Google sneaks WebKit HTML 5 support into Internet Explorer

[AppleInsider]

Rather than waiting for Microsoft to implement HTML 5, Google has released a plugin for Internet Explorer 8 that injects its own WebKit rendering engine, resulting in a ten fold performance boost for JavaScript.

A report by Gregg Keizer in Computerworld said that installing Google's plugin resulted in an average speed improvement that was 9.6 times faster than IE 8 alone, based on SunSpider JavaScript benchmarks.

Google recommends the new IE plugin, called Chrome Frame, to any users who aren't able to install an alternative browser. With the plugin installed, IE's own Trident rendering engine continues to render web pages until it either encounters HTML 5 or is manually prompted by the user to render like the native Chrome browser.

In addition to being much faster at executing JavaScript, Chrome Frame's WebKit rendering engine also provides IE with support for new HTML 5 features, which are required to run an emerging crop of advanced web applications. WebKit also powers Apple's Safari browser and the mobile version of Safari used on the iPhone and iPod touch.

One example of an advanced HTML 5 web app is Google Wave, a collaboration toolkit for building dynamic browser apps that enable rich communication features between users. Google Wave invites IE users to download the Chrome Frame plugin, or alternatively download a browser than can render HTML 5 natively, including the full version of Chrome, Safari 4, or Firefox 4.



Google has worked closely with Apple, Mozilla, and Opera to flesh out HTML 5 as a detailed specification that any browser developer can use to build support for rich Internet apps based on web standards that don't require additional middleware such as Adobe Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight.

Google recently commended Microsoft for initiating constructive participation in the HTML standard, but clearly wants to widen adoption of HTML 5 as rapidly as possible. By offering a plugin for IE, Google can deliver its own HTML 5 support within the browser right now.

In a Google blog posting, Wave developers explained, "Google Wave depends on strong JS and DOM rendering performance to provide a desktop-like experience in the browser. HTML5's offline storage and web workers will enable us to add great features without having to compromise on performance. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer, still used by the majority of the Web's users, has not kept up with such fairly recent developments in Web technology. Compared with other browsers, the JavaScript performance is many times slower and HTML5 support is still far behind. Likewise, the many different versions of IE still in use -- each with its own set of CSS quirks and layout limitations -- further complicates building rich Web applications.

"In the past, the Google Wave team has spent countless hours solely on improving the experience of running Google Wave in Internet Explorer. We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind."

IE 8 families at risk

Microsoft responded to the release of Chrome Frame by claiming that Google's new plugin makes IE 8 less secure. In a comment made to Ars Technica, Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

Despite a variety of Microsoft-sponsored research that has recently declared IE 8 the most secure browser (exclusively in terms flagging suspect URLs a user decides to visit), most IE users are still using IE 6, followed by IE 7, both of which are know to expose users to more serious security issues that any modern competitors. That means most IE users will enhance their relative security by either installing the Chrome Frame plugin or downloading Chrome 3, Safari 4, or Firefox 4 to use instead.

Users of IE 8 will have to weigh the value of Microsoft's security mechanisms designed to protect them from (mostly) overt phishing attacks or (the rare) vulnerability exploits in the wild against the benefits of HTML 5 and Google's 10 times faster JavaScript performance.

Additionally, since HTML 5 is designed to replace Flash and Silverlight, any studies recommending a web browser solely on the basis of security will need to factor in all of the security vulnerabilities in Flash and Silverlight against using a browser that does not need them to render rich web applications. The reports Microsoft cites in favor of IE 8 do not.

[Foo2]

You can thank Microsoft innovation, including its focus on user security, for making this possible.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

IE 8 families at risk

Microsoft responded to the release of Chrome Frame by claiming that Google's new plugin makes IE 8 less secure. In a comment made to Ars Technica, Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

Despite a variety of Microsoft-sponsored research that has recently declared IE 8 the most secure browser (exclusively in terms flagging suspect URLs a user decides to visit), most IE users are still using IE 6, followed by IE 7, both of which are know to expose users to more serious security issues that any modern competitors. That means most IE users will enhance their relative security by either installing the Chrome Frame plugin or downloading Chrome 3, Safari 4, or Firefox 4 to use instead.

