display advertisements or other images chosen by Juno, is an integral part of the Computational Software and you agree not to take any action to disable or interfere with the operation of either the screen saver software or any other component of the Computational Software. You agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs or expenses resulting from the continuous operation of your computer, including without limitation any associated charges for electricity, and that you shall have sole responsibility for any maintenance or technical issues that might result from such continuous operation. [...] If your usage of the Service is infrequent, Juno's ability to obtain the results of completed computations may be impaired. Consequently, you expressly permit and authorize Juno to initiate a telephone connection from your computer to Juno's central computers using a dial-in telephone number you have previously selected for accessing the Service; Juno agrees that it shall exercise such right only to the extent necessary, as determined in Juno's sole discretion, to upload the results of completed computations to Juno in a timely fashion; and you agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs and expenses (including without limitation any applicable telephone charges) resulting from the foregoing. Juno agrees that any software, data, or other materials downloaded to your computer in connection with the activities described in this Section 2.5 will comply with Juno's privacy policies, as reflected in the Privacy Statement. [...]

Some Links

• InternetNews.com
• Cluebot.com

Canada to Force Re-registration of all .ca Domains

The Register reports that Canada is dealing with URL disputes by setting up a non-profit organization called the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) that will force all .ca domain name holders to re-apply for their domains.

This transfers the responsibility for the registry from the volunteer organization at the University of British Columbia. Part of the plan is to relax restrictions on .ca domain name registration.

"Pre-registration of existing .ca domain names is the only way to ensure that they are transitioned into the CIRA Registry before we can begin accepting new requests under more liberal rules," said Glen Bloom, Co-chair of the CIRA Board.

With a November 1, 2000 deadline, and only a 30-day grace period after that, that doesn't leave much time for the remaining 82,000 Canadian web sites to get their domains re-registered - for another $20. There is a list of certified Registrars at the CIRA web site

There is a press release on the CIRA web site that explains the new policy. You can also comment on the new Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Draft Policy through October 29, 2000.

It seems that before this new organization was set up, only federal companies or trademark holders (of the domain name) could register. The old policy, "Framework for the administration of the .CA domain name system" was put together by the Canadian Domain Name Consultative Committee. This report is from September 15, 1998.

You Call That Web Site Testing?

I received this spam (scroll to bottom) the other day from a company claiming to audit web sites. Unfortunately, I have no idea what they could actually audit since accessibility, usability, and compliance are not even remotely demonstrated on their own site.

So I offer up this email to you folks (with names changed to protect the offenders) in case you get the same spam. If your boss hears of this and wants to use it, or a client thinks it's worth purchasing, steer them away.

Validation can be done by the W3C validator for free, accessibility features can be tested by Bobby for free, load time can be done with a stopwatch (and that nifty IE5/win add-on that shows all the images and d/l time on a page - try it, or ImageReady, FireWorks, or many other utilities), links can be checked (and should be) by a human or any number of shareware or online utilities (search on "link checking" at download.com for some samples), and usability can be achieved through some pretty simple testing (I refer you to Jakob Nielsen, or an evolt article). You don't need to pay people without a clear understanding to do it for you.

Ultimately, as developers, we are all responsible for testing our own work. Having another set of eyes review it is good, but paying someone to do it is often pointless. Few organizations can stay on top of the technologies if all they do is test, and cultivating in-house talent is always more valuable.

And the worst thing you can do is spam a company who performs very thorough audits with auditing offers, especially when the spamming site indicates a capability on par with some low-level interns.

So I offer this poor soul up for sacrifice on the altar of evolt.org, and hope that my message can only help them see the error in their ways, and help others who neglect to test their own sites with some simple tips. Have I received a response from them you ask? Not yet. Will I? Probably not. I never do...

--------------------

K,

I reviewed your web site to take a look at the services you offer, in particular the web site testing and validation, and was surprised to see that your own site is brimming with errors.

You note that the average Fortune 100 company web site (what about the others?) contains 13 HTML coding errors, when your own site, according to the W3C HTML validator, contains 40 basic errors including improperly nested tags, unclosed tags, unquoted attributes, two body tags, and even the most basic - a missing document type declaration at the start of the document. As a result, I only checked it against the HTML 4.01 Transitional specification since there is no clue what version of HTML the page is supposed to be beyond the use of a number of deprecated and proprietary tags and attributes.

