Why was there ever a browser war in the first place?

[GigaCluster]

Originally posted by: joohang

ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger are all proprietary technologies. There are no standards or consortiums to work on a standardized instant messaging technology, afaik.

Jabber

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: GigaCluster

Originally posted by: joohang

ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger are all proprietary technologies. There are no standards or consortiums to work on a standardized instant messaging technology, afaik.

Jabber

Cool.

 

[Ornery]

"I think that you mean to say "controlling the market."

If you mean like MS Word controlling the word processor market, then yes. To me, it's "the standard" against which others are measured. Once your product is recognized as such... you control the market? No, you OWN the market!

What's the difference about RealPlayer? They tried to cash in on their dominance and it backfired. Perhaps they jumped too soon. Perhaps they never could have cashed in!

Between the messaging services, whichever one of those dominates will be able to collect more for their banner ads and popups etc. Right?

 

[bmacd]

Hey Ornery! Oddly enough, i was just thinking earlier today that i haven't seen you post lately. How are things?

-=bmacd=-

 

[Ornery]

Vous pensiez à moi?

I've been causing trouble here left and right, you must have just missed those topics!

Been hanging out at Sony Talk, causing trouble there. Sold a house, bought a digital camera, memory stick, battery, auto speakers, Windows XP, vibrator... oops

How you been?!

 

[Nemesis77]

In short: control. They don't get any money directly from IE, but through IE they gain control of the way people access Internet and the way webmasters design their websites. Worst case scenario? Websites that work only on IE (and through that, only in Windows)

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: brtspears2

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
A better question, remember when people actually made software competitive because they wanted to create a better product, instead of trying to get money?

This still exists today, it's called open source.

...and later, starving programmers.

Yeah right

 

[bmacd]

I've been better, but thank you Ornery. I think my gf and i broke up, and i'm pretty sure i wanted it to happen, but other than that, i've been ok. The job's getting kinda shady @ kmart. They just announced another 25-40% of employees will be laid off...mostly at corporate level, but can pass onto store-level associates. Um...threw my hand through my windshield in my explorer out of poor anger management after my gf and i decided to break, going out with the new girl at work and having an ok time, AND....having trouble sleeping lately.

-=bmacd=-

 

[HendrixFan]

Reading through the replies, I dont think your question was answered as fully as it could have been. Here goes.

Netscape's Navigator was the dominant browser, garnering over 70% marketshare. At the time, browsers were NOT free. Netscape charged, as did other companies. Now, with Netscape so widespread, almost "standard", it was a cross platform tool. Programmers could concievable design something that would run on Netscape, and it wouldnt matter what OS you used. This basically nullified (or would have once browsers got to that point) MS's monopoly control of the OS market. So they did what they had to to "kill" Netscape. I put that in quotes, because internal memos that surfaced during the DOJ trial showed that the purpose of IE wasnt to be better than Netscape "it just (had) to kill it". They werent interested in making a better browser, they were interesting in wiping out a threat to their monopoly (same thing happened with Java).

MS then spent $1 billion on development of IE and packaged it with the big Win95 release. They also strongarmed resellers, forbidding them from pre-loading Netscape on the computers in order to be able to sell Win95. Of course, even though they spent all that money to "give it away free", the price was really absorbed by the OS. Netscape, unable to sell a $20 browser when IE is not only free, but pre-installed, unable to be removed, and the icon even being unable to be removed (newer versions of Windows are different because of the trial).

Netscape obviously couldnt afford to develop, market and sell the browser at no cost. So they were going to tank and sold out to AOL. AOL has a userbase of 40 million, and is holding Mozilla over MS's head. If MS doesnt play by AOL's rules, then AOL will switch their software from IE based to Mozilla based. Then the market share drastically changes.

 

[Nefrodite]

well yea, i'm sure "killing" your competition is a kind of battle cry u would expect from any hard charging company u expected "lets tickle our competition?" ??

i think netscape charged as much as 50 bux for their browser. i was a kid at the time so don't hold me to it netscape was a monopoly early on. early IE was a pos. now nutscrape cries foul becuz its no longer the one with the monopoly maybe they should have funded ms IE development back when it sucked....now we have the choice of mozilla, opera and ie.


and well.. netscape is now owned by evil empire AOL. they are called AOL-Time Warner u know

as for open source, its kinda overly optimistic. people gotta be paid at the end of the day. some projects require more organization to get done too its in a perfect world... all programmers would work for free all musicians would also work for free

if open source were so good, ms would be out of business already

 

[lowtech1]

Because Marc Andreessen announced that they were going to make all OSes redundant due to web content & apps driven by (Netscape)browser. MS fear of death quickly created crapy IE 1.0 & 2.0 that is free that is buddle with the Plus! package. (Even the 3 years old Mosaic was better than IE 1.0 & just as good as IE 2.0).

Marc Andreessen vision sprouted MS & Sun to create JSP, .NET & B2B.

 

[lowtech1]

Netscape's Navigator was the dominant browser, garnering over 70% marketshare

If I recall the number correctly...I believe that Netscape had somewhere around 82-85% of the marketshare in 1995.

