3 ms·

That worked because IE was a steaming pile of garbage after years of neglect. That was also a time when the web was younger and users were more techno-literate.

That worked because IE was a steaming pile of garbage after years of neglect. That was also a time when the web was younger and users were more techno-literate. I’d argue that IE was a hedge against the web displacing the OS. After it succeeded in killing off Netscape there wasn’t much to hedge against. A hedge does not make for good product. Chrome on the other hand is not a hedge, it’s a key strategic interest for Google. It’s a great product from the users perspective, free, fast, leading experience. That’s likely not to falter. Firefox is a great counterbalance but don’t expect it to lead with average consumers any time soon. From what I can tell it’s playing catch up on core features and it’s innovating in areas where more techno-literate users might care.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> That worked because IE was a steaming pile of garbage after years of neglect. From our perspective that’s true. But it also worked fine for a great many non-technical people. > That was also a time when the web was younger and users were more techno-literate. That’s not true. By the time IE6 arrived most offices had either dedicated internet terminals or their workstations were connected to the internet. U.K. libraries had been providing internet access for years already, several years of kids would have used the internet at college, and dial up was already common in homes. I remember this well because I managed network infrastructure for schools and offices in the late 90s and early 00s. > I’d argue that IE was a hedge against the web displacing the OS. After it succeeded in killing off Netscape there wasn’t much to hedge against No need to argue there, Microsoft have admitted that themselves. But the motives behind IE don’t alter the point we are discussing (though still interesting). > Chrome on the other hand is not a hedge, it’s a key strategic interest for Google The two point aren’t mutually exclusive: It’s a hedge against users not consuming Google’s advertising. Much like how IE was a core strategy for Microsoft as well as a hedge to keep people on Windows. > It’s a great product from the users perspective, free, fast, leading experience So was internet explorer. It was developers that hated IE, not your average desktop user. IE was faster than FF, free (unlike Opera) and compatible with more sites too (if just because web developers didn’t have much other choice than to support IE). > Firefox is a great counterbalance but don’t expect it to lead with average consumers any time soon I don’t ever expect it to lead again. And it’s also worth noting it took years to displace IE last time around so why would anyone expect it to happen quickly this time? > From what I can tell it’s playing catch up on core features and it’s innovating in areas where more techno-literate users might care. Funny enough this is similar to Netscape back when IE first started to take the edge (back in the IE 3 and 4 days when IE was actually a good browser). What people sometimes forget is that IE didn’t just dominate because it was installed on every Windows desktop. While that certainly helped (as well as being the reason it remained dominant after it stagnated), it had already largely beaten the competition by the time IE 4 was released. IE was, for a while, genuinely the best browser. So the situation then and now isn’t that different.

hnlmorg 5y ago

> That worked because IE was a steaming pile of garbage after years of neglect. From our perspective that’s true. But it also worked fine for a great many non-technical people. > That was also a time when the web was younger and users were more techno-literate. That’s not true. By the time IE6 arrived most offices had either dedicated internet terminals or their workstations were connected to the internet. U.K. libraries had been providing internet access for years already, several years of kids would have used the internet at college, and dial up was already common in homes. I remember this well because I managed network infrastructure for schools and offices in the late 90s and early 00s. > I’d argue that IE was a hedge against the web displacing the OS. After it succeeded in killing off Netscape there wasn’t much to hedge against No need to argue there, Microsoft have admitted that themselves. But the motives behind IE don’t alter the point we are discussing (though still interesting). > Chrome on the other hand is not a hedge, it’s a key strategic interest for Google The two point aren’t mutually exclusive: It’s a hedge against users not consuming Google’s advertising. Much like how IE was a core strategy for Microsoft as well as a hedge to keep people on Windows. > It’s a great product from the users perspective, free, fast, leading experience So was internet explorer. It was developers that hated IE, not your average desktop user. IE was faster than FF, free (unlike Opera) and compatible with more sites too (if just because web developers didn’t have much other choice than to support IE). > Firefox is a great counterbalance but don’t expect it to lead with average consumers any time soon I don’t ever expect it to lead again. And it’s also worth noting it took years to displace IE last time around so why would anyone expect it to happen quickly this time? > From what I can tell it’s playing catch up on core features and it’s innovating in areas where more techno-literate users might care. Funny enough this is similar to Netscape back when IE first started to take the edge (back in the IE 3 and 4 days when IE was actually a good browser). What people sometimes forget is that IE didn’t just dominate because it was installed on every Windows desktop. While that certainly helped (as well as being the reason it remained dominant after it stagnated), it had already largely beaten the competition by the time IE 4 was released. IE was, for a while, genuinely the best browser. So the situation then and now isn’t that different.