IE was simple the better browser at the time. I remember using Netscape 4 and then IE was just better and they kept iterating really fast(that seems to be MS' mantra, come in late and iterate fast, see Word, Excel, Powerpoint, XBox, etc and even the big fish Windows(remember the first few versions before Windows 3.11 for Workgroups?). Of course there are some failures like Bing and
Zune but you can't blame them for not trying.
>t was about cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser in the biggest ISP in the world
You mean like Google's loss leader Android which they put on the market for free by using money from their search dominance resulting in killing WebOS, RIM, Nokia and almost everyone else except Apple?
>And after achieving market dominance in browsers, it was about sitting on the technology for years, providing minimal updates and no standards work while competing browsers struggled vainly to move the technology forward (all done to try to kill off the "web" as a platform, of course
There is a grain in truth to what you say, but I believe it was primarily for two reasons. Netscape dying off, and browser releases tied to OS versions(maybe because of the antitrust trial where they claimed they were related). Since Vista got delayed and they hit the reset button the middle, IE7 got really delayed, and of course they didn't want to spend a whole bunch of money and effort to release an interim version, just like Apple doesn't really care about web apps right now or replacing Flash with HTML5(Jobs' blog pont rant about Flash on iOS promised much more and proper HTML5 support is still sorely lacking in iOS) since it is simply not a priority for Apple.
>MS is not a nice company. But they've maneuvered themselves into a position where they are no longer dominant, and are having to compete on technology. So they certainly seem nice enough now (and they did in the early 80's too). But I don't trust them; the culture is broken and evil.
If Apple had their way(which now they seem to be doing), Firefox wouldn't even exist, so there's nothing left to kill. Look at their 30% cut of services provided to iOS users and how it killed many apps and their MFN rule(no service can provide a lower rate for other platforms if it wants to use in app purchasing).
In these conversations(like in Mozilla's blog posts about Firefox on Windows RT etc.), I frequently see that Apple is the elephant in the room that no wants to even mention in passing since it undermines their point.
Just to reply to one thing in isolation (because frankly you can get a better treatment of all this point-by-point stuff by doing a Google groups search from 1997):
> You mean like Google's loss leader Android which they put on the market for free by using money from their search dominance resulting in killing WebOS, RIM, Nokia and almost everyone else except Apple?
Android is open source. I can build it, run it, change it and ship it all by myself for whatever I want. So yes: I make a moral exception here. (edit: cooldeal, stop flaming. I'm running CM9 built from source, with my own modifications, on my very own phone. That passes the test. Trying to equate not-as-open-as-I'd-like-it-to-be behavior on Google's part with Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in the 90's is just plain insane. Stop it.)
I wept for Netscape because its fall broke web browsing on all platforms other than windows (that's the "damage to the market" part -- I didn't and still don't give a crap about Netscape, Inc.)
I shed no tears for RIM or Nokia, sorry. WebOS was open and good (but the market has spoken and prefers Android), so maybe HP gets a misty eye or two.
>Android is open source. I can build it, run it, change it and ship it all by myself for whatever I want. So yes: I make a moral exception here.
You mean the same Android that all development happens behind closed doors without taking in any patches except for the kernel and one or a few OEMs get sweetheart early access deals from Google? When the device is sold into the market, Google throws a bunch of code over the wall, and everyone including other small OEMs with no sweetheart deals and Cyanogen mod are left to scramble in a mad rush to support their phones and tablets, drivers and software. Ever wonder why it takes such a long time for new Android OS updates? Of course, all this is explicitly designed to favor their Nexus devics over other Android OEMs. Look at how Motorola, HTC etc. are doing in their financial statements. Motorola is at a loss (and got taken over by Google), HTC's profits are plunging and LG is not going good either.
Remember there was no source for Honeycomb at all which hurt Cyanogen mod for tablets and smaller tablet makers had to do with Gingerbread, a phone OS?
Even iOS, Windows Phone and Windows release beta versions etc. for the ecosystem to get ready for new versions.
>I shed no tears for RIM or Nokia, sorry. WebOS was open and good (but the market has spoken and prefers Android), so maybe HP gets a misty eye or two
So when Google does essentially the same thing as others, the market has spoken about WebOS/Meego/Maemo, but when it's MS, the market hasn't spoken about Word Perfect, Lotus Notes, Open Office, Netscape etc. etc. and it was all because of them dumping loss leaders on the market or manipulation?
>Just to reply to one thing in isolation (because frankly you can get a better treatment of all this point-by-point stuff by doing a Google groups search from 1997):
Very interesting that you don't want to talk about Apple, or compare it's "evilness" to Microsoft. Nor was I expecting you to. That usually is the case in these type of conversations. The elephant in the room has grown a second tail and still no one wants to even acknowledge its existence in these type of stories and comments.
> You mean like Google's loss leader Android which they put on the market for free by using money from their search dominance resulting in killing WebOS, RIM, Nokia and almost everyone else except Apple?
Not quite the same thing, when Android is Open Source and available for use by anyone. Now, granted, Google don't do as good a job as they could at doing real community oriented, participatory development of Android... but nonetheless, the source is available and it could be forked and developed by a Google competitor...
Change Android a bit too much for Google and lose access to the Marketplace, Google apps like maps and the ecosystem. Not everyone can pull an Amazon and make their own app marketplace.
Did those updates break Netscape? And it had nothing to do with Netscape self destructing with a failed rewrite, right? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
IE was simple the better browser at the time. I remember using Netscape 4 and then IE was just better and they kept iterating really fast(that seems to be MS' mantra, come in late and iterate fast, see Word, Excel, Powerpoint, XBox, etc and even the big fish Windows(remember the first few versions before Windows 3.11 for Workgroups?). Of course there are some failures like Bing and Zune but you can't blame them for not trying.
>t was about cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser in the biggest ISP in the world
You mean like Google's loss leader Android which they put on the market for free by using money from their search dominance resulting in killing WebOS, RIM, Nokia and almost everyone else except Apple?
>And after achieving market dominance in browsers, it was about sitting on the technology for years, providing minimal updates and no standards work while competing browsers struggled vainly to move the technology forward (all done to try to kill off the "web" as a platform, of course
There is a grain in truth to what you say, but I believe it was primarily for two reasons. Netscape dying off, and browser releases tied to OS versions(maybe because of the antitrust trial where they claimed they were related). Since Vista got delayed and they hit the reset button the middle, IE7 got really delayed, and of course they didn't want to spend a whole bunch of money and effort to release an interim version, just like Apple doesn't really care about web apps right now or replacing Flash with HTML5(Jobs' blog pont rant about Flash on iOS promised much more and proper HTML5 support is still sorely lacking in iOS) since it is simply not a priority for Apple.
>MS is not a nice company. But they've maneuvered themselves into a position where they are no longer dominant, and are having to compete on technology. So they certainly seem nice enough now (and they did in the early 80's too). But I don't trust them; the culture is broken and evil.
If Apple had their way(which now they seem to be doing), Firefox wouldn't even exist, so there's nothing left to kill. Look at their 30% cut of services provided to iOS users and how it killed many apps and their MFN rule(no service can provide a lower rate for other platforms if it wants to use in app purchasing).
In these conversations(like in Mozilla's blog posts about Firefox on Windows RT etc.), I frequently see that Apple is the elephant in the room that no wants to even mention in passing since it undermines their point.