Users of IE 8 will have to weigh the value of Microsoft's security mechanisms designed to protect them from (mostly) overt phishing attacks or (the rare) vulnerability exploits in the wild against the benefits of HTML 5 and Google's 10 times faster JavaScript performance.

Additionally, since HTML 5 is designed to replace Flash and Silverlight, any studies recommending a web browser solely on the basis of security will need to factor in all of the security vulnerabilities in Flash and Silverlight against using a browser that does not need them to render rich web applications. The reports Microsoft cites in favor of IE 8 do not.

There is a lot of hogwash for real users to sift through in this confusion. The claim that IE 8 is the most secure browser is a lot like claiming that Windows is more secure than Macintosh based on some kind of analysis of exploits found--it doesn't translate at all into the real world. Fact of the matter is that nearly all of those browser exploits target Internet Explorer, and they're far from rare if you do browsing into questionable or unfamiliar websites (which happens frequently enough while researching). Your friends and family, on Windows, are far safer (I can't emphasize this enough) choosing Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera--something other than Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is also tied directly into the operating system and includes such delightful exploit vectors as ActiveX. Exploits will continue to target Internet Explorer vulnerabilities, rather than some kind of Google framework plugin.

Sadly, I wouldn't trust Microsoft as a valuable source on the security of their own OS. It can be relatively secure, with some knowledge, responsible use, and a choice to use safer tools, but depending on Windows Defender and Internet Explorer out of the box is a fantastic way to generate headaches (and support visits for your family if you allow them to do so without helping them to secure their computers).

[Sgt Zeppelin]

Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

Funny...I'd say the same thing about using IE...But Microsoft could solve this problem completely by building a decent browser. Honestly I'd like them to switch to using Webkit as their rendering engine, but for some reason I don't feel that's very likely to happen.

[NasserAE]

Am I the only one who thinks that Google did MS a favor by doing that?!

[camroidv27]

Wave is coming! I can't wait for that bit. Just as long as your text doesn't short while I'm in a board meeting.

Anyhow, I think its kinda cool that Google is doing this, although it does help their own company more by allowing IE to use their APIs and show things quicker and smoother.

Also, I don't see how this is Apple news...

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Am I the only one who thinks that Google did MS a favor by doing that?!

Yes...AND its funny.

[hezekiahb]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Am I the only one who thinks that Google did MS a favor by doing that?!

Actually, they are putting the hurt on both Adobe & Microsoft. With support for HTML 5 being now available through a plugin for IE & native in all other browsers, why would anyone continue to dabble in Silverlight or Flash? That's the whole reason Microsoft attacks it as making IE "less secure", they don't want their new baby SilverLight to get kicked to the curb!

Google did the web development community a HUGE favor, now the web can progress instead of always being held back by Microsoft!

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...alternatively download a browser than can render HTML 5 natively, including the full version of Chrome, Safari 4, or Firefox 4.

The picture says FF 3.5?

[technohermit]

Steve said Flash is dead. He's hellbent on being right, and here's another step towards his side of the line. IE's inherent weakness (which used to be a strength) is being tied to the OS. The web's weakness was developers didn't follow W3C standards, they followed IE. More good news for web consumers here, we can all finally be on the same page (and see the same thing )

[MacTripper]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Rather than waiting for Microsoft to implement HTML 5, Google has released a plugin for Internet Explorer 8 that injects its own WebKit rendering engine, resulting in a ten fold performance boost for JavaScript.

Hahahaha!

I heard some more chairs were being thrown around in Redmond as Ballmer takes another Google sh*t fit!

