Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Microsoft will need to implement a ballot screen that lets users in Europe replace Internet Explorer with another browser, starting March 2010. The deal also means computer manufacturers will now be able to ship PCs in Europe that do not come pre-installed with IE.

This is great news for those living in Europe as it finally allows people to have easy choices instead of Internet Explorer.  Unfortunately, it seems that those of us in the U.S. are not going to benefit from this same courtesy.

Microsoft has long plagued web developers with it’s lack of adherence to common standards, instead choosing to forge ahead in their own little world and assuming everyone will adopt their standards.  While things have improved dramatically in the latest releases, as a web developer, I can’t help but have a bitter taste for Internet Explorer.

So now the question becomes, what can we, in the United States, do about this?  Simple.  Install Firefox, Chrome or Opera and never click on that stupid Internet Explorer icon again!

Just last week, Google finally released official betas for its Chrome browser for Mac and Linux. That release had a nice effect on market share for the browser, propelling it past Apple’s Safari and into third place.

So what does this really mean?  Frankly, not a whole heck of a lot since this means that Chrome now has a total of just over 4.4% of the browser market share.   Good, but certainly not in any position to overtake Firefox or Internet Explorer .  In all honesty, I’d be thrilled if Internet Explorer got knocked down a few pegs. But you can have my Firefox when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.  Yes. I’m that attached to it.

So… what do I think of Chrome?  Well, it’s better than Internet Explorer.  It’s better than Opera.  Versus Safari — it’s about a tossup for me.  I’m really not overly attached to either.  I tried Safari.  I really did.  But it just lacks the plugins of Firefox — a feature which I take full advantage of.  And at the end of the day, things are just more intuitive for me in Firefox.  Chrome, on the other hand, is just very different.  And I like that.  And I’ll probably download it and play with it more.

The New AOL Brand Identity

Over the past couple of week, as he attempts to save AOL from dropping further behind its competitors, he’s come up with a whole slew of oddball ideas.

First, he’s “updated” their image.  Check out the new brand identity logos as found on Businesswire.  That’s right.  There’s a goldfish, a purple sponge, a figure with a ball of yarn for a head and a random green squiggle.  Shouldn’t there be a cat chasing these things around?  Not to mention that the company name has been shifted from the AOL we all know and love (note all capital letters) to a cute looking “Aol.”  Yes.  With the period. That’s right. Just like a one word sentence.  What??

As Slate columnist Farhad Manjoo aptly points out in his article “AOL’s Latest Dumb Business Plan“, it sounds remarkably like A-Hole without the ‘h’.

Manjoo goes on to discuss his opinions on Armstrong’s new business plan which rests on “…a high-tech system for mass-producing news articles, entertainment and other online content.”  This is Armstrong’s key strategy as he aims to “…make AOL, which has been losing visitors and revenue, a magnet for both advertisers and consumers by turning it into the top creator of digital content.”  as discussed in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

That’s right.  Armstrong wants to mass-produce content, while still being a “… top creator of digital content.” (emphasis added).  To start with, when I read about high volume content creation, my mind jumps to YouTube.  Or perhaps the blogosphere.  But certainly not a news source.  News sources may create a lot of well written, credible articles.  But I’m sorry, they don’t take the cake in quantity.  What’s more, mass-produced news seems like a terribly bad idea.

So from what I can tell, in order to overcome the small hurdle of having to pay a finite number of editors and writers to cover stories, Armstrong and his company are discussing using the thousands of readily available, want to be published, never written before people who want nothing more than to get published.  Armstrong’s model will be to see breaking news, put out a call for articles, and hope that they will get first hand accounts, photos, video, hell — anything really from the community.  And I’m guessing for free.

How’s that for reliable news?  How’s that for responsible journalism?  Instead of rewarding high quality journalism, they are looking for the largest volume of quick stories, not the best.

And lets not forget Armstrong’s goal of making Aol. a “… magnet for both advertisers and consumers…”  With this ideal in mind, and the  mass-produced news, we should all look forward to a shitty news site with tons of ads.  Great.  Sign me up…

So, who is going to unsubscribe from the new A-Hole?