Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Andreesen Offers New Browser 'Rockmelt'

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-poor-horse dept.

The Internet 185

DrHeasley writes "Rockmelt, available for the first time Monday, is built on the premise that most online activity today revolves around socializing on Facebook, searching on Google, tweeting on Twitter and monitoring a handful of favorite websites. It tries to minimize the need to roam from one website to the next by corralling all vital information and favorite services in panes and drop-down windows. 'This is a chance for us to build a browser all over again,' Andreessen said. 'These are all things we would have done (at Netscape) if we had known how people were going to use the Web.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

$10 says this fails miserably (1, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161314)

I mean, this Andreesen we're talking about. He's still looking to stay relevant when his best days are over 10 years behind him.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161368)

Except Andreesen didn't write it, his VC firm funded it. Considering Andreesen has also invested heavily in Digg and Twitter, I'd say he has a decent track record there.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161936)

How can this fail, when it is the equivalent of nailing a "Nielsen Box" to the user's forehead?

Hey! Why browse spy sites? You can deeply integrate surveillance and intrusive tracking experiences in your browser itself!

Never have that "I'm all alone" feeling, ever again.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (-1, Troll)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161972)

What did he contribute to those abortions?

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162134)

Digg? Twitter? If that's a decent track record, the guy who invented fingernails on a chalk board is batting a thousand.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (3, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162340)

invested heavily in Digg and Twitter

he has a decent track record there.

So which is it?

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (5, Insightful)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161412)

I won't take that bet. He has a point that the Huddled Masses use their browsers -- nay, the entirety of teh intrawebz -- for those limited purposes, but the set of people who use their browsers in such a limited capacity intersected with the set of users who would have the motivation and technical awareness to seek out and install a new browser and start using that by default is small to nonexistent.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (1)

GlennC (96879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161550)

Replying to undo bad mod....sorry.

I wouldn't take that bet either.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161552)

That's possible. More likely you're going to see solutions like Google gears. Or whatever equivalent included in the browser is. By the time you've implemented enough of the standards for that sort of limited browser to work, you might as well implement the rest of them.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161734)

I agree that he has the Huddled Masses approximately accurately characterized; but I think that his major problem will be the fact that you can deliver the vast majority of what his browser promises in the form of a webpage that will work with pretty much any current browser(perhaps not quite as elegantly, since you won't be able to interface with the drop-down menus and things; but webmail isn't as elegant as client-based mail, and that is all the rage, on convenience lines...)

You've been able to embed multiple sites and information sources in a single page since IFrames, which I'm fairly sure were a feature of one of unfinished portions of Babbage's Difference Engine. Web-based RSS? Similarly old news. Google search boxes? I'm pretty sure that Google's site has one of those... With all the Web 2.0 stuff the kids are going on about these days, you could probably even make such a shambling composite of a site look and feel fairly elegant.

There is probably that last 10% or so which cannot be done as a simple web page; but the pace of development and the rate of "creative inspiration" in the browser market is huge. If they come up with anything genuinely cool, it'll be a Firefox plugin in two days, a Chrome plugin just after that, a native Opera feature in the next point release(available in the beta version in three weeks, for the Opera die-hards) and being hailed as Steve Jobs' latest brilliant breakthrough in UI perfection in the release of Safari accompanying OSX 10.N+1...

The problem is not so much that he is wrong; but that being right on that point is going to be a very hard distinction to sell...

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161650)

Given that "creating a new browser" is, when the changes are basically UI layer, pretty damn simple and cheap(and this isn't really a new thing, any VB n00b has been able to drag and drop the IE's rendering engine into their application since forever, Firefox's UI is very nearly just a specially shaped web page wrapped around the web page(yo dog, I herd you like web pages...), and now webkit is the new hotness for basing browsers around).

I'd be very surprised if it does too much supplanting of the main players, or otherwise sets the world on fire(especially since he is basically just moving the classic 90's "portal" concept out of the webpage and into the browser, which means that any web player with a "portal" style site can offer 90% or so of what he does; but without the download/install) but assuming it has anything resembling a revenue model, either present or plausible future, he should be able to keep the venture going more or less indefinitely at very low cost.

