<strong>All of this perhaps proves that it's too late. There's little to nothing we can likely do to damage Microsoft's monopolies or growing ones (IM, streaming media, game consoles, PDAs, programming tools, music formats, etc.) without feeding other ones. They clearly control much of our livelihood. It means our ability to make our financial and operational choices is taken away. I don't see much that can be done now in any scenario.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think this provides a great opportunity to spread the Macintosh and damage Microsoft's monopolies. Think about it, if those poor schools are provided with Macs instead of wintel boxes, the kids in those schools will learn on Macs. For many, if not most, of them, these computers will be the first computers that they have used, and the experience will shape their opinions on computers. If they are Macs, then when these kids and their families want to buy a computer they'll want to buy Macs. Not necessarily because Macs are better than PCs, but because Macs are what they use at school, Macs are what they know ...and because they're better . And if after experiencing the Macs at school as their first computers they then try out a PC, I think they'll most likely have the same reaction most of us do. If on the other hand Microsoft succeeds and ensuring that all of these schools get PCs, the exact opposite will happen, and only the lucky few will learn the joys of Macintosh.
poor schools suffer from a lot more problems than lack of computer hardware and software. Really the last thing on their improvement list is likely computers. Computers don't provide an education
Groverat, Jobs is not sayng that at all. What Jobs is saying is that this so-called punishment is hardly punishment at all.
What kind of punishment is forcing MS to propagate its monopoly with a few 'donations?'
What you'll probably see is $200M worth of equipment and $800M worth of licensing fees. So... it's even more petty than it seems...
Even then, MS shouldn't get away with this...It's not like an oil company having barrels of oil seized...there's actually a positive return for MS on this.
It's PR heaven for MS...they come off looking innocent, plus they get to play Santa with poor schools. And $1B to MS is basically child's play.
The DoJ went from one stupid extreme to another. Right now I don't know who I have greater distaste for.
<strong>The DoJ went from one stupid extreme to another. Right now I don't know who I have greater distaste for.</strong><hr></blockquote>This isn't the DoJ. This is a suit brought by private individuals.
<strong>All these whining corporate millionaires have done very little putting up and a lot less shutting up.
IE took over because it is a better browser. </strong><hr></blockquote>
For those of us who remember when IE starting gaining Market share on Netscape... IE was in no way a better browser at the time. IE sucked compared to netscape but was getting the mkt share and usage cause it was bundled with Windows. It wasn't till later that IE got better. That has always been MS's approach. Make a sucky half assed copy of someone else's idea.. bundle it with the OS as much as they can and then worry later about quality.
<strong>Sure, IE is better than the current Netscape. But at the time that IE began to take over (1997?), it wasn't better than Navigator. I remember when IE was cruddy, and Navigator/Communicator was far better.
The reason it took over is not because it was better, but because MS included it with Windows and made deals with box makers to have IE as the default, and then included it as part of the OS with 98. That's (partially) what the suit is about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>poor schools suffer from a lot more problems than lack of computer hardware and software. Really the last thing on their improvement list is likely computers. Computers don't provide an education</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Are you sure?!
Thanks for the insight, Captain Obvious.
(That *might* have been useful if Microsoft manufactured good teachers or better inner-city economies)
[quote]<strong>What Jobs is saying is that this so-called punishment is hardly punishment at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's what Jobs said:
"We think our schools deserve to keep their power of choice, and our kids deserve better than having to learn on old, refurbished Wintel computers."
What's the other "choice"?
[quote]<strong>What kind of punishment is forcing MS to propagate its monopoly with a few 'donations?'
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, it's a stupid idea any way you slice it.
[quote]<strong>The reason it took over is not because it was better, but because MS included it with Windows and made deals with box makers to have IE as the default, and then included it as part of the OS with 98. That's (partially) what the suit is about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?
Panic Software should sue Apple for bundling iTunes with the MacOS.
And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly.
Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hard to do when MS tried everything they could to make it hard to use Netscape for their default browser. Including coding the browser into the OS.. not allowing you to remove IE.. not giving Netscape the proper APIs it should have (And was with other companies) Having IE take over your system even when you had Netscape as default at times. Doesn't matter HOW good Netscape was. It wouldn't have lasted.
