13 ms·
Microsoft is killing off the Internet Explorer brand
- brianbreslin 12y agoI would be curious to see how well browser brand names have associated/resonated with the average computer users over time. I know my mom uses chrome because I made it her default web browser and hid explorer. However she doesn't refer to it as chrome, just "the web".
- whoopdedo 12y agoI've lost count of the number of times I asked someone what browser they used and was told "Yahoo."
- TallGuyShort 12y agoMaybe Yahoo Axis really is that popular.
- gagege 12y agoAbout 4 years ago (note: not 14 years ago) my boss at the time told me "AOL" when I asked him that question. Immediately I thought he was joking, then I thought he must be mistaken and was telling me what his homepage was by accident. But then, to my horror, he showed it to me, and I realized he was completely correct. He was using some ugly purple "modern" version of an AOL browser that I didn't even know existed.
- smacktoward 12y ago> He was using some ugly purple "modern" version of an AOL browser that I didn't even know existed. That was probably Netscape 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_6), or Netscape 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_%28version_7%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_%28version_7%29), the two versions of Netscape that AOL managed to squeeze out after acquiring them before giving up on the "Netscape" brand entirely and laying all the developers off. The thought back then was that there would be a "Mozilla" brand working on the core browser tech as open source code that was strictly for developers, while AOL would take Mozilla tech and use it to periodically release consumer-facing browsers under the brand "Netscape." This turned out not to work in practice, since the main contributions AOL would make in turning Mozilla into Netscape revolved taking a perfectly useful browser and making it less useful. (An example: Mozilla included a pop-up blocker, but AOL disabled it in their "Netscape" builds. Yes.) AOL/Netscape ought to be a business school case study in how to completely demolish the value of a brand after paying out the nose for it.
- prawn 12y agoInterestingly, AOL is not archived here: http://browsers.evolt.org/ http://browsers.evolt.org/ I do remember it, and WebTV, being two thorns in a web developer's sides back then.
- userbinator 12y agoI'd say that Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and many of the other browser names are nowhere near as descriptive as Internet Explorer. I know people who refer to IE as "the internet", and it's not very hard to make that association since "internet" is in its name.
- serve_yay 12y agoI guess it's not just us nerds in our bubble who dislike it.
- OliverJones 12y agoThey killed that brand ages ago. Now they're going to stop mentioning its name.
- angularly 12y agoHeh, exactly my thought when I saw the headline. As a webdeveloper since 1995, I can only say "phew, finally" - that browser probably cost me 2-3 years of my life, spent hacking various webprojects to make them work in IE.
- aikah 12y agoYou forget the fact that IE used to be the best browser out there.Netscape ended up being total shit.
- baldfat 12y agoI would say that Netscape lived on and became Firefox.
- hasenj 12y agoThis interpretation entails that IE will live on and become Spartan
- integraton 12y agoExcept that Netscape was open sourced years before it became Firefox. That happened January 1998, which was 17 years ago, and 4 years before Firefox was released, which itself was over 12 years ago.
- have_humility 12y agoMarch 1998, and it underwent a pretty well-publicized rewrite as well... Firefox is not built on top of what was released back then (Communicator 4.x); it's built on top of its rewrite.
- nostromo 12y ago> "We’ll continue to have Internet Explorer, but we’ll also have a new browser called Project Spartan" Oh joy, another browser from Microsoft to test. :\
- mariusmg 12y agoYes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Later edit : Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing.
- integraton 12y ago> Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. I agree, as long as they are by companies, organizations, and teams other than Microsoft. And that's what we indeed have already: Gecko, WebKit, Blink (and Blink is new, which is great). I very much look forward to additional open engines (and POSIX-compliant operating systems, for that matter) by companies, organizations, and even unofficial teams of dedicated individuals that are not Microsoft, of which there are many.
- wlesieutre 12y agoMicrosoft is in much less of a position to screw with standards than they were back when IE was a problem. I'd be more worried about Apple and Google running the browser show if I were you.
- wantab 12y agoI was more concerned when Microsoft did. I have no issue with Apple or Google. In fact, if it weren't for Google and Mozilla, we'd all be using IE6 right now.
- wlesieutre 12y agoI don't have any concerns with Google, but Apple's "No browsers allowed except for new UIs tacked on the iOS WebKit framework" is not my favorite thing ever. Firefox on Android is pretty great.