Microsoft responded to the release of Chrome Frame by claiming that Google's new plugin makes IE 8 less secure. In a comment made to Ars Technica, Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

If Microsoft had any friends and family they really cared about, they would recommend OS X or Linux.




PSST! Intel demonstration running OS X on a HACKINTOSH!!

Does this mean Apple may be releasing OS X separate from hardware soon?


http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/

[Mystigo]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

If Microsoft had any friends and family they really cared about, they would recommend OS X or Linux.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

[Marvin]

I'm sure the reaction from most people outside of Microsoft would be positive and this is why I think the W3C should enforce an implementation not a specification. Make Microsoft use Webkit or block their browser from being able to access web content. It's the only way they will stop holding everyone back from a better web experience. I doubt FF or Opera devs would be averse to the move.

The browser choice for most people comes down to features not the render engine - it's expected that the browser should render pages correctly.

[PaulMJohnson]

I can't help but feel that a large part of the decision to do this was based on a desire to piss Microsoft off!

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Microsoft responded to the release of Chrome Frame by claiming that Google's new plugin makes IE 8 less secure. In a comment made to Ars Technica, Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

Installing any plugin is potentially dangerous, thus installing Flash or Silverlight is equally dangerous.
MS has a point that MS might be responsible for keeping MS software on your computer up-to-date but is much less responsible for plugins being up-to-date. But this naturally equally applies to Flash. And MS has not yet discouraged people from installing the Flash plugin.

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

PSST! Intel demonstration running OS X on a HACKINTOSH!!

Does this mean Apple may be releasing OS X separate from hardware soon?


http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/

Not at all, but Light Peak should have a lot of potential.

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by Marvin

I'm sure the reaction from most people outside of Microsoft would be positive and this is why I think the W3C should enforce an implementation not a specification. Make Microsoft use Webkit or block their browser from being able to access web content. It's the only way they will stop holding everyone back from a better web experience. I doubt FF or Opera devs would be averse to the move.

The browser choice for most people comes down to features not the render engine - it's expected that the browser should render pages correctly.

And how is the W3C going to force Microsoft to do anything, and how would they block any browser from accessing web content? W3C only suggests standards.

Even if this were possible, you advocate blocking more than 50% of web users from the web?

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson

I can't help but feel that a large part of the decision to do this was based on a desire to piss Microsoft off!

According to the developers, it was the constant "fixing" of their new products to run on MSIE (in other words Microsoft pissing *them* off), that was at the root of it. It turned out to just be simpler to replace their rendering engine than try to work around it.

I can't think that half of the tech world isn't laughing up their sleeves at Microsoft today after hearing this news though, Google developers included.

Microsoft's products, especially MSIE have always been a joke to most serious tech folks, but lately they are looking like idiots even to the average person in the street. It will be hard, even for the Microsoft apologists to argue that we wouldn't all be better off if Microsoft just gave in on the whole "we run the web" issue.

[jpellino]

And I love it. Can Goog fix their server software for them too?

[Ramblings of Insanity]

That came out already? Groovy because I thought it was like a year away...

[eyeless]

Anyone knows how to make a pop-up like this on your own website (just changing the Wave name to your own website) ?? - Would be great! Anyone seen the relevant code somewhere?

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

PSST! Intel demonstration running OS X on a HACKINTOSH!! Does this mean Apple may be releasing OS X separate from hardware soon? http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/

Well I wonder if that clone maker thats been in court with Apple would find this interesting and/or useful?

If they can demonstrate that a major corporation (and partner of Apple) is installing OS X on non-apple hardware and openly using the hackintosh for it's own product demonstrations it might give their case some support.

Perhaps not... but it was the 1st thing that came to mind.

Dave

[solipsism]

I love the “or continue at your own peril” as an option for sticking with IE’s browser engine. Gotta love Google!

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by cdyates

And how is the W3C going to force Microsoft to do anything, and how would they block any browser from accessing web content? W3C only suggests standards.