<strong> [quote]
Panic Software should sue Apple for bundling iTunes with the MacOS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I know you can delete iTunes.. you can totally get rid of it. iTunes wasn't tied into the OS for no reason other than to keep a mp3 player monopoly.
<strong> [quote]
And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It took about 2/3 years for IE to even get close. It wasn't till 97 did MS really start making a decent browser. By then they had the mkt share, It had NOTHING to do with IE being better.
IF IE was truly the inferior browser and was not improving at a rapid rate, why didn't Netscape maintain dominance? It is not a difficult task to download and install things. Hell, my grandmother does it with ease.
WinAmp still gets downloaded like crazy even thought WiMP is shipped with Windows. Why?
[quote]<strong>not giving Netscape the proper APIs it should have</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to be more specific?
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter HOW good Netscape was. It wouldn't have lasted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's bullshit and you know it.
AOL Instant Messenger is still huge even though WindowsMessenger ships default. Good apps with good service will survive. If Microsoft provides better apps or better services, they will win.
If MSN Messenger becomes more useful and offers more services than AIM, AIM will die.
[quote]<strong>It wasn't till 97 did MS really start making a decent browser. By then they had the mkt share, It had NOTHING to do with IE being better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what was Microsoft supposed to do?
It's quite obvious by now that Microsoft had a reason for tying IE to the OS, it's an attempt (like it or not) to blur the line between your computer and the internet. Explorer browses your file system and the web. There is a purpose.
So I ask again, what was Microsoft supposed to do?
<strong>IF IE was truly the inferior browser and was not improving at a rapid rate, why didn't Netscape maintain dominance? It is not a difficult task to download and install things. Hell, my grandmother does it with ease.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did my last post not explain this? Yes it did.
<strong> [quote]
WinAmp still gets downloaded like crazy even thought WiMP is shipped with Windows. Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AS far as I know WiMP isn't tied into the system. WiMP also charges you $30 to rip mp3s from it. That would be like MS charging $30 for you to download anything from IE. This is a no-brainer here grover. If MS did that Netscape will still be on top too.
[quote]<strong>
Care to be more specific?
<hr></blockquote></strong> Well for one when Win95 was being Made and Netscape announced it WILL be making it's browser for it.. MS told them not to. That they was planning on making their OWN browser and giving it out for free while tying it into the OS. That they should just make a browser for the "Other" OS's and they will not get any help from MS that other companies where getting. Meaning they really couldn't code a decent Netscape till AFTER Win95 was well out on the Market. Do you not remember this going on in court? This was one of the MAIN reasons MS was taken to court. It was using it's OS dominance to try to get a browser dominance. It's called abusing ones Monopoly.
[quote]<strong>
That's bullshit and you know it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No it's not
[quote]<strong>
AOL Instant Messenger is still huge even though WindowsMessenger ships default. Good apps with good service will survive. If Microsoft provides better apps or better services, they will win.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
AOL Messenger is still huge RIGHT NOW. Just like Netscape was still HUGE in 97. MS is allready trying to do to AIM what they did to Netscape. Give them a few years.
[quote]<strong>
If MSN Messenger becomes more useful and offers more services than AIM, AIM will die.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree. But that isn't the approach MS is taking.
[quote]<strong>
So what was Microsoft supposed to do?
It's quite obvious by now that Microsoft had a reason for tying IE to the OS, it's an attempt (like it or not) to blur the line between your computer and the internet. Explorer browses your file system and the web. There is a purpose.
So I ask again, what was Microsoft supposed to do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AHhahah I like this from you. No son.. MS tied the browser into the OS so they could tell the government it wasn't new software.. it was part of the OS! They can't be abusing their OS monopoly if the browser IS the OS can they? Not to mention experts where brought in proving that tieing IE into the OS was actually no better than it was when it wasn't tied. It was actually WORSE. And when MS said they couldn't take IE out cause it was part of the OS.. they was proved wrong too cause someone indeed did it.
Fact is grover. MS didn't win the browser wars cause IE was better. They had won it when IE was still a POS. Is IE better now? Of course.
