6 ms·

This was a brilliant strategy. It allowed Google time to build Chrome at the same time slowing down : (1) explorer (2) Got decent data on CAC for browsers and w

This was a brilliant strategy. It allowed Google time to build Chrome at the same time slowing down : (1) explorer (2) Got decent data on CAC for browsers and what channels work and what don't. Its interesting to see new era of browser wars playing out with Chrome firmly in the lead, but Microsoft attacking with Edge where ChatGPT on bing only available on edge browser and no where else. Would be interesting to see how Google would respond.

throwaway128128 4y ago
Explorer didn't need "slowing down". It was in maintenance mode and being developed it on a shoestring budget around the days of IE6-IE7. Microsoft apparently decided that the web browser circa 2006 was essentially a finished product because they had "won" - IE had no serious mass market competition on Windows.
- corybrown 4y ago
  You're basically right, though the IE dev team was effectively disbanded in 2002 so it's even earlier then you mentioned
- robocat 4y ago
  Somewhere mid-2000s Microsoft recognised web applications were an existential threat to their Windows Applications monopoly. Presumably after IE5 when they first introduced XMLHttpRequest as an ActiveX control (or was that infighting? It was released for online mail AFAIK). Did that have anything to do with the slow down in development of IE?
  - Kerrick 4y ago
    They weren’t wrong. Electron apps and web apps have made switching to Linux or Mac much more seamless for many people.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      Well, the fact that everybody though the same, and this was hyped at the Netscape marketing material surely helped making their mind. And once they destroyed Netscape, Sun created Java with the same goal.
      - ido 4y ago
        And Sun sued Microsoft when they tried to EEE Java shortly thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B#Sun's_litigation_against_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B#Sun's_litigatio...
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Reminds me of Teams in 2023.
  - andirk 4y ago
    Is Teams a pile now? The dot going yellow when I was playing golf instead of pretending to work really bothered me.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Chrome vs. Edge is not a browser war, they are both Chrome. Speaking more broadly, the browser war is all but decided until the Chromes fail of their own accords. The only non-Chrome browsers still in existence today are Safari and the Firefoxes (Firefox and its various forks). Safari is only relevant in iOS by way of Apple gatekeeping, and Firefox hasn't been relevant for well over the past decade thanks to Mozilla's utter mismanagement and malice.
- gkoberger 4y ago
  This is incredibly wrong. They aren't both Chrome; they're both Chromium-based and use Blink and V8 under the hood. And Blink is just a fork of WebKit, which is Safari, so by your logic it's all Safari (it's not). These companies don't care about the rendering engine under the hood, they care about literally one thing: the default search. The war isn't over how CSS is rendered; it's over how many opportunities they have for surfacing their other products (search, email, identity and payments). If anything, Chrome/Firefox are more aligned than Chrome/Edge, because every 3 years Google pulls up with a dump truck of money to stay the default search engine. Also, not for nothing, but there's not a single iota of malice inside Mozilla. Extreme mismanagement, yes, but it's genuinely guided by good people trying to do good for the world. (Source: I'm ex Mozilla)
  - bscphil 4y ago
    OP is presumably talking about stuff like dictating the future of web development, not about who gets money as a result of users having a browser installed. It's a different definition of "sameness" than you're using, but not necessarily a wrong one. (Whether the companies themselves care about this seems immaterial.)
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >This is incredibly wrong. They aren't both Chrome; they're both Chromium-based and use Blink and V8 under the hood. So they're both Chrome. You can't have a war with just one participant. >These companies don't care about the rendering engine under the hood, they care about literally one thing: the default search. They absolutely care about the rendering engine, because that's how you secure a monopoly and subsequently get to foist your default search engine and whatever other monetization schemes on more customers. Did you not learn anything from Internet Explorer and its victory over Netscape? Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. There are many sites that only function properly in Chrome today, and that is to Google's (and now also Microsoft's) commercial interests. You can't have a browser war with just one participant. >If anything, Chrome/Firefox are more aligned than Chrome/Edge, because every 3 years Google pulls up with a dump truck of money to stay the default search engine. As far as Google is concerned, it's cheaper to pay Firefox to stay irrelevant than to compete on the market. Mozilla's flush with cash thanks to Google, but that also means they have no incentives to develop or not mismanage their products. >Also, not for nothing, but there's not a single iota of malice inside Mozilla. Extreme mismanagement, yes, but it's genuinely guided by good people trying to do good for the world. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. History also shows Mozilla today are more concerned about checking the right political checkboxes than delivering a good product that users want. >(Source: I'm ex Mozilla) I'm not surprised that (ex-)Mozilla would play the "Am I out of touch? No, it's the people who are wrong." meme almost to the letter, but that is probably neither here nor there.
amelius 4y ago
I want to see a new era of wars where web admins fight for web freedom and start subtly penalizing BigCorp web browsers, e.g. by showing annoying popups or slightly delaying loading times.

