6 ms·

Indeed. Microsoft also exposed all of that HTML/JS engine as COM or whatever component, so it could be used by applications other than browser. I remember usi

Indeed. Microsoft also exposed all of that HTML/JS engine as COM or whatever component, so it could be used by applications other than browser. I remember using Microsoft Money -- personal accounting software -- and it seemed to be all built on that HTML/JS engine.

pavlov 7y ago
It’s crazy how Microsoft had all the pieces in place in 2001 to own both the Chrome and Electron spaces. Even Apple was shipping IE as their default browser. By investing in cross-platform IE and making it both the best browser and the universal runtime for desktop-quality apps, they could have had “Windows Everywhere”. Instead they did the exact opposite and folded IE into a component of desktop Windows where it received no meaningful investment and lost its once commanding lead. Microsoft’s exclusive focus on their proprietary non-portable APIs was a great blunder.
- numtel 7y ago
  They had been recently sued for having a monopoly from bundling IE with Windows. The chain of events you describe was in many ways not a choice of Microsoft.
  - pavlov 7y ago
    This is a good point, it’s easy to forget about how closely watched Microsoft was by regulators. But IMO it makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft doubled down on the centralized OS+API+apps leverage combo that had brought upon them the antitrust scrutiny, instead of dispersing their influence?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Dispersing their influence where? Windows was all that mattered then. No one cared about the “beleaguered” Mac that was losing marketshare and Apple was close to bankruptcy. No one cared about Linux. It’s not like now where there are four platforms that matter for consumers - Android, iOS, Windows, and Macs.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  In the context of that time, Electron would be considered inferior.
- scarface74 7y ago
  IE wasn’t “cross platform” though. The rendering engine for the Mac was completely different and ironically more standards compliant and had a more complete CSS implementation than the Windows version.
- mmcgaha 7y ago
  I cannot remember the years, but IE ran on linux at some point in the 90s.

pavlov 7y ago

It’s crazy how Microsoft had all the pieces in place in 2001 to own both the Chrome and Electron spaces. Even Apple was shipping IE as their default browser. By investing in cross-platform IE and making it both the best browser and the universal runtime for desktop-quality apps, they could have had “Windows Everywhere”. Instead they did the exact opposite and folded IE into a component of desktop Windows where it received no meaningful investment and lost its once commanding lead. Microsoft’s exclusive focus on their proprietary non-portable APIs was a great blunder.

numtel 7y ago
They had been recently sued for having a monopoly from bundling IE with Windows. The chain of events you describe was in many ways not a choice of Microsoft.
- pavlov 7y ago
  This is a good point, it’s easy to forget about how closely watched Microsoft was by regulators. But IMO it makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft doubled down on the centralized OS+API+apps leverage combo that had brought upon them the antitrust scrutiny, instead of dispersing their influence?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Dispersing their influence where? Windows was all that mattered then. No one cared about the “beleaguered” Mac that was losing marketshare and Apple was close to bankruptcy. No one cared about Linux. It’s not like now where there are four platforms that matter for consumers - Android, iOS, Windows, and Macs.
dillonmckay 7y ago
In the context of that time, Electron would be considered inferior.
scarface74 7y ago
IE wasn’t “cross platform” though. The rendering engine for the Mac was completely different and ironically more standards compliant and had a more complete CSS implementation than the Windows version.
mmcgaha 7y ago
I cannot remember the years, but IE ran on linux at some point in the 90s.