[quote]True. Though I really believe Netscape lost out because they didn't understand that the browser was the tie-in to making vast amounts of money, not the product to generate it. <hr></blockquote>
I don't buy that. It's pretty much standard operating procedure to buy internet clients as shareware, so Netscape was right in line there. MS only joined in when they realized that they needed a browser or some other company could become a middleware platform, replacing Windows; and that they could go cross-platform, mooting Windows. That's why MS violated nearly every standard of good programming practice in order to integrate Explorer into the OS. They wanted to control the middleware platform, just as they controlled the applications platform. Direct revenue isn't the point here.
It's true that Netscape made Microsoft's job a little easier by sucking. But so what? They can fail on their own merits, rather than being driven out by a hostile monopoly.
What about other competitors? Microsoft eliminated an early rival (Spyglass) by taking their source code and then screwing them over. Apple could not have released a browser without risking Gates' ire (as it was, he wanted to kill QuickTime) and even then they would have had to slip it silently onto the hard drive the way they did with Netscape because of the "browser of choice" agreement they signed with Microsoft, and that would make it essentially irrelevant. Defaults are absolutely crucial.
People use defaults unless there is a pressing reason not to. Microsoft understands this. So besides website compatibility issues introduced by Explorer's many bugs and extensions; besides name and brand recognition; besides the fact that smaller companies don't have a revenue stream from OEM sales of Windows to subsidize their browsers; the biggest fact in Microsoft's favor is that the vast majority of people will not look for an alternative to Internet Explorer as long as it's good enough. Any competitor has to be much better to have any hope of an impact, and even then the impact will be limited to those people who are dissatisfied enough with IE to go to the trouble of looking around for alternatives. So even though Opera for Windows is widely considered to be a better, more standards-compliant browser, even though it's been around for years, and even though it's inexpensive, Opera claims a grand total of 6 million users on all platforms. Not bad, but no competition for IE.
Also, thanks to both Netscape and IE (Netscape gets special razzing, though, for being the first) the Web is a vastly more complicated thing to write a client for than it should be, which automatically makes life harder for the little guys. If OmniGroup could simply code to the W3C and ECMA standards, they'd already have version 5 out the door.
[quote]AOL Messenger is still huge RIGHT NOW. Just like Netscape was still HUGE in 97. MS is allready trying to do to AIM what they did to Netscape. Give them a few years.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.
I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?
[quote]<strong>We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so far as I know.
Re: Netscape.
What is the use of controlling the middleware if you're just going to release to the "other" platform anyway?
Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS? (I'm sorry, but I don't buy, "Well Bill Gates just wanted to be mean and evil.")
Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?
<strong>Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?</strong><hr></blockquote>It is against the law to use a monopoly in one product (e.g., OS) to push other products (e.g., browsers).
What MS did in that regard was against the law - there's no debate about that, at least not among the judges who have heard the case. The remedy is the question.
What is the use of controlling the middleware if you're just going to release to the "other" platform anyway?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
IE for the Mac wasn't released till later. When Win95 had pretty much 80% of the desktop monopoly. Releasing IE for the Mac was just more of MS trying to take MORE mkt share away from Netscape. But IE sucked for the Mac until IE 5 showed up. All the other versions SUCKED compared to Netscape. MS actually got their browser dominance in the Mac market the right way (well almost.. we wont go into them forcing Apple to make IE the standard browser for the Mac OS or no Office)
[quote]<strong>
Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS? (I'm sorry, but I don't buy, "Well Bill Gates just wanted to be mean and evil.")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The same reason he took Java and polluted it. It was a threat. He didn't want Netscape to have a monopoly on something so big as a web browser. HE wanted the monopoly. HE wanted MS to control the way browsers work so there would be no threat. The same reason he took Java for Windows.. and made it so those apps made in Windows Java application would only work in Windows. Defeating the purpose of Java.. therefore getting rid of the threat. The same reason he wanted Apple to kill Quick TIme cause HE wanted to control the media player. He wanted Apple to ditch QuickTime which was the standard for internet media and go with Media Player which wasn't so it could become the standard. And then MS would have total control over that too. Do you see the pattern yet?
