4 ms·

What are the advantages for Microsoft if they were to make the change to WebKit? I know developers would love it, but is it really worth giving up complete cont

What are the advantages for Microsoft if they were to make the change to WebKit? I know developers would love it, but is it really worth giving up complete control on their end? When it comes down to it they have their own best interest in mind, not developers'.

jeroen 18y ago
They would have a faster and more compliant engine than they seem to be able to build themselves. And "giving up complete control"? We're only talking about the rendering engine, not the rest of the browser. And WebKit is open source, they can just fork it if MS is unhappy with where it is going.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  > They would have a faster and more compliant engine than they seem to be able to build themselves. I don't believe it's a lack of ability - Microsoft could easily produce a standard complaint browser. Adopting WebKit doesn't necessarily they would keep it compliant. Given how important IE is to the Operating System in general, I doubt Microsoft could do this technically - not without breaking a raft of things... Given the incompatibility bumps with Vista I'll suspect they're would be seeking a more conservative path for the moment.
  - axod 18y ago
    "Microsoft could easily produce a standard complaint browser" So why don't they? Is it to hold back the web so that they milk their desktop applications like Office a little bit more?
    - jwilliams 18y ago
      Not sure - suspect it's because up until recently there wasn't much to compel them to.... Probably that combined with a lot of legacy to support.
      - axod 18y ago
        That's a really sad state of affairs though. Just because you have the most market share, it should not mean you stop innovating - It does seem like this is exactly what happened with IE6 though, and why IE is the total mess that it is. If Microsoft had actually embraced the internet as a new exciting medium, instead of just releasing IE to kill off mozilla, perhaps they would have been one of the ones leading new development, instead of trailing hopelessly behind all the time. I don't know what the answer is for IE, I can't see them giving up any control, they'll most likely muddle along with their own quirks and bugs while there's a slow but steady shift in users onto the new crop of browsers.
    - briansmith 18y ago
      Download IE8 beta 2.
      - ivank 18y ago
        It has event bugs all the way back from IE6. It's not even close to compliant, except for the most complained-about things.
        briansmith 18y ago
        DOM 2 event support and other javascript issues are easy to work around. If you use any kind of framework like jQuery then you usually don't even have to worry about them.
        axod 18y ago
        That's a silly argument. The creators of the framework really have to worry about them. IE8 seems to be worse than the rest. Once again my site is broken in IE8. Just like it was in IE7 when that came out. They can't even keep the same basic functionality as previous versions.
- thwarted 18y ago
  So multiple incompatible branches of IE and then multiple incompatible branches of WebKit? Mozilla 5.0 (Internet Explorer; Microsoft; webkIEt (like WebKit (like gecko))). No thanks.
  - tlrobinson 18y ago
    Multiple incompatible branches of WebKit is still better than the current situation.
    - thwarted 18y ago
      Multiple incompatible branches of webkit in an ecosystem that still has multiple incompatible branches of IE doesn't sound better, as it geometrically grows the number of renders that need to be tested against. There are some things that I wouldn't wish on even my worst enemies, and while multiple incompatible branches of webkit sounds like it would be better, it's still an undesirable situation. If Microsoft uses webkit, I'd like to think it's because they have realized that a consistent web browser experience from a developer point of view is enabling across the industry, not because they just want to leverage all the hardwork of other companies and open source developers just to get a leg up on their marketing. The last thing I want to hear is Microsoft marketing saying "We use Webkit, the same engine that powers other browsers like Apple's Safari" and the masses eating that up, but when we, as developers, know that isn't the case.
      - drusenko 18y ago
        the day microsoft marketing says "We use Webkit, the same engine that powers other browsers like Apple's Safari" is the day they die (death by flying chair)
nostrademons 18y ago
From Microsoft's POV, the calculation comes down to whether browser rendering engines have become commoditized. Proprietary differentiation gives them no advantage unless customers prefer their version to the commodity one. I'm guessing Microsoft will be watching the success of other WebKit browsers carefully, along with their expenditures on the rendering engine vs. those on the browser chrome itself. If it turns out people are abandoning IE, or if they're spending most of their resources just trying to keep up with WebKit in standards compliance, they'll switch.