Basicly IE won for two reasons, they had their browser built in in the OS and they skipped ahead of the W3 consortium who create the HTML standard so if people wanted more features they had to use IE.

The browser weren't built into the OS. It was bundled with the OS as default OEM install in 97-98, then MS tightly integrated into Windows with the buggy Active directory. I'm not too sure with the second point, but I recall most if not all web developers coded HTML 2.0 to accommodated older browser & compatibility when Netscape 3.0/4.0 & IE 3.0/4.0 were released.

MS killed off the competition by bundle IE in Windows for free, and uses strong-arm tactic on the OEM partners. By doing so MS can gouge the customer on their OS & Apps and ensure their survival.

 

[hoihtah]

just cause something is given free...
that doesn't mean that there's no benefit to the person giving it free.

it's called investment.

there's a short term investment... and a long term investment.

in this case... it was the latter.

 

[Pretty Cool]

When IE was introduced, not all browsers charged. My guess is that about 60% of the browsers were free. Even Netscape's license was free "for personal use". Also, since almost ISP's were bunding software on their install CD's, most people did not directly pay a fee to Netscape. In fact many people simply took any ISP's CD and used their dialer, email client, and browser without choosing that service. Netscape plan has always been to generate money on the backend, not individual users. On the other hand, Microsoft bought an already-free browser (Spry Mosiac) and upgraded it into a usable application, while still keeping the product free to end users.

Also, IE's was not originally included in the original release of Windows 95. In fact, IE was slip-streamed relatively quietly when the words, "includes Internet Explorer" suddenly appeared underneath Windows 95 on the retail box. Furthermore, IE was in fact, removable from Windows almost as soon as the bundling began via IEradicator. In fact, IEradicator was even mentioned during the antitrust trial. This application allows the removal of the browser, while keeping the html engine intact for other functions such as email.

Granted, I don't usually frequent the brand-name systems, but I remember seeing Netscape on almost all retail computers sold during that period. I believe that the main issue has always been whether Microsoft had the right to bundle a browser.

AOL is already beta-testing a Mozilla-based AOL browser. My guess is that the second their MS agreement ends, AOL will switch to Netscape. Whether this changes the market for the good, bad or not at all is still to be determined.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: notfred
Microsoft and Netscape made two competeing internet browsers. Each company tried as hard as they could to prove that they had the better product, so that they could increase market share. Eventually, Microsoft won, and Netscape tumbled into obscurity. Now, with MS on top, they have enjoyed absolutely no increase in profits, because both IE and Navigator were FREE! Why were they competeing to give away more of thier products for free???? I don't get it, how is this beneficial to either company?

well see at the time, people felt that owning the browser, would allow a company to say, package ads and things into the browser to make money eventually once they had enough market share. it was a market share ploy at first, and back then people believe it because to the internet bubble. looking back you know that it wasnt gonna work, but at the time it was plausible.

 

[lowtech1]

When IE was introduced, not all browsers charged. My guess is that about 60% of the browsers were free. Even Netscape's license was free "for personal use". Also, since almost ISP's were bunding software on their install CD's, most people did not directly pay a fee to Netscape. In fact many people simply took any ISP's CD and used their dialer, email client, and browser without choosing that service. Netscape plan has always been to generate money on the backend, not individual users. On the other hand, Microsoft bought an already-free browser (Spry Mosiac) and upgraded it into a usable application, while still keeping the product free to end users.

When IE was created Netcape weren't free Certainly Netscape 1.0-1.2 & 2.0. After selling Netscape 3.0 for a while during that time IE was free. Netscape 3.0 became free after about a year that MS bundled IE 3.0 & 4.0 with the OS.

 

[paulee]

don't you remember what the original anti-trust lawsuit was about?

Netscape WAS charging for browsers. Then MS came out with IE and started GIVING it AWAY. Netscape was then forced to give away their browser, but died since they had no alternative sources of revenue.

 

[Shuxclams]

M$ Bundled IE 4 and the rest is history, same will be true with instant messenging, CD burning software etc.. that is bundled with XP now, soon you will see third party software programs go down the sh|tter because most users think there getting such a great deal with the "free" M$ crap. Netscape was by far the better browser up until that point, just as NERO is better burning software and Winamp is better MP3 player.










SHUX

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
A better question, remember when people actually made software competitive because they wanted to create a better product, instead of trying to get money?

This still exists today, it's called open source.

I'd like to see you make a living, much less make any money giving away everything you create.

It is basic human nature to invent, create and innovate for profit. Very few people will do such things for altruistic purposes... and those who do quickly find out they can no longer afford to do such things.

There are two main catalysts for rapid innovation and invention: Profit and war... and these tie in directly with the most basic human traits that we evolved with over millions of years: the need to get a leg up, and basic survival.

Face it, communism is a failure as it goes against basic human nature. Only capitalism and it's financial incentives for success can sustain innovations and creativity for the long term.