[quote]<strong>
Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you control 80/90% of the software out there .. it is going to be hard for any one else to compete. Having a monopoly in a OS isn't bad. It's when you use that monopoly to grab other markets from businesses is such ways does it make it anti-competitive. MS goes on and on about how the GPL is Un-American. Being a anti-competitive company is even more Un-American.
[quote]What is the use of controlling the middleware if you're just going to release to the "other" platform anyway?<hr></blockquote>
Because then you control the middleware on both platforms.
Note that IE for Mac and IE for Windows are not the same platform. They behave differently. So MS hasn't diluted Windows' strength as an application platform much at all with IE for Mac. For one thing, ActiveX controls can extend IE for Windows.
[quote]Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS?<hr></blockquote>
They wouldn't. Tying it into the OS marries it to the OS, which is what they wanted. Otherwise, the Web would have become (ideally!) a platform- agnostic platform that they couldn't buy or control.
[quote]Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?<hr></blockquote>
It's not simply the fact that MS bundled IE that's the problem. It's the way they did, and the way that it's part of a larger pattern of behavior, that's the problem. Monopolies have to be held to standards of behavior that wouldn't apply to smaller companies to make up for the lack of competitive pressure. "The market" won't solve anything because if there's a monopoly in place, there's no market to begin with. If Windows had, say, a 30% market share, would it have made sense for MS to bundle IE3 instead of a superior (or more popular) browser?
[quote]<strong>For one thing, ActiveX controls can extend IE for Windows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Could Microsoft, theoretically, port ActiveX to MacOSX(9,whatever), or would it have to be something Apple took care of.
I still see no advantage over "letting" Netscape exist. (Netscape is allowed all the market share it wants, it's free for God's sake. It just sucked/s)
[quote]<strong>Tying it into the OS marries it to the OS, which is what they wanted. Otherwise, the Web would have become (ideally!) a platform- agnostic platform that they couldn't buy or control.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say this as if the web is something MS owns and controls.
[quote]<strong>If Windows had, say, a 30% market share, would it have made sense for MS to bundle IE3 instead of a superior (or more popular) browser?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, if they planned on the integration between the browser (that they control) with their Operating System.
It's not wise to depend on another company to take care of a vital part of your operations for you. Microsoft wanted web integration in the OS, relying on Netscape would have been stupid.
Sine:
[quote]<strong>Yes AOL users can use MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As in, I can put my MSN buddies into AIM and communicate with them while I'm using AIM and they're using MSN Messenger?
Innaresting.
[quote]<strong>IE for the Mac wasn't released till later. When Win95 had pretty much 80% of the desktop monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not following your train of thought here. Microsoft leveraged a supposedly-inferior browser to decrease Apple's market share?
[quote]<strong>Releasing IE for the Mac was just more of MS trying to take MORE mkt share away from Netscape. But IE sucked for the Mac until IE 5 showed up. All the other versions SUCKED compared to Netscape.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree, I liked IE 4 much better than Netscape 4 on the Mac. I still don't like IE 5 for the Mac, so maybe it's a personal preference thing.
I also remember there being a fair large demand for a Mac version of Internet Explorer.
[quote]<strong>The same reason he took Java and polluted it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Netscape and Java issues are completely different.
Why would he care if Netscape was the big boy if the plan wasn't for IE to be integrated with the OS.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
(And QT was far from "the standard for internet media")
[quote]<strong>When you control 80/90% of the software out there .. it is going to be hard for any one else to compete.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for saying something that had nothing to do with my question.
Comments
<strong>All of this perhaps proves that it's too late. There's little to nothing we can likely do to damage Microsoft's monopolies or growing ones (IM, streaming media, game consoles, PDAs, programming tools, music formats, etc.) without feeding other ones. They clearly control much of our livelihood. It means our ability to make our financial and operational choices is taken away. I don't see much that can be done now in any scenario.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think this provides a great opportunity to spread the Macintosh and damage Microsoft's monopolies. Think about it, if those poor schools are provided with Macs instead of wintel boxes, the kids in those schools will learn on Macs. For many, if not most, of them, these computers will be the first computers that they have used, and the experience will shape their opinions on computers. If they are Macs, then when these kids and their families want to buy a computer they'll want to buy Macs. Not necessarily because Macs are better than PCs, but because Macs are what they use at school, Macs are what they know ...and because they're better
poor schools suffer from a lot more problems than lack of computer hardware and software. Really the last thing on their improvement list is likely computers. Computers don't provide an education
What kind of punishment is forcing MS to propagate its monopoly with a few 'donations?'
