3 ms·

I haven't used any version of IE (other than for testing, or where sites require it) since the first time I tried out Firefox, which I think was called Phoenix

I haven't used any version of IE (other than for testing, or where sites require it) since the first time I tried out Firefox, which I think was called Phoenix back when I started. But the issue I have with that logic is that nothing ever changed with their so-called "anti-competitive practices", and yet the browser market did drastically when Firefox started picking up steam. IE kept on being bundled with every Windows install. The market worked itself out. If IE6 were holding it back for so long, why did it miraculously stop, even though nothing changed? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack of a business model, which was inadvertently solved by Google. Saying IE6 held the browser market back is like saying Yahoo held the search market back by giving it away for free. Just like Yahoo, Microsoft is now feeling the pain of failure to innovate. Of course, everyone here hates IE6 (understandably) and Microsoft so I'll get downmodded a lot.

axod 17y ago
>> If IE6 were holding it back for so long, why did it >> miraculously stop, even though nothing changed? The >> answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack >> of a business model, which was inadvertently solved by >> Google. I think one reason was that Netscape had got so big and unwieldy that users didn't see a compelling case to switch from IE once MS forced them into using it. Firefox changed all that with innovative features, and a quick easy browsing experience - credit where credit's due. I don't think the business model really matters TBH. Firefox would have happened without google. Maybe you have a point though, maybe people could have tried harder, and "Done a firefox" earlier, and still been able to gain market share. I don't know when all the legal stuff against Microsofts anti-competitive business practices started to get stamped out, but it seemed to be around the same time of phoenix/firefox.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  It is important to note that IE6 didn't suck at first relative to its competition. It just didn't improve while the rest of the web did at the speed of light. I know it's hard to remember that when you're trying to find workarounds for lack of png transparency or figure out why your divs aren't where they should be. Firefox clearly started happening before they found such a great way to monetize, but I have a hard time believing it would be what it is today with tens of millions of dollars less coming in. Now there's so much money in it that there are multiple decent competitors to IE. All of Microsoft's settlements seem to have had no impact on their browser strategy really. Every copy of Windows still has IE on it, just like it did before, and requires a download of Firefox or any other competitor. I don't think their "anti-competitive practices" or the cessation thereof have made any difference at all. Hence my original post.
  - garethm 17y ago
    In Europe, Microsoft will not be selling any version of Windows 7 that includes IE. See http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009...
  - axod 17y ago
    As far as I remember, MS made sure that no OEM was able to ship a PC with any other browser installed. Or at least made it not in their interest to try to.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
The answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack of a business model... As I recall, Netscape had a business model back before Microsoft set out to use monopoly power to deliberately destroy it. Your argument reminds me of the old joke about the guy who kills his parents and then runs around asking for sympathy because he's an orphan. Of course, it's quite possible that Netscape's original business model was nonviable. There were plenty of silly business models around in the old days. We'll never really know. But this doesn't let Microsoft off the hook: Shooting someone who has a terminal illness is still murder.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  From the latest Joel on Software post: "Dave Winer (in 2007): 'Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.'" That's Netscape. They had a nonviable business model in charging for something that ended up on the roadmap of every platform they were on. You can hate Microsoft all you want, but Apple bundles a browser with their OS for free too, and would have done the same if they owned the market. And then everyone would be complaining that Safari held us all back. Firefox found a viable business model and the browser wars began again. That's all there is to it.

axod 17y ago

>> If IE6 were holding it back for so long, why did it >> miraculously stop, even though nothing changed? The >> answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack >> of a business model, which was inadvertently solved by >> Google. I think one reason was that Netscape had got so big and unwieldy that users didn't see a compelling case to switch from IE once MS forced them into using it. Firefox changed all that with innovative features, and a quick easy browsing experience - credit where credit's due. I don't think the business model really matters TBH. Firefox would have happened without google. Maybe you have a point though, maybe people could have tried harder, and "Done a firefox" earlier, and still been able to gain market share. I don't know when all the legal stuff against Microsofts anti-competitive business practices started to get stamped out, but it seemed to be around the same time of phoenix/firefox.

mattmaroon 17y ago
It is important to note that IE6 didn't suck at first relative to its competition. It just didn't improve while the rest of the web did at the speed of light. I know it's hard to remember that when you're trying to find workarounds for lack of png transparency or figure out why your divs aren't where they should be. Firefox clearly started happening before they found such a great way to monetize, but I have a hard time believing it would be what it is today with tens of millions of dollars less coming in. Now there's so much money in it that there are multiple decent competitors to IE. All of Microsoft's settlements seem to have had no impact on their browser strategy really. Every copy of Windows still has IE on it, just like it did before, and requires a download of Firefox or any other competitor. I don't think their "anti-competitive practices" or the cessation thereof have made any difference at all. Hence my original post.
- garethm 17y ago
  In Europe, Microsoft will not be selling any version of Windows 7 that includes IE. See http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009...
- axod 17y ago
  As far as I remember, MS made sure that no OEM was able to ship a PC with any other browser installed. Or at least made it not in their interest to try to.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

The answer, of course, is that it wasn't IE6. It was the lack of a business model... As I recall, Netscape had a business model back before Microsoft set out to use monopoly power to deliberately destroy it. Your argument reminds me of the old joke about the guy who kills his parents and then runs around asking for sympathy because he's an orphan. Of course, it's quite possible that Netscape's original business model was nonviable. There were plenty of silly business models around in the old days. We'll never really know. But this doesn't let Microsoft off the hook: Shooting someone who has a terminal illness is still murder.

mattmaroon 17y ago
From the latest Joel on Software post: "Dave Winer (in 2007): 'Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.'" That's Netscape. They had a nonviable business model in charging for something that ended up on the roadmap of every platform they were on. You can hate Microsoft all you want, but Apple bundles a browser with their OS for free too, and would have done the same if they owned the market. And then everyone would be complaining that Safari held us all back. Firefox found a viable business model and the browser wars began again. That's all there is to it.