When you have something that can survive essentially forever on very slim resources it is hard to "fail miserably". Even if you fold, the losses are reasonably constrained, and you don't have to make that much money, or create some plausible promise of future profits, in order to be self sustaining or better. I would be seriously shocked if this "Rockmelt" ends up contributing a single technological innovation to browsers; but having a few UI guys reinventing a combination of IFrames and RSS feeds on top of some FOSS browser base isn't hugely expensive or rocket-surgical.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (2, Funny)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161868)

I won't bet on it failing until Gartner predicts that it'll be making $2 billion in revenue by 2014.

Re:$10 says this fails miserably (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161942)

$10 says this fails miserably

Well, that depends on how you look at it.

If you read the words, it says "federal reserve note" and some other stuff.

But then if you read Hamiltons stoic face, it says "All your coke goes past my face first. LOL"

Andreessen is probably richer than you (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161980)

And he's using his money [wikipedia.org] :

Andreessen is an investor in social news website Digg and several other early-stage technology startups, like Plazes, Netvibes, CastTV and Twitter. His latest project is Ning, which launched in October 2004.[11] He serves on the board of Facebook,[2] eBay, and Open Media Network, a combined Kontiki (VeriSign) client and media player, launched in 2005. Andreessen is now active in the blogging community. On July 5, 2009, Andreessen announced along with his longtime business partner Ben Horowitz, the formation of their venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, aimed purely at investing in the best new entrepreneurs, products, and companies in the information technology industry.[12]He is currently working on a new web browser, RockMelt.[13] On September 1st, 2009, an investor group including Andreessen Horowitz acquired a majority stake in Skype Limited.[14]

Yeah, I don't think he's worried about "his best days" being over a decade ago.

Flock (3, Informative)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161316)

Isn't there already a browser that does this that no one uses? Why create another browser for no one to use?

Re:Flock (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161508)

There were already many MP3 players, touch phones, tablets etc out there before Apple released their iDevices. Just because things have failed in the past doesn't mean they can't take off if you design and market them well.

Re:Flock (-1, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161572)

MP3 players hadn't failed up until the point. They just hadn't been dumbed down to the point where Apple users could use them. Apple had to infringe upon other people's IP and create a massive marketing campaign to get that thing off the ground.

Re:Flock (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161762)

MP3 players may not have been failing before the iPod, but they were hardly taking off either.

All the big companies are infringing on each others' IP these days. Whether they're infringing or not is not the important thing, it's whether they decide it's worth it to sue.. it's like a giant game of chess.

Re:Flock (5, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161538)

Q: Why create another browser for no one to use?
A: $10 million in funding

Re:Flock (2, Insightful)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161570)

Flock was my first though too.

And why the Flock hasn't cannibalized the FireFox might to be the response to the question why this are not so big news. Power of the web is the power of change: yesterday it was Altavista and news groups and Yahoo boards, today it is Facebook and Twitter and Google, but tomorrow it might be all gone replaced by some new trend in how we share and search for the information.

And the power of change is what would keep the specialized browsers in a niche for quite some time.

Re:Flock (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161614)

Maybe someday it will be replaced by a large number of "pages" with useful content grouped into "sites" than can reference other useful content with "links".

Re:Flock (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162122)

Most nerds I know still have their own websites, or at least are members of very specialized website forums such as ArcadeControls. But regular people and most family members have Facebook accounts. [arcadecontrols.com]

Re:Flock (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162144)

Damn Slashdot and its "no editing allowed" forums. I forgot to close the link tag in my post above and now I can't fix it.

Re:Flock (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162026)

I played with Flock once. It was a bit interesting, but not as neat as, say, simply having my smartphone pull down and merge address book entries from Facebook, GMail, etc.

I like the StumbleUpon approach much better. But I still wouldn't share any of my browsing habits with anyone on Facebook or Twitter, no. I pretty much only occasionally share URLs with the people in my IRC channel. But I suppose that just goes to show how old skool I am :P

Re:Flock (1)

wondafucka (621502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161726)

Isn't there already a browser that does this that no one uses? Why create another browser for no one to use?