What you'll probably see is $200M worth of equipment and $800M worth of licensing fees. So... it's even more petty than it seems...
Even then, MS shouldn't get away with this...It's not like an oil company having barrels of oil seized...there's actually a positive return for MS on this.
It's PR heaven for MS...they come off looking innocent, plus they get to play Santa with poor schools. And $1B to MS is basically child's play.
The DoJ went from one stupid extreme to another. Right now I don't know who I have greater distaste for.
<strong>The DoJ went from one stupid extreme to another. Right now I don't know who I have greater distaste for.</strong><hr></blockquote>This isn't the DoJ. This is a suit brought by private individuals.
<strong>All these whining corporate millionaires have done very little putting up and a lot less shutting up.
IE took over because it is a better browser. </strong><hr></blockquote>
For those of us who remember when IE starting gaining Market share on Netscape... IE was in no way a better browser at the time. IE sucked compared to netscape but was getting the mkt share and usage cause it was bundled with Windows. It wasn't till later that IE got better. That has always been MS's approach. Make a sucky half assed copy of someone else's idea.. bundle it with the OS as much as they can and then worry later about quality.
<strong>It may suck for Apple but I've got to wonder just what the hell it has to do with Apple?
Power of choice. . . don't make me laugh. The kids have nothing right now, which is not as good as a refurbished Wintel.
What Steve is basically saying is "Microsoft should buy $1 billion in Apple gear and give it to kids."
He should have kept his mouth shut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually MS is giving out Apple gear too from what I hear.
<strong>Sure, IE is better than the current Netscape. But at the time that IE began to take over (1997?), it wasn't better than Navigator. I remember when IE was cruddy, and Navigator/Communicator was far better.
The reason it took over is not because it was better, but because MS included it with Windows and made deals with box makers to have IE as the default, and then included it as part of the OS with 98. That's (partially) what the suit is about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bing Bing Bing. Correct.
Really? Are you sure?!
Thanks for the insight, Captain Obvious.
(That *might* have been useful if Microsoft manufactured good teachers or better inner-city economies)
[quote]<strong>What Jobs is saying is that this so-called punishment is hardly punishment at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's what Jobs said:
"We think our schools deserve to keep their power of choice, and our kids deserve better than having to learn on old, refurbished Wintel computers."
What's the other "choice"?
[quote]<strong>What kind of punishment is forcing MS to propagate its monopoly with a few 'donations?'
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, it's a stupid idea any way you slice it.
[quote]<strong>The reason it took over is not because it was better, but because MS included it with Windows and made deals with box makers to have IE as the default, and then included it as part of the OS with 98. That's (partially) what the suit is about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?
Panic Software should sue Apple for bundling iTunes with the MacOS.
And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly.
<strong>
Shouldn't Netscape's superiority have sustained it, or was Microsoft to just not produce IE?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hard to do when MS tried everything they could to make it hard to use Netscape for their default browser. Including coding the browser into the OS.. not allowing you to remove IE.. not giving Netscape the proper APIs it should have (And was with other companies) Having IE take over your system even when you had Netscape as default at times. Doesn't matter HOW good Netscape was. It wouldn't have lasted.
<strong> [quote]
Panic Software should sue Apple for bundling iTunes with the MacOS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I know you can delete iTunes.. you can totally get rid of it. iTunes wasn't tied into the OS for no reason other than to keep a mp3 player monopoly.
<strong> [quote]
And let's not romanticize Netscape's browsers, they weren't that good and IE was catching up very fast and overtook it quality-wise very quickly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It took about 2/3 years for IE to even get close. It wasn't till 97 did MS really start making a decent browser. By then they had the mkt share, It had NOTHING to do with IE being better.
WinAmp still gets downloaded like crazy even thought WiMP is shipped with Windows. Why?