If they suggest a standard codebase and Microsoft don't use it then they are violating the standards and shouldn't have to be supported. They can be blocked voluntarily by web developers by suggesting the rendering engine is not compliant with web standards and the performance is so slow that it makes the experience worse. Right now, Microsoft get away with it because they can claim to adhere to some of the spec.

Originally Posted by cdyates

Even if this were possible, you advocate blocking more than 50% of web users from the web?

No, forcing them to upgrade to a better browser. They are free to access the web. It had to happen with Flash at one point so that everyone could get a common video decoder.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

According to the developers, it was the constant "fixing" of their new products to run on MSIE (in other words Microsoft pissing *them* off), that was at the root of it. It turned out to just be simpler to replace their rendering engine than try to work around it.

I don't know why Microsoft decided to make things so difficult. They even have rendering glitches on pages so for example border and background images can just disappear at random and then appear when you click them. You can even crash IE by missing out some end tags.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

If they can demonstrate that a major corporation (and partner of Apple) is installing OS X on non-apple hardware and openly using the hackintosh for it's own product demonstrations it might give their case some support.

They aren't profiting from it though and as one commenter points out, aren't an end user so can't violate an end user license. Plus, it's pre-release hardware and Intel will probably want to test the OS with it. I doubt Apple will complain as they get some free press.

Major companies are trusted with having higher privileges - some major film studios for example will get access to source code of major software packages if they need to change things or to pre-release hardware for testing.

[Erunno]

I still don't understand all the fuzz about HTML5 and Microsoft. The standard has not been finalized yet and won't be for another year or two. I really can't blame Microsoft for not implementing half-finished drafts. On the other hand Internet Explorer 8 has allegedly the most complete and correct support for CSS 2.1 so one can't say that they are not trying at least to keep up.

EDIT:

WebKit also gets too often a free pass in my opinion as its standard support is still medicore at best. The WebKit supporters try too often to narrow the discussion on the standards that WebKit implements and rarely mentions all the standards which have not been implemented (yet). [1]

[1] http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16210

[star-fish]

Originally Posted by Marvin

If they suggest a standard codebase and Microsoft don't use it then they are violating the standards and shouldn't have to be supported. They can be blocked voluntarily by web developers by suggesting the rendering engine is not compliant with web standards and the performance is so slow that it makes the experience worse.

That will never in a million years happen whilst ~70% of the Internet uses IE based browsers and Internet Explorer is pre-installed on every PC. The vast majority of users don't understand it to that level and want things to just work how they worked before.

Originally Posted by Marvin

I don't know why Microsoft decided to make things so difficult. They even have rendering glitches on pages so for example border and background images can just disappear at random and then appear when you click them. You can even crash IE by missing out some end tags.

No browser is perfect. If your coding is so basically flawed then why should a browser support it anyway? And IMO, IE is a lot more forgiving than other browsers for most things.

[Brainless]

Originally Posted by cdyates

And how is the W3C going to force Microsoft to do anything, and how would they block any browser from accessing web content? W3C only suggests standards.

Even if this were possible, you advocate blocking more than 50% of web users from the web?

It is rather standard in every other industry. If you don't follow the norms and regulations, you are not allowed to enter the market. Try to sell a car that doesn't comply to the emission regulations. Its everywhere and for a good reason. IT needs to become less jungle and obeying to the standardization bodies is a step in the right direction.

[Brainless]

Originally Posted by star-fish

That will never in a million years happen whilst ~70% of the Internet uses IE based browsers and Internet Explorer is pre-installed on every PC. The vast majority of users don't understand it to that level and want things to just work how they worked before.

Showing a note to those IE users that they might consider switching to other browser to get a better browsing experience (together with links to download) might be a good start. I hate wasting my time supporting nonstandard rubbish in IE in my web applications.

[str1f3]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Am I the only one who thinks that Google did MS a favor by doing that?!