- jordigh 12y agoI wonder if they're gonna go with Webkit. There was some speculation that the "new" MSFT would be going that route.
- legohead 12y agoFrom a couple months ago: "Technically, the browser will use Microsoft’s Chakra JavaScript engine and Microsoft’s Trident rendering engine (not WebKit), according to Foley." [1] [1]: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2863878/microsofts-reported-spartan-browser-will-be-lighter-more-flexible-than-internet-explorer.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2863878/microsofts-reported-s...
- aquilaFiera 12y agoIt will not use Webkit. They internally forked Trident and tore out all the legacy code. From what I've heard the two code bases don't much resemble each other anymore. Source: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/01/26/inside-microsofts-new-rendering-engine-project-spartan/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/01/26/inside-microsofts...
- megaman821 12y agoI forgot where I saw it, but the claim is that the new Trident engine has diverged more from the old than Blink has from Webkit.
- stuart78 12y agoI fear that the browser itself will live forever. At least in my parent's basement where the PCs are like Mr. Burns' indestructibility: https://vimeo.com/96581518 https://vimeo.com/96581518 So IE6 it is.
- bdcravens 12y ago> "Not that Internet Explorer branding will vanish entirely. It will still exist in some versions of Windows 10, but Project Spartan will be the main way Windows 10 users roam the Internet." If IE was an issue for users, pretty sure that means they'll continue to use Firefox or Chrome, not Spartan.
- 300bps 12y agoIf IE was an issue for users, pretty sure that means they'll continue to use Firefox or Chrome, not Spartan. If Microsoft wants to "win the browser war", in my opinion the best thing they could do would be to create their own WebKit (or even Chromium) distribution and have it installed in Windows by default.
- Someone1234 12y agoThat may work, but it would be bad for the market overall. The more browser engines we have the better, least of all we wind up in another IE6-like situation where one browser/engine rules the world and dictates web-features. PS - Yes, I know Google broke away from Apple's WebKit branch. But a lot of browsers are still very WebKit-like.
- cwyers 12y agoAnd that's also a pretty big reason why Microsoft may not want to be on WebKit. Google forked WebKit because it and Apple couldn't agree on what direction to take things. Why would Microsoft be able to work with either of Apple or Google than they could work together on WebKit? So it's very likely that it wouldn't be a WebKit-based browser, but a browser based on Microsoft's WebKit fork or Microsoft's Blink fork.
- wantab 12y agoYou remember the last time they installed their own browser by default, don't you?
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoThe same way users were going to flock to Netscape instead of IE? Spartan will be pre-installed and "good enough" for a lot of people. IT departments will de facto have to support it because it comes on the Windows image. Joe User read a lot things about Chrome spying on him or blocking his favorite ad blocker and might want to try it out. >If IE was an issue for users IE as legacy browser tied to active x junk and old school enterprise sites was the problem. Spartan dumps all of that. Oh some $crappy_site_coded_for_ie6 doesnt work in Spartan? Too bad. IE is there for legacy stuff, Spartan is for modern stuff. If MS doesn't screw it up, Spartan may be a big deal and could cut into Chrome's marketshare. I wouldn't write it off.
- jeorgun 12y agoIs their new project architecturally different, or just a rebranding? I've thought for years that they should rename the thing, to get rid of the stigma, but it'd be kind of a shame to completely abandon the browser just as it was catching up.
- untog 12y agoArchitecturally stripped down to remove the old compatibility modes. Which is fine by me - IE11 actually isn't bad.
- rverghes 12y agoI wonder if this is a way to get around backwards compatibility issues. If it's a new brand with a new name, maybe there won't be expectations that it will work like previous versions of IE.
- Walkman 12y agoIt will still exist in some versions of Windows 10, but Project Spartan will be the main way Windows 10 users roam the Internet. No, it will be Chrome or Firefox :D
- robbrown451 12y agoThey'll probably just call it "The Internet."
- brockers 12y ago...and the congregation said AMEN!
- azinman2 12y ago“We’ll continue to have Internet Explorer, but we’ll also have a new browser called Project Spartan, which is codenamed Project Spartan. We have to name the thing.” Ummm that's confusing. If you're going to kill it, kill it dead.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoWell, they can't, because enterprise/legacy sites. They need to keep it kicking around. But the non-awful modern browser, that won't be called IE.