No one uses it? In addition to their normal habit of dismissing niche software / hardware as DOA, Slashdot veterans are suffering from a phenomena where they dismiss and can't understand the third wave of internet users. The user group that is larger than we ever were. Prepare to be left in the dust by the mass's desire to use our precious internet for what we perceive to be inane and pointless.

Re:Flock (1)

kamochan (883582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162216)

Prepare to be left in the dust by the mass's desire to use our precious internet for what we perceive to be inane and pointless.

Ha! I've already been left in the dust once. This whole "web" thing is 99.9% protocol overhead, and 99% of the content is junk. I want my nn back, it had at least smaller overhead.

Re:Flock (4, Informative)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161744)

Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website [flock.com] . People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.

Re:Flock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162024)

Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website [flock.com] . People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.

Maybe you missed the text "Built for Facebook and Twitter" under the giant Download button in the middle of the page or the "Watch the video to learn more" link right under that. Or are you still using Lynx?

Re:Flock (1, Flamebait)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162088)

Yeah, I saw that, dickwad. What does that mean? How do I find out what that means without downloading and installing software? Flock's web page is spectacularly unhelpful when it comes to these basic (and I would think very common) questions.

Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.

Re:Flock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162272)

Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.

You didn't look very hard. Check the top of the screen, Support -> User Guide [flock.com] .

Re:Flock (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161960)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_(web_browser) [wikipedia.org]
Yes sounds great version 3 will use the Chromium rendering engine, works on Linux, mac, Windows, FreeBSD.
The real new trick will be in the tracking, ads, "evercookies" ect.,br> To get users to keep everything running at the same time in the same application, sending back realtime bulk 'value'.

An internet portal? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161318)

Now, where have I heard that idea before... and how did that work out for them?

Re:An internet portal? (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161766)

If you mean Yahoo, actually still pretty well. Yahoo search is basically dead; but they have a significant stable of non-search properties with huge pageview. Said stable seems increasingly likely to become a vassal of either Bing or Google, dependent on them for search and advertising monetization; but it will be a vassal who brings a large number of eyeballs to the table...

Re:An internet portal? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162200)

[...] it will be a vassal who brings a large number of eyeballs to the table...

Shrek: Well, actually, that would be a giant. Now ogres, oh, they're much worse! They'll make a suit from your freshly peeled skin; they'll shave your liver; squeeze the jelly from your eyes! Actually, it's quite good on toast.

Re:An internet portal? (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162304)

Though you're right about Yahoo! branded properties with huge pageviews and a large installed userbase... But the elephant in the room is a property most people don't think of when they think Yahoo! - Flickr.

Google has tried to make a competitor, but like so many of their attempts outside of search they haven't really put much effort into it.

Flock? Chrome Extensions? (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161324)

There are nice Chrome extensions with Chromed Bird that allow you to easily pull down a menu of Tweets, and have new tweets pop-up. There are entire existing browser projects like Flock designed for this purpose.

Why do we need this?

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (3, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161496)

So we don't have to use Chrome.

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (3, Funny)

nexttech (1289308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161558)

Hate to break it to you, But Rockmelt is based on Chrome

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161690)

Both wrong. Based on ChroMIUM.
Chrome, SRWare Iron and Rockmelt are based on Chromium. (there are a few others i forgot the name of that also use it)
In fact, doesn't Flock also use it now? Yep, newest versions are using Chromium now.
Know the difference, it could just save your life.

Anyway, one huge advantage i can see right away with Rockmelt is that they added a sidebar. Currently, Chromium devs have been against those for some reason, they did eventually open up to adding a sidebar for tabs, so who knows, they could come to their senses.
I don't know why they'd restrict everything to the horizontal plane considering they want to minimize the amount of chrome visible, while still being useful.
Widescreens are becoming the norm these days, websites are still designed vertically, mostly in fixed widths between 600-1200. It is quite literally absolute madness to go against using sidebars.
Although i'm in a small minority of people who would ditch everything UI based besides the tabs and the caption buttons, doing everything from the context menu of the tabs. (or even the website context menu)
So far, i can only do this in FF and Opera. (Opera to a lesser extent)
 

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161778)

Chromium - Chrome - splitting hairs much? And no, knowing the difference will not save your life.

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162146)

Just what is the difference between Chrome and Chromium, exactly? Aside from branding.

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161764)

Hate to break it to you, but its based on Chromium, not Chrome.

