Forum Moderators: open
Ummm... was it arrogance that caused Netscape to try *charging* for their primary software product, while M$, who's primary revenue source is elsewhere, could give their competing product away for free?
Was it Netscape's arrogance that caused M$ to aggressively push bundling deals with PC manufacturers who were already dependent on M$'s OS? Bundling one's own browser with one's own OS is certainly an option Netscape didn't have...
Now, NN 4.7 is certainly a stinky browser, and I don't use Netscape products anymore because of that... even if they are free these days. But, at the time IE started beating NS's pants, IE wasn't any gem of quality and functionality itself.
But that's a different kettle of mega-corporate fish.
And it's not just the bundling in-and-of-itself that raised eyebrows, it's the way M$ hands down dictates to hardware vendors, saying "If you want to distribute Windows on your computers, you must include these programs (with icons on the desktop by default), and you must not allow other icons to clutter the desktop alongside them."
If M$ just wanted to give away a free browser, why not put shiny postcards in Windows and Office owners manuals, with a big red URL printed on them, and a special code allowing Windows owners to download Explorer for free? Or include an IE Disk in every Windows distro box? Or, hell, send out IE CDs en masse (with a 1 month trial membership to MSN), enriching the coffeetable coaster collection of every unfortunate recipient?
Why resort to squeezing your competitor out of the OEM market (or at least off the OEM desktop) by force, if your product is so innovative and clearly superior?
If you were a hardware vendor you HAD to put Microsoft browser on your machine, and were not allowed to put Netscape on, if you wanted to get any cut on OS or suite pricing. Otherwise you had to pay retail. Exclusive deals are common, but when you try and do corner the market through it, and the vendor has no alternatives, then it is called monopoly and it becomes illegal.
This is money out of my pocket.
I do not have any sympathy for ANY supplier that reduces my income because of their products short comings.
>>>I always need to spend extra time on my sites to make them Netscape worthy.<<<
You have to work harder to optimize for Netscape, Opera, etc. They don't tolerate poor HTML code. IE on the other hand doesn't care how great your HTML skills are. It will in most cases **correctly** render even the most malformed HTML code. IMHO, this is a bad thing. Yes, some browsers (I'd guess all of them) have their own quirky bugs but once you learn what they are they can easily be worked around.
The fact is ALL non-standards-compliant browsers cost extra time... And since NN6 and Opera are the only two that try to follow standards anything near comprehensively, that leaves IE as the big party pooper in the "easy to design for" category.
NN 4.7 is almost not a browser - it has so many glitches, that you will hardly count them!
Microsoft wins! And Netscape look like a poor crying boy. Shame on them. I would better fire all the NN4.x developers.
NN6 is the other story.. BUT THAT LOADS FOR AGES.. And nobody uses that.. So, who cares??
Well, it certainly was arrogance to lure away a team that had created the Mosaic browser with taxpayer funding at a public university, start a company named "Mosaic" (subsequently changed to "Netscape" for obvious legal reasons), and then create what should have been Mosaic 2.0 so that Jim Clark, Mark Andreeson, and the other Netscape entrepreneurs could profit from the work of the academic community.
At least Microsoft licensed the NCSA Mosaic code from Spyglass when it developed Internet Explorer.
Subtracting known bots and counting ip's only once, 26.5% of the users of this site last year used something other than a Microsoft browser. It's not that high on our other sites, but still in the +20% range use something other than ms.
I think some math is in serious error on the general counter sites that is usually quoted. Don't suppose it's because most modern browser have to ID as ie to stay compatible do you?
I'm not sure if they lost that share in the Time Warner deal, but if they didn't, AOL are sueing an investor.
Oli
Certainly. MS abused their OS monopoly in such a way as to cripple Netscape's ability to fund browser development.
> No, I do not think so.. Netscape was dominationg HARD! They allowed to win the battle..
There was nothing they could've done to prevent it. IE's marketshare has little to do with its quality, and everything to do with being preinstalled on nearly every desktop computer on Earth. How many users even know what the differences between the two major browsers are? Few have even seen a non-IE browser in action.
> Well, it certainly was arrogance to lure away a team that had created the Mosaic browser with taxpayer funding at a public university, start a company named "Mosaic" (subsequently changed to "Netscape" for obvious legal reasons), and then create what should have been Mosaic 2.0 so that Jim Clark, Mark Andreeson, and the other Netscape entrepreneurs could profit from the work of the academic community.