Open source and the abolition of intellectual property is a socialist pipe dream, and could never have sustained the volume and quality of innovation we've seen in the last twenty years.

 

[HendrixFan]

Amused One, it would seem that Microsoft disagrees with you about open source. They certainly see it as a threat to their monopoly.

Here are some key quotes (FUD = Fear, uncertainty and doubt)

* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.

* Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects.

* ...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.

* OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it.

* Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than commercial alternatives. The Internet provides an ideal, high-visibility showcase for the OSS world.

* Linux has been deployed in mission critical, commercial environments with an excellent pool of public testimonials. ... Linux outperforms many other UNIXes ... Linux is on track to eventually own the x86 UNIX market ...

* Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.

* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

* The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing. More importantly, OSS evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than our own evangelization efforts appear to scale.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: lowtech

When IE was introduced, not all browsers charged. My guess is that about 60% of the browsers were free. Even Netscape's license was free "for personal use". Also, since almost ISP's were bunding software on their install CD's, most people did not directly pay a fee to Netscape. In fact many people simply took any ISP's CD and used their dialer, email client, and browser without choosing that service. Netscape plan has always been to generate money on the backend, not individual users. On the other hand, Microsoft bought an already-free browser (Spry Mosiac) and upgraded it into a usable application, while still keeping the product free to end users.

When IE was created Netcape weren't free Certainly Netscape 1.0-1.2 & 2.0. After selling Netscape 3.0 for a while during that time IE was free. Netscape 3.0 became free after about a year that MS bundled IE 3.0 & 4.0 with the OS.

on paper yes but not in reality, I used Netscape 2, 3 and 4 and never had to pay a dime, they were a "free" download.

 

[SuperSix]

Originally posted by: notfred
Microsoft and Netscape made two competeing internet browsers. Each company tried as hard as they could to prove that they had the better product, so that they could increase market share. Eventually, Microsoft won, and Netscape tumbled into obscurity. Now, with MS on top, they have enjoyed absolutely no increase in profits, because both IE and Navigator were FREE! Why were they competeing to give away more of thier products for free???? I don't get it, how is this beneficial to either company?

You must see the big picture, grasshopper.

branding, name recognition, features integrated with MS Ofice products, it's a long-term brilliant plan..

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I'd like to see you make a living, much less make any money giving away everything you create.

It is basic human nature to invent, create and innovate for profit. Very few people will do such things for altruistic purposes... and those who do quickly find out they can no longer afford to do such things.

IF that is the case, then why do we have extremely high-quality software created by volunteers? Linus Torvalds has more than enough money and he drives an expensive BMW. By your logic, he should be poor. He's not.

There are two main catalysts for rapid innovation and invention: Profit and war... and these tie in directly with the most basic human traits that we evolved with over millions of years: the need to get a leg up, and basic survival.

Again, why is there then vast amount of extremely high-quality free software?

Face it, communism is a failure as it goes against basic human nature. Only capitalism and it's financial incentives for success can sustain innovations and creativity for the long term.

What does communism and capitalism have to do with this? You can freely sell and profit from open-source software, no-one is stopping you. Why do you talk about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Open source and the abolition of intellectual property is a socialist pipe dream, and could never have sustained the volume and quality of innovation we've seen in the last twenty years.

What does intellectual property has to do with this? And socialism for that matter?open source software protects intellectual property just like proprietary licenses do. Only difference is that in case of proprietary licenses, the IP is owned by for-profit corporation, whereas in open source it's owned by the public.

 

[lowtech1]

on paper yes but not in reality, I used Netscape 2, 3 and 4 and never had to pay a dime, they were a "free" download.

How could you downloaded Nutscrape 2 or 3 with out a browser?
I can't recall if version 2.0 were downloadable when it is first came out. Netscape 2.0 enter the legacy mode and were free for download after Netscape 3.0 Gold were out & IE 3.0 were a great competition.

I uses Mosaic, Netscape 1.0, 1.2 & 2.0 at my school & I belive that they pay for it. And I paid for my Netscape 3.0 Gold after trying out MS crapy IE 2.0 & weren't too keen with IE 3.0. Netscape 4.x became free but it was too late for survival, becasue they can't compeate with MS OEM install.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: lowtech

on paper yes but not in reality, I used Netscape 2, 3 and 4 and never had to pay a dime, they were a "free" download.

How could you downloaded Nutscrape 2 or 3 with out a browser?
I can't recall if version 2.0 were downloadable when it is first came out. Netscape 2.0 enter the legacy mode and were free for download after Netscape 3.0 Gold were out & IE 3.0 were a great competition.

I uses Mosaic, Netscape 1.0, 1.2 & 2.0 at my school & I belive that they pay for it. And I paid for my Netscape 3.0 Gold after trying out MS crapy IE 2.0 & weren't too keen with IE 3.0. Netscape 4.x became free but it was too late for survival, becasue they can't compeate with MS OEM install.

I also used Mosaic for a while, also that Netscape came with a cd when I first signed for an ISP.
I had Netscape3.0 Gold also, didnt pay anything, just downloaded it off their website.