3 ms·
The problem is that they're unwilling to jump on WebKit. I imagine this might have something to do with the historical prominence of the IE team at Microsoft.
by treeface 16y ago
The problem is that they're unwilling to jump on WebKit. I imagine this might have something to do with the historical prominence of the IE team at Microsoft.
Using WebKit (and possibly even the JS-processing code Google pushes back to the WebKit community), they could get it up and running in far less time than it would take to build it themselves. A small (or large, well-organized) company wouldn't have legacy issues like this (or at least wouldn't let them get in the way of making the right decision).
- bad_user 16y agoI wonder if shareholders are aware of this.
- rbanffy 16y agoIf they were, they wouldn't be shareholders
- shareme 16y agoyou forget they once jumped to SpyGlass..ie the founding code of MSIE 1.0
- rbanffy 16y agoThe problem is that if they use Webkit, there will be a unified and cross-platform environment for deploying web applications. Microsoft cannot allow that - one of its strengths is how difficult it is to migrate to other platforms whatever was developed to be deployed to Windows. The only reason Windows has a browser these days is that Microsoft succeeded in destroying Netscape, but, by the time they did it, it was too late to destroy the web. Had they arrived at the game when NCSA Mosaic was the dominant browser and succeeded in fragmenting the transport and presentation layers with competing protocols and formats, the web would be completely different today.