I disagree though I understand where you're coming from on this. The reason why we wanted to kill off IE is because Microsoft uses it as a way to implement its own web standards. Google is trying to break that with this plugin in order to promote HTML5 and kill off Flash, Silverlight and Active X. I don't mind those who want to keep IE despite the security risks. Let them live in ignorance.

The only question I have is how hard is Google trying to push this plugin so it can be widely adopted. Hopefully any IE user will be required to download this plugin if they have a Google or YouTube account.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by hezekiahb

Actually, they are putting the hurt on both Adobe & Microsoft. With support for HTML 5 being now available ... why would anyone continue to dabble in Silverlight or Flash?

Originally Posted by Marvin

I'm sure the reaction from most people outside of Microsoft would be positive and this is why I think the W3C should enforce an implementation not a specification. Make Microsoft use Webkit... I doubt FF or Opera devs would be averse to the move.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I love the “or continue at your own peril” as an option for sticking with IE’s browser engine. Gotta love Google!

Yeah, sort of like the scamware that tells you your computer is infected with viruses but click here and we'll take care of it. If this is just the demo version of the plugin prompt, that's fine, very cute, but entirely inappropriate in released software.

I definitely have mixed feelings on this story. IE is a nightmare to develop for, Flash and Silverlight need to go away -- and this definitely has high potential to make that happen -- and it's always fun to see MS get cut off at the knees. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled to see the Google juggernaut gain momentum.

I'm not sure about the Opera developers, but I think the FF community would flip out over the idea of switching to WebKit. They've spent a lot of time and effort developing their own rendering engine and I'm sure there's a major emotional/ego commitment there.

[sippincider]

Rather than waiting for Microsoft to implement HTML 5, Google has released a plugin for Internet Explorer 8 that injects its own WebKit rendering engine, resulting in a ten fold performance boost for JavaScript.

PRICELESS!

Not good when third-parties can do a better job with your own product.

Microsoft responded to the release of Chrome Frame by claiming that Google's new plugin makes IE 8 less secure. In a comment made to Ars Technica, Microsoft said that installing the plugin "is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."

As the queen of the whorehouse lectures us on values....

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by Brainless

It is rather standard in every other industry. If you don't follow the norms and regulations, you are not allowed to enter the market. Try to sell a car that doesn't comply to the emission regulations. Its everywhere and for a good reason. IT needs to become less jungle and obeying to the standardization bodies is a step in the right direction.

Your car analogy is specious. There is a regulatory infrastructure in place to deal with cars and pollution. Each country has its own. The same can't be said about the internet, and the w3c is not a government agency that has to be obeyed.

Not everyone agrees on what the standards are or should be, and the w3c has no authority to enforce them - they only suggest them. Browser vendors are free to disagree with the w3c at their leisure.

It's up to developers to develop for the audience, not to ask the audience to become educated on this issue and pick the right browser to make developers' lives easier.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by cdyates

Not everyone agrees on what the standards are or should be, and the w3c has no authority to enforce them - they only suggest them. Browser vendors are free to disagree with the w3c at their leisure.

It's up to developers to develop for the audience, not to ask the audience to become educated on this issue and pick the right browser to make developers' lives easier.

On the other hand, choosing some implementation, such as WebKit, as a reference implementation, might have a positive impact on browser standardization.

Microsoft suckered a lot of developers into using unique features of IE at a time when browser development and standards were relatively immature. Features and limitations that they are now stuck with because there is not a compelling enough reason to abandon their IE specific code.

WebKit offers a mature base that offers developers a sound development platform and, along with IE's diminishing market share, decreases the likelihood that any but the most Microsoft centric development shops would sacrifice cross browser compatibility for proprietary extensions likely to be of little value, especially if that browser can't claim standards compliance.

On the third hand, being a reference implementation could end up being a liability for WebKit by requiring that WebKit developers stick strictly to the spec -- i.e., limiting their ability to innovate on the platform toward, say, HTML6 -- or at least slow development by making it subject to approval by the standards body.