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161730)

Except it looks like it is totally built off of Chrome - that or they took a BIG UI cue from Chrome

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161600)

Probably for the same reason we have 122 Linux distros out there. Perhaps because choice is good?

Re:Flock? Chrome Extensions? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162208)

That OR because when it's so easy to make your own off of someone else's source code, the market gets pretty well saturated with mediocre half-done projects.

RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook account (5, Informative)

an00bis (667089) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161326)

Welp, count me out.

Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco (4, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161458)

Me too.
Yet somehow i'm not that disappointed. It's sort of like not being eligible for a free drool-tray because I haven't had a lobotomy.
Oh well.

Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161490)

Huh? OH! HAHA! I see what you did there. You were implying you don't have a Facebook account! LUL!

Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco (1)

PhuFighter (1172899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161548)

I refuse to have my browser access my private info like that! Andreesen's company doesn't need to know my fb profile name or anything.

Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco (3, Funny)

Whalou (721698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161532)

I watched the video and it almost makes me want to have friends!

Re:RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook acco (2, Informative)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162170)

Mr. Andreesen,

Let me get this straight.

To get access to your browser beta, I need to let you:

  • Access my basic information

    Includes name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information I've shared with everyone.

  • Send me email

    email me directly at xxx@xxx

  • Post to my Wall

    post status messages, notes, photos, and videos to my Wall

This is what you've learned in 15 years? What happened to just a "Netscape Now!" button?

We've seen this before (5, Insightful)

Papeh (1812414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161346)

He's got the same attitude as the Windows guys. He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

Re:We've seen this before (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161608)

Indeed, this whole problem is asking for a more Google gears style solution than a dedicated browser. Hell, even Firefox's Apps Tab is probably more useful for that purpose. I get that people experimenting is how we get new stuffs, but I can't imagine paying for that until it had gotten somewhere.

Re:We've seen this before (5, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161666)

He's got the same attitude as the Windows guys. He doesn't get that the browser / OS has a main goal of getting out of the way and letting you work.

And thus you demonstrate that you have no clue how most people spend their time on the internet, and that you are clearly not the target market for this software.

That's fine. But, as is so common with Slashdotters, you presume that the tiny minority you are a part of somehow represents the majority of humanity. It's cute, but fantastically naive.

Re:We've seen this before (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161976)

The average user will turn to a Slashdotter type for help when a problem arises. They'll be told to stop using a ridiculous browser that only works with a Facebook account and thus RockMelt will go the way of Cuil.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161364)

Umm... all the browsers I know support bookmarks and offer rather easy access to them.

Huh (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161372)

This seems like the classic programmer issue of not googling before you code.

This exists! Not only are there plugins to chrome and firefox for this very purpose, but I believe there are at least 2 actual browsers (which no one uses) built around this idea.

This does not appear to do anything revolutionary, and certainly does not justify a completely new browser. This could easily have been implemented as an extension to existing browsers.

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161524)

Guess what? Not all programmers develop applications over night. How do you know this wasn't started 3 years ago when FF plug-ins were crap and extremely limited on what versions they would work on?

Re:Huh (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161700)

How do you know this wasn't started 3 years ago

Because this is built over Chromium, which only exists for two years. And Flock was already 3 years old and perfectly usable by that time.

Re:Huh (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161830)

Its foundation is built on Chromium, the same open-source coding that spawned Google Inc.'s Chrome browser two years ago.

.. it can't be that old.

Wow shiny (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161374)

corralling all vital information and favorite services in panes and drop-down windows.

You mean like tabs and bookmarks?

Re:Wow shiny (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161452)

And, unfortunately, cookies.

Rockmelt? WTH? (3, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161384)

How did they pick that for a name? It's like they had two dart boards, one with nouns, the other with verb. At least some of the other web browsers' names made sense, (Navigator, Explorer or Safari). Firefox, Chrome & Opera don't really make much sense either, but at least they don't sound ridiculous.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (2, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161472)

How did they pick that for a name? It's like they had two dart boards, one with nouns, the other with verb. At least some of the other web browsers' names made sense, (Navigator, Explorer or Safari). Firefox, Chrome & Opera don't really make much sense either, but at least they don't sound ridiculous.