- O____________O 12y agoIs there some proof of this outside of this USA Today article? I came here with the exact same concern as the GP comment. “We’ll continue to have Internet Explorer, but we’ll also have a new browser called Project Spartan..." It just reeks of marketing double-speak that gets engineers excited, only to find out that they're stuck maintaining code for N + 1 browsers now. Incidentally, Microsoft rebranding exercises infuriate me. Arguably, Spartan is a "new" product, but by that measure any product rewrite should get a completely new, unrelated name rather than a version number. I remember COM + DispInterfaces ==> ActiveX, Outlook Express ==> MSN Messenger, MSN ==> Bing. It's just irritating and confusing to both developers and consumers.
- gsnedders 12y agoAIUI, the version of Trident (i.e., mshtml.dll) shipping in Win10 is that of IE11. There shouldn't be any behavioural changes, and Trident should only be used in IE12 for intranet websites by default.
- Theodores 12y agoThey should just tie it into Bing! and call it the Bing! Browser! Rather than it be offered by the operating-system division, they should have the product engineered and marketed by the search engine division. The integration to Bing! should be uncompromising and a genuine step change in usability. This does not have to appeal to the 'power users', however, if it has a few usability tricks that make it more useful for most people in most circumstances then they could do fine with it. With an integrated approach of browser plus services such as search this browser could be great. As a mere browser it has no USP so I will stick with Chrome (on a Chromebook).
- Ezhik 12y agoI hope they name Spartan after their magical browser girl mascot, Inori. She's cute.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoSee: https://www.facebook.com/internetexplorertan https://www.facebook.com/internetexplorertan
- grandalf 12y agoAbsurdly, users have to install Windows 10 to use this new browser. Why not write it in .net and have it work on all versions of Windows typically found in the wild?
- joshuapants 12y agoTheir goal is to have as many people running the current OS as possible. Every exception like that they make is an exception that keeps people using the old versions and keeps them scrambling to maintain them.
- throwawaymsft 12y agoSome people are going to stick on the old OS no matter what. Their computer still works, why buy another? We can stamp our feet or work with that reality. We have 70% of China on Windows XP with no hope of a modern browser from MS (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2484761/microsoft-windows/china-has-a-massive-windows-xp-problem.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2484761/microsoft-windo...). At least Chrome will work on those old systems. At least web devs can use modern features on those systems. If the browser is the primary carrot to get someone to upgrade your OS, the OS value prop sucks.
- grandalf 12y agoExactly. At least it may not be worth $200. Apple's $25 or free updates are much more reasonable and get people to actually stay current. The older hardware slows down gradually and people warm up to the idea of faster/newer hardware gradually, rather than thinking that the new OS broke their working computer. Please, Microsoft, switch to an evergreen OS model like Apple has.
- zemoo 12y agoWindows has moved to an evergreen OS model: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/01/21/the-next-generation-of-windows-windows-10/ http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/01/21/the-next...
- badloginagain 12y agoI'm willing to give Spartan a chance, honestly. The ModernIE initiative taken by Microsoft the past few years feels like Microsoft gave IE to a team of competent engineers and told to run with it. They dropped support for older versions of IE and upgraded the technology behind it. Firefox is too slow. As a power user I notice millisecond differences in page render times. I may be an outlier but I think most people who spend a lot of time on browsers will notice even small differences in load times. I've long switched from Chrome as my main browser, disliking the direction Google has been going with several of their products. I might be an outlier, but I'll give Spartan a chance to impress. [As a side note, it's amazing how crippling to your reputation bad technology decisions are. IE 6-9 gutted respect for Microsoft]
- morninj 12y agoWhat browser do you use now? I agree with your points, but I've stuck with Chrome because of the range of extensions.