On the fourth hand, one could argue that WebKit is already quickly becoming a de facto standard and that other implementors will need to be compatible with it to be perceived as, "correctly rendering the Web."

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Erunno

I still don't understand all the fuzz about HTML5 and Microsoft. The standard has not been finalized yet and won't be for another year or two. I really can't blame Microsoft for not implementing half-finished drafts. On the other hand Internet Explorer 8 has allegedly the most complete and correct support for CSS 2.1 so one can't say that they are not trying at least to keep up.

EDIT:

WebKit also gets too often a free pass in my opinion as its standard support is still medicore at best. The WebKit supporters try too often to narrow the discussion on the standards that WebKit implements and rarely mentions all the standards which have not been implemented (yet). [1]

[1] http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16210

If we waited for standards to be completed and ratified before putting them into production then we’d only have 802.11n routers for a couple weeks now, yet MS has been including 802.11n drivers in Windows for some time now. That just isn’t how the technology tends to work. With HTML5, it’s a very complex system. When one part is completed there is no reason that a browser engine developer shouldn’t try to implement it, especially when that addition can assist in the speed and usefulness of the browser. If it’s a popular enough it will get picked up by other developers and site developers. No need to wait 5 years before we put these efficient and useful additions into the browsers. Some of these HTML5 inclusions may need to change, but for the most part each part will be finished enough that they can included as needed.

We’re finally seeing the momentum pick up in browser development after such a long stagnation. This is a very good thing.

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

On the other hand, choosing some implementation, such as WebKit, as a reference implementation, might have a positive impact on browser standardization.

Who gets to pick which one? You think anyone would agree on which one?

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Microsoft suckered a lot of developers into using unique features of IE at a time when browser development and standards were relatively immature. Features and limitations that they are now stuck with because there is not a compelling enough reason to abandon their IE specific code.

Suckered? I don't think it was malicious. At the time their competition was Netscape 4, then Netscape 6 - IE 6 was a better browser than either.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

WebKit offers a mature base that offers developers a sound development platform and, along with IE's diminishing market share, decreases the likelihood that any but the most Microsoft centric development shops would sacrifice cross browser compatibility for proprietary extensions likely to be of little value, especially if that browser can't claim standards compliance.

On the third hand, being a reference implementation could end up being a liability for WebKit by requiring that WebKit developers stick strictly to the spec -- i.e., limiting their ability to innovate on the platform toward, say, HTML6 -- or at least slow development by making it subject to approval by the standards body.

IE market share is still well more than half, depending on whos numbers you use. Its more than Microsoft centric development shops - its every major corporation on the planet practically, and most home users.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

On the fourth hand, one could argue that WebKit is already quickly becoming a de facto standard and that other implementors will need to be compatible with it to be perceived as, "correctly rendering the Web."

Not even close. Safari and Chrome combined are a small fraction of web users. Firefox's market share is much greater. Most web developers consider Firefox the defacto standard, because its the browser they use because its so developer friendly.

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by solipsism

We’re finally seeing the momentum pick up in browser development after such a long stagnation. This is a very good thing.

Abso-friggin-lutely.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by cdyates

Suckered? I don't think it was malicious. At the time their competition was Netscape 4, then Netscape 6 - IE 6 was a better browser than either.

Perhaps suckered is not the correct word, but malicious certainly fits since they used anti-competitve maneuvering to destroy Netscape thus stagnating web browser innovation for a a very long time in tech terms.

IE market share is still well more than half, depending on whos numbers you use. Its more than Microsoft centric development shops - its every major corporation on the planet practically, and most home users.

