Flock, the New Browser on the Block

^tamago^ writes to tell us BusinessWeek Online is reporting that a new browser is stepping into the arena. This new competitor, Flock, hopes to change the face of web browsing by turning their's into the swiss army knife of browsers. From the article: "Flock's browser is built specifically for a new, emerging generation of Web users, one that isn't satisfied passively browsing media online. Flock hopes to turn the browser into a dashboard for collaborating, blogging, sharing photos, reveling in a raft of other group activities that have recently caught fire online"

So how will it generate sales?

[powerpuffgirls]

Decrem expects to make money from running Google ads, as well as getting so-called affiliate fees for referring users to commercial sites such as Amazon.com (AMZN ). Moreover, he envisions getting money from other Web services, such as blogging or photo-sharing services, that might pay Flock for sign-ups sent their way from the Flock software.

Is it Opera all over again [slashdot.org] in terms of its business model?

Or does it sound like a legalized spyware [slashdot.org]?

What would site owners feel if a browser is competing for Google Ads and referral bonuses with them?

A little thin on details.

[JonTurner]

Looks more like a phishing exercise:

Home About Download Extensions Flock has landed.We're introducing the world's most innovative social browsing experience. We call it the two-way web.
Over the next few weeks, we'll be seeding invites to a few lucky folks. Sign up to find out when invites are available:
Thanks for your interest!
Email: And no, we won't spam you, sell your address or do anything else but use this info to let you know when invites are available. We hate spam just as much as you!
Oh and hey, wanna join the flock? We're hiring! So guess what? Send us your resume!

Based off of Konqueror?

[CyricZ]

I've heard rumors that it is based off of Konqueror. Since it seems that it cannot be downloaded at this time, can anyone who has used it comment on the validity of such rumors? If they are true, is it based on Konqueror itself, or does it just the KHTML rendering engine?

You keep changin' when you oughta be a samin'

[tehshen]

The most innovative thing about Flock is that it's trying to do away with the notion of "browsing." ... Essentially, Flock's software is intended to serve less as a window into static Web content than as a customizable conduit for participatory Web services, from Flickr to del.icio.us to the collaborative online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Are they trying to turn browsing into browsing here? I think they may have overdone the alliteration, but I don't really understand what they're getting at. 'Browsing' the Internet is probably the best term here, even if it's not static content that is being browsed.

Besides, products that try to change or turn away the norm tend to not get very far - see Opera vs. Firefox and IE, or (more recently) disposable DVDs vs. normal ones.

I don't think this is going to get very far at all, even with the big limelight given to it by Slashdot here.

Going for broke on presentation? Literally?

[Zevon 2000]

It looks like it won't be doing anything in terms of functionality that a dedicated FireFox user couldn't get via extensions. That said, it doesn't look like it intends to compete on functionality. The name, page layout, and co-opting of GMail's invite viral marketing all make clear that they're going to go for broke on the presentation and marketing. Hey, it worked for the iPod--there are plenty of mp3 players out there with greater functionality, but people like how the iPod looks and will seek it out.

That said, people will pay through the nose for an mp3 player. Between M$'s bundling and the open-source movement, how exactly does a start-up web browser plan to make money? Honestly, if there's a niche in the market I would think it would be for ultra-secure browsers, not for flashy hip browsers.

Re:Yuck

[Mooga]

Do they really expect to get luck with a website looking like THAT?

I love their extensions section which has this in it: "Bandwidth Tester - This is a Firefox extension that tells you the bandwidth of your current Internet connection. It is very useful if you have a laptop and use it in different areas and networks frequently."

...so Flock is just another name for firefox?

They ripped off 37signals

[Anonymous Coward]

Their site and logo is actually a direct rip off of 37signals [37signals.com]. Everything from the dorky oversized fonts to the pastel colors and highlighting.

Even the logos! Flock's logo [flock.com] vs. 37signal's logo [37signals.com]. Shameless.

Here's another example.

Flock [flock.com] vs. 37signals [37signals.com]

Amazing.

Invalid markup, to boot.

[CyricZ]

It appears that their site fails to validate, at least according to the W3C Markup Validator.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.flock .com/home/ [w3.org]

I would have expected the web page of a web browser to at least be standards-compliant. The Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror pages all validate cleanly:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.mozil la.org [w3.org]
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.opera .com [w3.org]
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.konqu eror.org [w3.org]

So, why would I switch to Flock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowan notes that not everyone wants to trick out their Web browser. "Most people just want to drive their car off the lot," he says. So Flock's aim is to create software that makes it dead-easy for regular Web users to customize an experience with just a few clicks.

So, not everyone wants to customize their browser, so they're making the browser easier to customize?

Am I missing something here?

Or is this just a plan to trick some VC's into giving them money, so they won't have to get real jobs for a year? If so, hey, more power to them.

Not written in Visual BASIC.

[CyricZ]

Wired states (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68823 ,00.html [wired.com]) that it's based off of Firefox. It is even developed by a member of the Mozilla Foundation. So perhaps a better question to ask would be, Is this browser meant to compete directly with Firefox and Seamonkey?