In addition to that, and not covered by a software validator, are many elements that are barriers to accessibility. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act, enacted on August 7, 1998, requires government sites and government funded or related sites to be accessible to all users. It is conceivable that future case law will make this apply to many public sites as well (consider the AOL class-action lawsuit by blind users). Given this, your site lacks the most basic features for disabled users such as 'alt' attributes in its images, and HTML 4.01 and Web Accessibility Initiative accessibility features in your form elements.

From a usability standpoint, the lack of clear page headers and consistent navigation are just starters on the interface problems with the site. It does not work very well on most of the 80+ browsers on which I perform testing, and its page sizes go beyond the oft-cited 8 second rule, by as much as 41 seconds on a 14.4kbps connection.

I would go on, but if you have the staff to audit sites with the skill level you claim, you might want to turn them loose on your own site. As it stands, your own site does not demonstrate that your organization has the capability to perform audits to the level that we require.

Thank you for your time.

Adrian Roselli Vice President, Interactive Algonquin Studios http://algonquinstudios.com 716.842.1439

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K Foo [kfoo@foo.com]
>  Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:25 PM
> To:  info@
> Subject: Web Site Testing Services
>
> Algonquin Studios,
> With the emergence of e-commerce sites and  the growth of
> business performed over the web, it is critical  for
> companies to have their web sites tested extensively.
>  According to a study by ParaSoft, the average Web page
> operated by a  Fortune 100 company contains 13 HTML coding
> errors, and link errors  occur about once every four
> pages. Furthermore, Zona Research estimated  that U.S.
> companies lose approximately $58 million per month in  e-
> commerce sales due to Web page loading failures. Web
> sites  need to be tested to ensure that they function
> correctly, are compatible  over many different browser and
> operating system configurations and can  handle a large
> amount of concurrent users.
> Foo, Inc. is an  independent testing facility that
> specializes in web site testing and  load testing
> solutions. If you would like us to send you more
>  information about our web site testing and load testing
> services, please  e-mail us at info@foo.com to
> receive further information about our  testing services or
> visit our web site at http://www.foo.com.
>
> Thank you,
>
> K Foo
> Project Manager
> Foo,  Inc.
> E-mail: kfoo@foo.com
> http://www.foo.com

Adobe to Sue AppleInsider

For those of you who have heard about Adobe Photoshop 6, you may have heard about the sneak preview of it and ImageReady 3 that AppleInsider posted on May 30. If you go back to that page now, the link to the article has been replaced with the text, "Links Removed by the Demand of Adobe Legal."

However, this doesn't quite cover it all. It seems Adobe went beyond just threatening them and telling them to remove the link. Adobe is suing Mac News Network (MacNN, the parent) for much money (maybe in the tens of millions) because they feel customers will now not purchase Photoshop 5.5 if people know 6.0 is in the pipe.

Photoshop may have a case simply because the software is legally confidential and AppleInsider's posting of any information on it is in violation of the California Civil Code.

You will also notice on the AppleInsider page a link to a preview of Word 2001 for Mac that has been replaced with, "Article Remove [sic] 9PM EST By the Demand of Microsoft Corp, Inc."

There is a much more detailed article at The Register, "Adobe lashes out at Mac rumor site."

BeOS 5 to be Released for Free

Be, Inc. will release BeOS 5 for free download later this quarter (no earlier than March 31). The free download (estimated at between 40 and 60MB right now) will only be available to individuals for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use will require a separate license.

It appears to be primarily targeted at MSWindows machines, and does not require re-partitioning (which was an issue if you've ever tried it, especially with 3.0) to install. In fact, it appears as a standard executable which you can launch from within Windows that will exit from Windows and boot into BeOS. It can also run without a Windows installation as well. Also of note, the free version will include all the development tools currently bundled with BeOS.

Read the BeOS 5 Information FAQ.

They also have a hardware compatibility list posted to tell you which types of computers will best support it. As of now, G3 and higher Macs will not support it, but Intel-based machines, especially newer ones, should be ok.