It’s getting close to being less than 50%. Along with the other fronts that is chipping away at IE’s marketshare, the mobile front is taking bigger and bigger chunks out. With smartphone interest growing where developers have to support a more efficient code base and WebKit being the browser choice on Blackberry, Android and iPhone OSes it will likely be less than a year before IE drops below 50%. Trident will still be the single most dominate browser engine for a few years until smartphones and other portables catchup (likely with WebKit if Mozilla’s Fennec doesn’t get going soon) but the browsers that are using modern HTML, DOM, CSS and fast JS engines will have taken over 50% of the market. That is a major and important shift. IE can still be dominate in and of itself and be the odd man out if the collective opposition are working together… and so far that appears to be the case.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by cdyates

Who gets to pick which one? You think anyone would agree on which one?

Suckered? I don't think it was malicious. At the time their competition was Netscape 4, then Netscape 6 - IE 6 was a better browser than either.

IE market share is still well more than half, depending on whos numbers you use. Its more than Microsoft centric development shops - its every major corporation on the planet practically, and most home users.

Not even close. Safari and Chrome combined are a small fraction of web users. Firefox's market share is much greater.

Picking one: Obviously the W3C controls the HTML spec, so, if a reference implementation were to be picked, they would do the picking.

Suckered: They were absolutely suckered by Microsoft.

IE Market Share: it's rapidly declining and almost non existent on mobile.

See the comment above re mobile. And if Google's plugin gains traction, which it very likely will, WebKit's market share will quickly rival or overtake FF.

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Picking one: Obviously the W3C controls the HTML spec, so, if a reference implementation were to be picked, they would do the picking.

Says who? They don't have a mandate or the authority to decide this, and absolutely no ability to enforce it. Neither does anyone else. Compliance with w3c standards is completely voluntary. More likely, if there were to be enforceable standards, it would be a body like the ISO, not the w3c.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Suckered: They were absolutely suckered by Microsoft.

I'll give you that Microsoft was anti-competitive and used predatory business practices that probably killed Netscape.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

IE Market Share: it's rapidly declining and almost non existent on mobile.

You can be optimistic and spin it however you want, but its not declining as fast as you seem to think:

Internet Explorer (65.29%)
Mozilla Firefox (25.69%)
Safari (3.74%)
Google Chrome (2.84%)
Opera (1.62%)
Other (0.82%)

this is from wikipedia, August 2009 - not sure where their data came from, but all the numbers i've seen are pretty similar to this. These numbers vary according to the source, but even if you factor in a significant margin of error you still get a clear picture. Even if IE is only 50%, that leaves 50% for the other 5 to divey up.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

See the comment above re mobile. And if Google's plugin gains traction, which it very likely will, WebKit's market share will quickly rival or overtake FF.

You are speculating - you don't know that. From the numbers I could find, Firefox's share is 25.69%, webkit (safari + chrome) is 6.58. so Webkit has about 20% market share to gain in order to rival Firefox.

And as far as mobile goes, from what I could quickly google about mobile browser share, it looks like Opera is the winner there.

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing here. My point is that It is a huge stretch that there is anyway we will have a "reference implementation", "standards that are enforced", and that Webkit would be the one to be picked. There are just way to many variables there.

[cdyates]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Perhaps suckered is not the correct word, but malicious certainly fits since they used anti-competitve maneuvering to destroy Netscape thus stagnating web browser innovation for a a very long time in tech terms.



It’s getting close to being less than 50%. Along with the other fronts that is chipping away at IE’s marketshare, the mobile front is taking bigger and bigger chunks out. With smartphone interest growing where developers have to support a more efficient code base and WebKit being the browser choice on Blackberry, Android and iPhone OSes it will likely be less than a year before IE drops below 50%. Trident will still be the single most dominate browser engine for a few years until smartphones and other portables catchup (likely with WebKit if Mozilla’s Fennec doesn’t get going soon) but the browsers that are using modern HTML, DOM, CSS and fast JS engines will have taken over 50% of the market. That is a major and important shift. IE can still be dominate in and of itself and be the odd man out if the collective opposition are working together… and so far that appears to be the case.

I agree with all that.