It's not that bad. Look at it this way: one of the darts could have landed on "ass" and the other on "wipe".

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

cindyann (1916572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161518)

It's not that bad. Look at it this way: one of the darts could have landed on "ass" and the other on "wipe".

Something tells me that if they had, they would have thrown the darts again.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161476)

Now that you mention it, Opera sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

btcoal (1693074) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161480)

Chrome makes sense. It refers to the borders and toolbars on a browser.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

ekgringo (693136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162108)

...which Chrome pretty much has eliminated and is my biggest complaint about it. I mean I love the speed, but give me back my menu bar with a Bookmarks menu, damnit! Hell, the Mac version has a menu bar, why can't the Windows version have one?

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (2, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161482)

Maybe FaceMelt was already taken?

(With my apologies for using a WoW joke)

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161624)

I'm guessing that calling it "FacePalm" might've been too on the nose.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162008)

It sets deep in your OS like stone and melts your privacy into one long term coherent outgoing data stream?

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161702)

Firefox doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

It only makes sense if you know the history, and 99% of people don't.

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (1)

pahles (701275) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161848)

You mean, they wanted to have a name with an animal, and Firebird was already taken?

Re:Rockmelt? WTH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162034)

Firefox doesn't sound ridiculous because it's... wait for it... THE NAME OF AN ANIMAL!

Wtf is RockMelt supposed to be? Some type of alien bacteria that liquefies granite?

lol @ captcha: relabels

facebook? (4, Informative)

leomekenkamp (566309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161396)

RockMelt only works if you have a Facebook account.

Ouch. With facebooks abysmal privacy record I am not going to use this browser.

Re:facebook? (0, Flamebait)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161668)

Since the whole point seems to be Facebook and Twitter integration into the interface, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they aren't targeting the tin-foil hat brigade.

so, basically... (5, Insightful)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161418)

This is a browser for people like my mom. Perhaps that'll work, although most people fight back hard when they perceive they're using a dumbed-down tool. We want all the bells and whistles, whether or not we actually need them or know how to use them. Microsoft's latest iterations of Word and Excel demonstrate this admirably.

summary lacks link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161444)

wow, Andressan built a new browser. hmmm, maybe I'll check it out -- but wait, first I have to go RTFA. So, now, for those who don't rtfa:

http://www.rockmelt.com/ [rockmelt.com]

as pointed out above, their "invitation" is tied into facebook. Maybe it'll be open to all in the near future?

Re:summary lacks link (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162368)

It's obviously heavily tied to facebook, why should it be open to anyone not on the site? Use another browser...

Social Product = $10million Funding (2, Funny)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161464)

Nice money if you can get it.

It seems Mr Andreesen has $10 million burning a hole in his pocket. That must have been some sales pitch.

Not bad though, mention "Social Web" with your product and it equates to funding.

I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet" - it's a cubicle that everyone can share and allows you to twitter, facebook, search and share your poop.
I'm going to need about $10 million to get me started.

Re:Social Product = $10million Funding (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161544)

I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet" - it's a cubicle that everyone can share and allows you to twitter, facebook, search and share your poop. I'm going to need about $10 million to get me started.

Call it Poop 2.0. Anything-two-oh attracts investors.

Re:Social Product = $10million Funding (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161644)

Just as long as you realize that "Twitter Shitter" is not a good trademark to pursue.

Re:Social Product = $10million Funding (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161698)

OMG I have some great social web 3.0 synergies you can leverage with Rate My Poo [ratemypoo.com] integration! I call the patent!

Re:Social Product = $10million Funding (1)

tag (22464) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161706)

I'm going to create my new product - The "Social Toilet"

Meh. It's been done. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/ [penny-arcade.com]

You log in to RockMelt (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161468)

According to the Rockmelt blog [rockmelt.com]

RockMelt is the first browser you log into, it unlocks your Web experience with your Facebook friends, your feeds, your favorite services, even your bookmarks and preferences

Wow! It unlocks the web experience! That does sound totally awesome!

Wait, what?

Re:You log in to RockMelt (3, Interesting)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161556)

I love how it makes a big thing about being all 'on the cloud' - access your settings anywhere! Would be impresive if Mozilla hadn't just pushed out Firefox Sync across the board. This whole idea seems like something that would have been impressive 4 years ago.