- badloginagain 12y agoI don't use much extensions, so that's never been too big of a deal for me. I'm using Opera although currently trying Vivaldi[0] Vivaldi has a cool story, former Opera guys that want to make a browser for the power user, not your mom- which is basically the only browser that actually targets me as it's intended audience. The downsides are it's only in technical preview mode and they pretty openly admit to tracking your usage [at least their openly admitting it, everyone else does the same expect maybe Old Man Firefox] [0]https://vivaldi.com https://vivaldi.com
- Al-Khwarizmi 12y agoTry Otter Browser too, it also follows the philosophy of the old Opera but it's free software and cares about your privacy. It's also in an incomplete alpha stage though (it has quite a bunch of features but still doesn't have some convenient stuff, remarkably autocompletion in the address field). http://www.otter-browser.org http://www.otter-browser.org
- PopsiclePete 12y agoWith this new CEO, Microsoft is a different company. Cloud & Mobile all the way. .NET/CLR is open-source. First class support for Linux and OS X. Commitment to standards. At the risk of sounding like a complete lunatic, here's my prediction for the next 10 years: * Microsoft abandon traditional Windows development. * They take a FreeBSD/Linux distro and add a "Windows" layer on top, ala Apple. Unix and Unix-like OS's become the only game in town. "Traditional" apps are emulated. New Apps are written in a CLR-compatible language only for the modern runtime. * IIS, IE, Sivelight - all are left to stagnate. * Office becomes HTTP/JS, hosted only.
- TheCondor 12y agoMs would stop being ms in that scenario, I can't see it happening. I could see them drop the "windows" brand though. This new browser, is it married to Windows? Ibm went through this, they were maybe the most dominant corporation the world has ever seen, then the government scared them and the micro revolution happened. IBM switched from trying to own every deal (well they still wanted that) to being satisfied to get a slice of the action, it became all about open. Ms seems to be switching from "windows everywhere" to "helping you be the best you" or some other theme. I'll be impressed when they support a browser and office on linux.
- snorkel 12y agoAs long as Microsoft has big customers all-in on Windows, and there are many, so too will Microsoft remain Windows. You can compete with free for as long as free is not what the big players want in their IT operation.
- ninkendo 12y agoI've thought about this a lot too and I mostly agree, but I think they'd keep the Windows branding and NT kernel and just start making the POSIX/Unix layer installed by default and supported as first-class. I'd love a Windows machine to work the same way I use my OSX machine: using Terminal.app and HomeBrew to develop and use unixey apps, but with a nice GUI and hardware support that's better than the Linux distros out there. I can confidently develop say, rails applications, test them locally, and just push them to production on Linux servers and I've never once thought "hey, I wonder if this will break due to differences in OSX to Linux." It just never has made a difference. I want windows to be like this too. I can get there with Windows now with Cygwin or SFU, but I want it all to ship with Windows, and binaries I create are unlikely to work anywhere except other people who have installed the whole stack. Plus there's no good terminal emulator for windows I'm aware of.
- X-combinator 12y agoHere's the main source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217296
- mhomde 12y agoYou know the world is going crazy when Google is evil, Apple is doing tacky devices and Microsoft makes the best browser
- ChikkaChiChi 12y agoSpartan is still Trident, right? So then it's still Microsoft using Microsoft stuff, but eliminating a ton of cruft that builds up over the years due to backwards compatibility. Historically, Apple (at least under Jobs) were the ones to declare an old standard dead while dragging us kicking and screaming into the future. Microsoft always proudly stood by and told you that your crappy program from 1992 would still be able to run on each version of Windos that came out, no matter how big and bloated the beast became. Maybe this is a harbinger of things to come? Could the next version of Windows (Not 10, obviously) finally declare the end of backwards compatibility and force obsolete software into a virtualization ghetto?
- Sammi 12y agoYes, Spartan is a fork where they cut out old cruft.
- ams6110 12y agoDoes it really matter? Do they need a browser at all? Browsers are all pretty much interoperable now. What strategic advantage is there in developing and maintaining their own browser? Nobody pays for browsers. They might pay for content or apps delivered in the browsers. That's what Microsoft should worry about. They've lost their browser monopoly, move on.
- CHY872 12y agoYou maintain your own browser so that you can influence the development of the web. For example, Apple used Safari's influence to push touch events, Microsoft tried to use its influence to standardise pointer events, Google's been pushing NaCL, Dart etc. In order to consistently have weight with changing CSS, HTML rendering etc you basically need your own browser - and most of the changes we've seen in the last few years have come out of Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple.