Viral "Invite" Marketing

[Zevon 2000]

The efficacy of "invite" based marketing is very interesting. Certainly it worked like gangbusters for GMail and for various social networking sites (eg facebook). In a less formal way, for IM clients like ICQ and AIM as well. I think that the common denominator is social interaction. Perhaps that's why they are spouting off about being a social browser that allows better blogging, posting, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. The blogs and forums could be a path to market share.

I also think that social "invite" marketing works much better for free services like e-mail, IM, and web browsing. MCI ran into a bit of a backlash with their aggressive Friends and Family marketing, because it resulted in people pressuring friends and family who were by definition long-distance into subscribing to a commercial phone plan that may not have been a good fit. Then again, Verizon seems to be doing pretty well with its In Plan. Of course, neither of those have the exclusivity element that GMail did initially and that Flock seems to be going for--but realistically, it's not all that exclusive if you can just go to a web site and sign up.

I think Flock looks weak for a number of reasons--ideally Google will buy it out, but outside of the founders and VC's fantasies it seems clear it will die an also-ran. But is invite marketing here to stay? Should it be?

MPL infringement?

[game kid]

I smell imminent, blatant MPL infringement--unless, they are writing their own code to interpret the xpis (and perhaps ActiveX too, if they want some bizarre sort of extra credit or something).

If they do use Mozilla code, certainly they should have the source code available, as per the MPL, Section 3.6 [mozilla.org], no? Unless Flock has balls of Fire-proof steel and considers such a license naïve and unconstitutional like SCO or something...

Re:...hmmmm

[game kid]

It does feel like an attempt to cull e-mail addresses from a (gasp!) flock of less-educated users. For obvious reasons, they won't see my e-mail anytime soon.

Re:umm, entirely new idea of thinking

[Carnildo]

Actually, that one's new -- if they've done it right. Opera only holds the last 10,000 or so pages, and the last time I checked, Mozilla started getting dog-slow at around six months worth of old addresses.

Why does slashdot

[Pennywisdom2099]

always post about something that isn't out yet so that the entire discussion is not reviews but reduced to mindless arguments and speculation? Just let me know when the damn thing is released

The two way web

[kfg]

Well thank God we can finally text; and even talk to each other over the Internet. It's about bloody time. Why didn't someone think of this sooner?

KFG

Re:Yuck

[MightyMartian]

I really wouldn't complain if this was a site for V1agra, Pr0n or helping out Nigerian ministers with a little banking problem, but this is the SWISS ARMY KNIFE OF BROWSERS!!!!

I'll be blunt. I smell a rat. I think those foolish enough to actually give out their emails, or heaven forbid, actually get an installable bit of software are going to have a problem.

Re:Invalid markup, to boot.

[babyrat]

I would have expected the web page of a web browser to at least be standards-compliant. The Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror pages all validate cleanly:

Ya think www.microsoft.com/ie would pass????

Re:Invalid markup, to boot.

[Chipface]

W3C couldn't validate that but surprisingly microsoft.com is standards compliant.

Re:Screams? More like burning letters 100' tall.

[LionKimbro]

I think Flock's going to fail, but I also think that extending Firefox is not able to scale [slashdot.org] to the kinds of things people will want from the Internet/Web. It'll be able to do it a little, but not as an integrated package. There's going to have to be a new platform at some point.

Re:Plain English for Aunt Gert

[Jekler]

He's not being clear because there's nothing to be clear about. A group of people that can't even make a plain-text page comply with web standards, and they're working on rolling out the next-generation web browser? A browser which, apparently, is going to revolutionize the way all mankind views digital information. It's so wonderful it's like the first light bulb wrapped in sliced bread.

Flock : Firefox
Bitboyz : nVidia
The Greatest Vitamin On Earth : Centrum Silver

There a pattern here?

Re:Invalid markup, to boot.

[njchick]

No [w3.org]

Re:quirks and tables

[Anonymous Coward]

You said a lot of stuff I agree with, including the @import hack. Another hack that works for hiding CSS from NN4 is the ciao /*/*/ hack; and making the link rel tage have a media type; the only really trickey browser to hide css from is IE4; I use the @media all hack which has the side-effect of hiding CSS from MacIE. My Mac-using buddy assures me that few Mac users are using MacIE these days. Here's a link for people interested in these kinds of tricks: More CSS-hiding hacks than you can throw a stick at [dithered.com].

The one thing I disagree with is the assertion that CSS is ready to do complicated layouts, letting us get rid of tables altogether. The advantage of table-based layout is that it allows one to resize the window, and keep the general layout, even if the window is too small to fit all of the elements. CSS encourages people to use absolute coordinates to place items on a page; this is, IMHO, a return to the old days of "You must have a screen with a minimum of 1024x768 resolution to view this page". We can somewhat work around this with the max-width CSS property; however, IE doesn't support max-width. Yes, there is the non-validating "width: expression(some javascript)" hack for IE; but I don't feel confortable using CSS hacks for current browsers (since the hacks may suddenly stop working in the next release of the browser); I only feel confortable using hacks for dead browsers, namely IE4, NN4, and Opera 5.

So, until Max-width exists for over 50% of the browsing public, I'll continue to use tables for layout. And, yes, it would be nice if a browser that did the CSS2 tables [w3.org] actually existed.