Microsoft case: AOL says browser choice not ''technical''
dailynews.yahoo.com
>>Colburn said that as the Internet became more and more important, AOL was looking for a Web browser to package with its product.
>>Microsoft lawyer John Warden asked Colburn, a witness for the government, why his company had chosen to go with Microsoft rather than Netscape in March, 1996.
>>''Isn't it a fact that the most important factor in choosing between Microsoft and Netscape was getting software that worked with your client?'' Warden asked, using the word ''client'' to mean the software AOL provided to its customers.
>>''No,'' replied Colburn. ''There were five factors. The most important in my mind, as the lead negotiator, was securing parity with MSN.'' He said that the other priorities were, in order, how much AOL would have to pay, whether the Web browser would work with the widely distributed Microsoft Windows, its flexibility of use with other browsers and, last, whether the technology worked.
>>But Colburn also rejected the idea that Microsoft had better technology.
>>''Isn't it a fact that at the time Microsoft offered the best technological solution for your subscribers?'' asked Warden. ''The answer would be no,'' replied Colburn.
>>Warden asked if Microsoft's browser technology was superior because it was written in modules, which could be tailored to fulfil specific software needs, rather than in one big chunk like Netscape's browser.
>>''No,'' replied Colburn. Colburn said Microsoft had made its browser in components only for Windows 95, which was used by only 20 percent of his subscribers at the time.<< |