- brc 12y agoThere is also the issue of your army of tech staff doing demos and presentations using your competitors tools, or shipping your operating system with somebody elses browser installed. Microsoft need a browser and always will.
- blumkvist 12y agohttps://s3.amazonaws.com/images.seroundtable.com/matt-cutts-google-seo-future-1368536726.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.seroundtable.com/matt-cutts-...
- sliverstorm 12y agoWith the browser so ubiquitous, it has become a huge part of your platform experience. Consider IE's big power consumption advantage. If people spend all their time in the browser, offering a browser that makes Windows work as well as possible, is good for Windows.
- Mahn 12y ago> What strategic advantage is there in developing and maintaining their own browser? You hold the keys to the default search engine for that particular browser, to name an example. Even with the Mozilla-Yahoo deal it's still in MS interest to own a browser so they can push Bing and their other cloud services there.
- stealthlogic 12y agoThis announcement comes 20 years too late.
- mortdeus 12y agoMan, their new CEO is a breath of fresh air. Im actually starting to respect the MS brand again.
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoWill Spartan be only for Microsoft OS?
- Gustomaximus 12y agoMy take on this while not a horrible decision, it is a weak one for MS. My rationale; 1. 70% of the world doesn't care about their browser and will use what’s is put in front of them. There was that classic video where people didn't even know the difference between the internet and a browser a few years back. For this 70% unless someone swaps then to another browser, which thankfully people love doing, they'll use IEX for the rest of their life. These people have been trained to click the blue 'e'. Why take that away from the masses and open the door for them to look for alternatives? 2. For the remaining people that do care about a browser, we're going to know if it’s a great browser or not. We understand IE6 is not IE11. In the same was FF was awesome a few years back, we know it’s fallen back, and would recognise it improving if it (hopefully) does. 3. Microsoft announcing they will create a new & awesome browser, and actually doing so, are not connected. It wouldn't surprise me if MS invest all this marketing money on spinning a product that is just as frustrating as IE, just for a new set of reasons. And now we have brand confusion + an annoying browser with a bad name. People prefer familiar bad, than unfamiliar bad. 4. Microsoft is a bloody big and wealthy company. They can afford developing 2 browsers for a while. Why not launch and release this Spartan browser 'for power users'. They can use it as an experimental ground to push boundaries whilst not risking the stability and working of their core product. As this team proves their metal, they can push components of Spartan into IE, or not if the browser fails to deliver. Spartan can be used to buy new street cred for MS. Mum uses IE but young me uses Spartan. And if spartan succeeds by default it will bring credibility to IE, risking much less if it fails to gain favour. As a marketing guy rather than building the conversation; Spartan vs Chrome I’d much prefer to have IE vs Spartan vs Chrome. And if you bothered to read this far, you probably like browsers. So you might enjoy a video a buddy and I made while on holiday for some really serious (/s) browser speed testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaT7thTxyq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaT7thTxyq8
- blumkvist 12y ago4) Because spartan is as much (if not more) about removing features from IE than adding them. Also, IE will ship with win10 for legacy support. 3) and 4) Based on my experience with win10, MS are executing extremely well these days. I can't wait for Spartan and the new office.
- alkonaut 12y ago> we’ll also have a new browser called Project Spartan, which is codenamed Project Spartan Recursively codenamed it, sneaky.
- Stoo 12y agoI always thought the Internet Explorer branding was the one thing they got right. If you're not a technical person and you've got a new computer and you're trying to get onto the internet for the first time do you use: Firefox Chrome Opera Internet Explorer The last one says exactly what you want to do.
- NicoJuicy 12y agoI'd think something in the line of "Microsoft Web" or "Windows Web" would be better. The name "Internet Explorer" was right, but the feeling that web developers have with it, ain't. So that's why they have to change it.. If they use Microsoft Web for a cross platform application, the naming would identify Microsoft and "Web". With Windows Web it's solely targetting the Windows platform (and not crossplatform as their goals are changing)
- puranjay 12y agoThe problem is that 'not a technical person' is a dying breed. Take a long-term view of things - anyone born after 1985 will be the dominant demographic in 20 years. These people are more technically literate than the current dominant demo. So yeah. My mom doesn't know IE from Chrome, but my 12 year old nephew does, as do all his friends. In 20 years, my mom will be 85, my nephew and his generation will be the dominant demo