throwaway128128 4y ago

Explorer didn't need "slowing down". It was in maintenance mode and being developed it on a shoestring budget around the days of IE6-IE7. Microsoft apparently decided that the web browser circa 2006 was essentially a finished product because they had "won" - IE had no serious mass market competition on Windows.

corybrown 4y ago
You're basically right, though the IE dev team was effectively disbanded in 2002 so it's even earlier then you mentioned
robocat 4y ago
Somewhere mid-2000s Microsoft recognised web applications were an existential threat to their Windows Applications monopoly. Presumably after IE5 when they first introduced XMLHttpRequest as an ActiveX control (or was that infighting? It was released for online mail AFAIK). Did that have anything to do with the slow down in development of IE?
- Kerrick 4y ago
  They weren’t wrong. Electron apps and web apps have made switching to Linux or Mac much more seamless for many people.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Well, the fact that everybody though the same, and this was hyped at the Netscape marketing material surely helped making their mind. And once they destroyed Netscape, Sun created Java with the same goal.
    - ido 4y ago
      And Sun sued Microsoft when they tried to EEE Java shortly thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B#Sun's_litigation_against_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B#Sun's_litigatio...
phendrenad2 4y ago
Reminds me of Teams in 2023.
- andirk 4y ago
  Is Teams a pile now? The dot going yellow when I was playing golf instead of pretending to work really bothered me.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Chrome vs. Edge is not a browser war, they are both Chrome. Speaking more broadly, the browser war is all but decided until the Chromes fail of their own accords. The only non-Chrome browsers still in existence today are Safari and the Firefoxes (Firefox and its various forks). Safari is only relevant in iOS by way of Apple gatekeeping, and Firefox hasn't been relevant for well over the past decade thanks to Mozilla's utter mismanagement and malice.

gkoberger 4y ago
This is incredibly wrong. They aren't both Chrome; they're both Chromium-based and use Blink and V8 under the hood. And Blink is just a fork of WebKit, which is Safari, so by your logic it's all Safari (it's not). These companies don't care about the rendering engine under the hood, they care about literally one thing: the default search. The war isn't over how CSS is rendered; it's over how many opportunities they have for surfacing their other products (search, email, identity and payments). If anything, Chrome/Firefox are more aligned than Chrome/Edge, because every 3 years Google pulls up with a dump truck of money to stay the default search engine. Also, not for nothing, but there's not a single iota of malice inside Mozilla. Extreme mismanagement, yes, but it's genuinely guided by good people trying to do good for the world. (Source: I'm ex Mozilla)
- bscphil 4y ago
  OP is presumably talking about stuff like dictating the future of web development, not about who gets money as a result of users having a browser installed. It's a different definition of "sameness" than you're using, but not necessarily a wrong one. (Whether the companies themselves care about this seems immaterial.)
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >This is incredibly wrong. They aren't both Chrome; they're both Chromium-based and use Blink and V8 under the hood. So they're both Chrome. You can't have a war with just one participant. >These companies don't care about the rendering engine under the hood, they care about literally one thing: the default search. They absolutely care about the rendering engine, because that's how you secure a monopoly and subsequently get to foist your default search engine and whatever other monetization schemes on more customers. Did you not learn anything from Internet Explorer and its victory over Netscape? Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. There are many sites that only function properly in Chrome today, and that is to Google's (and now also Microsoft's) commercial interests. You can't have a browser war with just one participant. >If anything, Chrome/Firefox are more aligned than Chrome/Edge, because every 3 years Google pulls up with a dump truck of money to stay the default search engine. As far as Google is concerned, it's cheaper to pay Firefox to stay irrelevant than to compete on the market. Mozilla's flush with cash thanks to Google, but that also means they have no incentives to develop or not mismanage their products. >Also, not for nothing, but there's not a single iota of malice inside Mozilla. Extreme mismanagement, yes, but it's genuinely guided by good people trying to do good for the world. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. History also shows Mozilla today are more concerned about checking the right political checkboxes than delivering a good product that users want. >(Source: I'm ex Mozilla) I'm not surprised that (ex-)Mozilla would play the "Am I out of touch? No, it's the people who are wrong." meme almost to the letter, but that is probably neither here nor there.

amelius 4y ago

I want to see a new era of wars where web admins fight for web freedom and start subtly penalizing BigCorp web browsers, e.g. by showing annoying popups or slightly delaying loading times.