3 ms·

Isn't reclaiming the 20-30% market share they lost to Safari/Firefox/Chrome reason enough?

mcav 17y ago
They're trying to support more standards -- by definition, they're just reinventing the work others have already done. So it's grunt work, only useful for their future influence and power. They could ship IE9 with WebKit in addition to custom rendering modes for IE<=8, and consumers wouldn't even need to know. It'd save MS a lot of work, that's for sure.
- etherealG 17y ago
  I say let them worry about the cost/benefit ratio. If they can afford it, another engine with completely separate codebase is a good thing for the market. Just think how hard it would push webkit/mozilla/chrome if they did manage to beat them on speed. It would push them to get even better. Compeition is always good as long as 2 or more projects stay alive.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    ...another engine with completely separate codebase is a good thing for the market. You've just made an enemy out of every web-dev on HN :)
jmtulloss 17y ago
Probably not. I suspect that as long as IE is the default browser on Windows, their revenue doesn't change that much year over year. People who don't change their default homepage don't change their browser either. What is a compelling reason is revenue loss in their cash-cow franchises like Office. If they come to believe that they need a version of Office that works in the browser or they will lose revenue, then developing a fast version of IE is very important. If they believe that people won't use a computer that doesn't provide them with great experiences on the sites they love right out of the box, then developing a standards compliant version of IE is important.
- cakesy 17y ago
  Yeah, but if they destroy all other browsers again, then they don't have to do any work on improving browsers. Making browsers actually goes against their business process, they want everyone on the desktop, not the web. They have been dragged into the web, and hated every step of it.

mcav 17y ago

They're trying to support more standards -- by definition, they're just reinventing the work others have already done. So it's grunt work, only useful for their future influence and power. They could ship IE9 with WebKit in addition to custom rendering modes for IE<=8, and consumers wouldn't even need to know. It'd save MS a lot of work, that's for sure.

etherealG 17y ago
I say let them worry about the cost/benefit ratio. If they can afford it, another engine with completely separate codebase is a good thing for the market. Just think how hard it would push webkit/mozilla/chrome if they did manage to beat them on speed. It would push them to get even better. Compeition is always good as long as 2 or more projects stay alive.
- dschobel 17y ago
  ...another engine with completely separate codebase is a good thing for the market. You've just made an enemy out of every web-dev on HN :)

jmtulloss 17y ago

Probably not. I suspect that as long as IE is the default browser on Windows, their revenue doesn't change that much year over year. People who don't change their default homepage don't change their browser either. What is a compelling reason is revenue loss in their cash-cow franchises like Office. If they come to believe that they need a version of Office that works in the browser or they will lose revenue, then developing a fast version of IE is very important. If they believe that people won't use a computer that doesn't provide them with great experiences on the sites they love right out of the box, then developing a standards compliant version of IE is important.

cakesy 17y ago
Yeah, but if they destroy all other browsers again, then they don't have to do any work on improving browsers. Making browsers actually goes against their business process, they want everyone on the desktop, not the web. They have been dragged into the web, and hated every step of it.