jeroen 18y ago

They would have a faster and more compliant engine than they seem to be able to build themselves. And "giving up complete control"? We're only talking about the rendering engine, not the rest of the browser. And WebKit is open source, they can just fork it if MS is unhappy with where it is going.

jwilliams 18y ago
> They would have a faster and more compliant engine than they seem to be able to build themselves. I don't believe it's a lack of ability - Microsoft could easily produce a standard complaint browser. Adopting WebKit doesn't necessarily they would keep it compliant. Given how important IE is to the Operating System in general, I doubt Microsoft could do this technically - not without breaking a raft of things... Given the incompatibility bumps with Vista I'll suspect they're would be seeking a more conservative path for the moment.
- axod 18y ago
  "Microsoft could easily produce a standard complaint browser" So why don't they? Is it to hold back the web so that they milk their desktop applications like Office a little bit more?
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    Not sure - suspect it's because up until recently there wasn't much to compel them to.... Probably that combined with a lot of legacy to support.
    - axod 18y ago
      That's a really sad state of affairs though. Just because you have the most market share, it should not mean you stop innovating - It does seem like this is exactly what happened with IE6 though, and why IE is the total mess that it is. If Microsoft had actually embraced the internet as a new exciting medium, instead of just releasing IE to kill off mozilla, perhaps they would have been one of the ones leading new development, instead of trailing hopelessly behind all the time. I don't know what the answer is for IE, I can't see them giving up any control, they'll most likely muddle along with their own quirks and bugs while there's a slow but steady shift in users onto the new crop of browsers.
  - briansmith 18y ago
    Download IE8 beta 2.
    - ivank 18y ago
      It has event bugs all the way back from IE6. It's not even close to compliant, except for the most complained-about things.
      - briansmith 18y ago
        DOM 2 event support and other javascript issues are easy to work around. If you use any kind of framework like jQuery then you usually don't even have to worry about them.
        axod 18y ago
        That's a silly argument. The creators of the framework really have to worry about them. IE8 seems to be worse than the rest. Once again my site is broken in IE8. Just like it was in IE7 when that came out. They can't even keep the same basic functionality as previous versions.
thwarted 18y ago
So multiple incompatible branches of IE and then multiple incompatible branches of WebKit? Mozilla 5.0 (Internet Explorer; Microsoft; webkIEt (like WebKit (like gecko))). No thanks.
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  Multiple incompatible branches of WebKit is still better than the current situation.
  - thwarted 18y ago
    Multiple incompatible branches of webkit in an ecosystem that still has multiple incompatible branches of IE doesn't sound better, as it geometrically grows the number of renders that need to be tested against. There are some things that I wouldn't wish on even my worst enemies, and while multiple incompatible branches of webkit sounds like it would be better, it's still an undesirable situation. If Microsoft uses webkit, I'd like to think it's because they have realized that a consistent web browser experience from a developer point of view is enabling across the industry, not because they just want to leverage all the hardwork of other companies and open source developers just to get a leg up on their marketing. The last thing I want to hear is Microsoft marketing saying "We use Webkit, the same engine that powers other browsers like Apple's Safari" and the masses eating that up, but when we, as developers, know that isn't the case.
    - drusenko 18y ago
      the day microsoft marketing says "We use Webkit, the same engine that powers other browsers like Apple's Safari" is the day they die (death by flying chair)

nostrademons 18y ago

From Microsoft's POV, the calculation comes down to whether browser rendering engines have become commoditized. Proprietary differentiation gives them no advantage unless customers prefer their version to the commodity one. I'm guessing Microsoft will be watching the success of other WebKit browsers carefully, along with their expenditures on the rendering engine vs. those on the browser chrome itself. If it turns out people are abandoning IE, or if they're spending most of their resources just trying to keep up with WebKit in standards compliance, they'll switch.