I see nothing arrogant about the Mosaic guys leaving NCSA to found Netscape and make money off their own work rather than continuing to hand the rights to their own work over to NCSA.
Don't you think Microsoft would have a case against AOL giving away their product for free (trial that is). It seems you can hardly avoid purchasing a new computer without having AOL jammed down your throat. When you buy a Dell PC, AOL is chosen as default, and you have to change it to MSN as your internet provider.
It all comes down to marketing savy. I don't see car windshield repair companies suing other companies because the leading company is giving away free boxes of steaks.
Netscape 4.7 was a pain in the arse. We had a huge internet development company come in and create our website for over $1 million. One day, after they made an ENHANCEMENT, we got calls from Netscape users that they could see nothing but a blank screen. Turns out the design firm left out an ending </td> tag. That is where IE shines.... nobody is perfect.
Well, they have been partnered up for some time. AOL has a deal with MS to bundle AOL with new computers using the MS OS. And AOL uses a modified version of IE as their own browser. Haven't you ever wondered why AOL, who owns a superior browser (NS) doesn't incorporate that browser into their product?
--!! GREAT POINT :)))
They are LOSERS in this field!
>Subtracting known bots and counting ip's only once, 26.5% of the users of this site last year used something other than a Microsoft browser.
Well, probably that is because mainly this site is seen by webmasters.. Those are the people who might use NN - I was using NN till 2001.. Why?? Because that sucks, I want to see who people are professional in development. :))) Now I forget about NN and only check the sites in NN ( still think to do that for a long time)
Thank you
There is also the investment factor. AOL has time and resources into supporting it's IE based software. This isn't an off the shelf version of IE. A switch to NN would require a huge investment in training support personel.
Now that MS and AOL did not come to an agreement over XP, AOL does not have the motivation to continue to use IE. I think that is why we saw the law suit come up. AOL doesn't have anything to protect now that it can't afford to lose.
Netscape began to suck. I too, went back to version 3. The fact that IE didn't crap out at the tinyest mistake made it a survivor. It takes brains to look for errors and fix them on the fly. My text boxes in Netcape are 75% wider than in IE, and that really sucks when displaying columns, especially when you have a search box in your left hand nav (it blows the column much wider than in IE, leaving less room on a 800 x 400 screen to render the contents). I'm rooting for IE here on this one.
As far as I am concerned, too often people/companies don't want to take responsibility for their own mistakes, failures, and short-sightedness.
Yes, I was the one who loved Netscape 3 Gold also:))
And that is why I am angry for Netscape - 100% their fault. IE had nothing special about that. Yes, that was Microsoft..
But do you use Notepad as your main text editor just becausee that goes with Windows?? Nope.. You use the one that has much more rich features ..
So, Netscape should blame themselves only!
Probably Microsoft Word. Because, if you're a "functional" computer user (rather than a recreation user) like my boss, you say to yourself, "the business world uses Microsoft, so if you want to participate in the world of business, you must use Microsoft." ...completely unaware that there are other, cheaper, and in some cases, better programs that will allow you to do the same things.
And if you're a home user, who's just brought home your new bargain internet-ready Gateway, Dell, etc., you're probably going to use whatever comes preinstalled, which is almost 100% likely to be Microsoft software, in large part because Microsoft used strong-arm tactics with hardware manufacturers to force use of their products in a decidedly ANTI-COMPETITIVE way, so as to extend their MONOPOLY position from the OS market into the browser market, and any other software market they could worm their tentacles into.
It's not about who made the better piece of software, it's about the TACTICS Microsoft used to expand their market share... which have already been found illegal.
Way back in the dawning days of anti-trust legislation, Standard Oil sold crude oil, and operated refineries... Standard Oil also engaged in price fixing practices, based on getting exclusive contracts with railroad companies to transport their oil at a lower rate than that of their competitors. Then they strong-armed their competitors into selling out or merging with Standard Oil one by one, as they found themselves unable to make a profit because of high transportation prices.
Standard Oil was a monopoly, and their anti-competitive bullying led to their downfall. Nobody nowadays talks about who made the best oil, or who's refineries were the most efficient. Maybe one of their competitors had better oil to offer... BUT it's Standard Oil's BUSINESS TACTICS that caused their problems... and that's exactly the point of the Microsoft issue.
