4 ms·

That doesn't really go hand in hand with my recollection. If i remember correctly Internet Explorer actually was the far better browser then Netscape at least o

by mkuhn 16y ago

That doesn't really go hand in hand with my recollection. If i remember correctly Internet Explorer actually was the far better browser then Netscape at least once IE6 got released. But it is possible that Microsoft's refusal of continuing to develop its browser has had the effect you mention and has hindered the web overall from developing into an alternative to desktop apps.

raganwald 16y ago
Of course! If you give a crappy browser away for free, nobody will use it. However, if you make it good but you don't support Netscape's server-side integration, you kill their server business and their browser business. Then after they implode rewriting Netscape, you pull almost everybody off the project and rake in the billions. Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. Now you scramble to put people back on it and start active development again. I think the point about the moat and scorched earth stands. For a very direct comparison, consider Android. I believe Google are trying to make it superior to iOS, even through they give it away. Their plan is to scorch the earth so that neither Microsoft nor Apple can turn mobile devices into a Google-free browsing device.
- yuhong 16y ago
  >Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. And also that they recover from the rewrite and released and marketed Firefox enough to make it real competition to IE.
dstein 16y ago
Microsoft was just hedging their bets. Development of IE was specifically to take Netscape down. Once they had won a majority of the web browser market they put it into Windows-style "churn" mode, where they release new garbage versions without any innovations or improvements.
- yuhong 16y ago
  To be more precise, they tied IE development to Windows and forced on mostly adding features like the pop-up blocker and improving security, resulting in IE6 SP2 being only part of XP SP2.

by mkuhn 16y ago

raganwald 16y ago

Of course! If you give a crappy browser away for free, nobody will use it. However, if you make it good but you don't support Netscape's server-side integration, you kill their server business and their browser business. Then after they implode rewriting Netscape, you pull almost everybody off the project and rake in the billions. Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. Now you scramble to put people back on it and start active development again. I think the point about the moat and scorched earth stands. For a very direct comparison, consider Android. I believe Google are trying to make it superior to iOS, even through they give it away. Their plan is to scorch the earth so that neither Microsoft nor Apple can turn mobile devices into a Google-free browsing device.

yuhong 16y ago
>Until, inexorably, people work around your cruft and release cross-browser libraries that eliminate the "lock-in effect" of websites that require IE. And also that they recover from the rewrite and released and marketed Firefox enough to make it real competition to IE.

dstein 16y ago

Microsoft was just hedging their bets. Development of IE was specifically to take Netscape down. Once they had won a majority of the web browser market they put it into Windows-style "churn" mode, where they release new garbage versions without any innovations or improvements.

yuhong 16y ago
To be more precise, they tied IE development to Windows and forced on mostly adding features like the pop-up blocker and improving security, resulting in IE6 SP2 being only part of XP SP2.