Re:You log in to RockMelt (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162018)

Opera Link [wikipedia.org] was introduced 3 years ago, and lets you do exactly that (back up all settings to "the cloud", included in the default install, etc.)

I was pretty impressed, at least.

Re:You log in to RockMelt (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161810)

Hmm, I certainly can't think of any other browsers capable of synchronizing a set of data and preferences tied to login credentials... And definitely not one also tied to a best-of-breed email service, online document editor/collaboration environment, and rapidly ascending smartphone OS.

I also can't think of one from a company whose user experience and marketing chops are so good that people actually pay for that synchronization service, along with the highest ASP in the business for x86 hardware, and the smartphone platform to beat...

This should go perfectly. Nothing could go wrong.

Re:You log in to RockMelt (1)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161944)

RockMelt is the first browser you log into, it unlocks your Web experience with your Facebook friends, your feeds, your favorite services, even your bookmarks and preferences

I'm not so sure about that, it seems like Flock [imageshack.us] does the same thing... Actually it seems like it does a lot of the same things.
1. Built on Chromium
2. Integration with Facebook/Twitter/Flikr/RSS feeds/Etc.
3. Log in to the browser
4. Syncs your preferences with that login

So, basically this is a copy of the new Chrome based Flock that came out about 6 months ago...

Re:You log in to RockMelt (2, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162260)

It's not the first browser you log into. MSN Explorer was a piece of crap that required a log in too!

To be fair... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161500)

He characterizes his browser as a step up from NETSCAPE...I guess no one told him...

Original Blog Post (2, Interesting)

wdebruij (239038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161636)

This blog post [rockmelt.com] is the source of the story. Some quotes:

"Share or tweet links often? Yeah, us too. No more wading through each site’s goofy share widget or copy-pasting URLs. We built sharing directly into the browser, right next to the URL bar. Like a site or story? Click “Share” and BAM – link shared."

"Behind the scenes, RockMelt is always working on your behalf. Do you visit the same site 10 times a day, checking for new posts or updates? Well, RockMelt keeps track of all your favorite sites for you, alerting you when a new story comes out, a friend posts new pictures, or a new video is available. And when you open a RockMelt feed, the content is already waiting for you."

None of this sounds world shattering.

"Your friends are important to you, so we built them in. Now you’re able to chat, share that piano-playing-cat video everyone’s going to love, or just see what your friends are up to, regardless of what site you’re on."

Browsing together with friends and commenting is promising. Others have tried and failed, but maybe they can get it right. Some more analysis at the reg [theregister.co.uk] .

Re:Original Blog Post (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161676)

"Your friends are important to you, so we built them in.

A bit like Fred West [wikipedia.org]

Anreesen is a has been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161662)

Just another attempt by Andreesen to be relevant somehow. Why anyone listens to anything he says is beyond me. All he has ever done is take credit for the work of others at the NCSA Supercomputer center in developing the Mosaic browser. Every business he has been involved in since has gone under or failed in some way.

Webkit or other engine (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161740)

I bet they didn't write a new rendering engine... probably using Webkit or something.
So they basically just re-skinned a browser. But still might be useful for some users.

Wow. I couldn't be less interested (1)

dhammond (953711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161800)

in a browser that further entrenches the same overblown social media sites that I'm sick of hearing about.

Firefox has all that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161910)

And for some reason, the featured Firefox addons today, are mysteriously about Twitter, Favorite Websites, News Feeds, and Organizing Bookmarks. Coincidence ?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

Rockmelt (1)

dontgetshocked (1073678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162028)

I personally think it is a cool idea and have signed up for it.Having watched the demo it truly is a welcome NEW idea.Maybe Chrome and Firefox are paying attention.

How timely -- Just what we need! (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162030)

I woke up this very morning and said to myself "Self, HTML5/AJAX development would benefit from a new browser having to be debugged, tested and developed against, especially one that can introduce a whole new paradigm and is more about showing off new features rather than perfecting old standards. In fact, the least standards compliant the better I say. Yes, self, we need more pain. We craves pain, we needs it. That's why we do web development is it not?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?