[quote]<strong>not giving Netscape the proper APIs it should have</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to be more specific?
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter HOW good Netscape was. It wouldn't have lasted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's bullshit and you know it.
AOL Instant Messenger is still huge even though WindowsMessenger ships default. Good apps with good service will survive. If Microsoft provides better apps or better services, they will win.
If MSN Messenger becomes more useful and offers more services than AIM, AIM will die.
[quote]<strong>It wasn't till 97 did MS really start making a decent browser. By then they had the mkt share, It had NOTHING to do with IE being better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what was Microsoft supposed to do?
It's quite obvious by now that Microsoft had a reason for tying IE to the OS, it's an attempt (like it or not) to blur the line between your computer and the internet. Explorer browses your file system and the web. There is a purpose.
So I ask again, what was Microsoft supposed to do?
<strong>IF IE was truly the inferior browser and was not improving at a rapid rate, why didn't Netscape maintain dominance? It is not a difficult task to download and install things. Hell, my grandmother does it with ease.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did my last post not explain this? Yes it did.
<strong> [quote]
WinAmp still gets downloaded like crazy even thought WiMP is shipped with Windows. Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AS far as I know WiMP isn't tied into the system. WiMP also charges you $30 to rip mp3s from it. That would be like MS charging $30 for you to download anything from IE. This is a no-brainer here grover. If MS did that Netscape will still be on top too.
[quote]<strong>
Care to be more specific?
<hr></blockquote></strong> Well for one when Win95 was being Made and Netscape announced it WILL be making it's browser for it.. MS told them not to. That they was planning on making their OWN browser and giving it out for free while tying it into the OS. That they should just make a browser for the "Other" OS's and they will not get any help from MS that other companies where getting. Meaning they really couldn't code a decent Netscape till AFTER Win95 was well out on the Market. Do you not remember this going on in court? This was one of the MAIN reasons MS was taken to court. It was using it's OS dominance to try to get a browser dominance. It's called abusing ones Monopoly.
[quote]<strong>
That's bullshit and you know it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No it's not
[quote]<strong>
AOL Instant Messenger is still huge even though WindowsMessenger ships default. Good apps with good service will survive. If Microsoft provides better apps or better services, they will win.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
AOL Messenger is still huge RIGHT NOW. Just like Netscape was still HUGE in 97. MS is allready trying to do to AIM what they did to Netscape. Give them a few years.
[quote]<strong>
If MSN Messenger becomes more useful and offers more services than AIM, AIM will die.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I agree. But that isn't the approach MS is taking.
[quote]<strong>
So what was Microsoft supposed to do?
It's quite obvious by now that Microsoft had a reason for tying IE to the OS, it's an attempt (like it or not) to blur the line between your computer and the internet. Explorer browses your file system and the web. There is a purpose.
So I ask again, what was Microsoft supposed to do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
AHhahah I like this from you. No son.. MS tied the browser into the OS so they could tell the government it wasn't new software.. it was part of the OS! They can't be abusing their OS monopoly if the browser IS the OS can they? Not to mention experts where brought in proving that tieing IE into the OS was actually no better than it was when it wasn't tied. It was actually WORSE. And when MS said they couldn't take IE out cause it was part of the OS.. they was proved wrong too cause someone indeed did it.
Fact is grover. MS didn't win the browser wars cause IE was better. They had won it when IE was still a POS. Is IE better now? Of course.
[quote]True. Though I really believe Netscape lost out because they didn't understand that the browser was the tie-in to making vast amounts of money, not the product to generate it. <hr></blockquote>
I don't buy that. It's pretty much standard operating procedure to buy internet clients as shareware, so Netscape was right in line there. MS only joined in when they realized that they needed a browser or some other company could become a middleware platform, replacing Windows; and that they could go cross-platform, mooting Windows. That's why MS violated nearly every standard of good programming practice in order to integrate Explorer into the OS. They wanted to control the middleware platform, just as they controlled the applications platform. Direct revenue isn't the point here.
It's true that Netscape made Microsoft's job a little easier by sucking. But so what? They can fail on their own merits, rather than being driven out by a hostile monopoly.
What about other competitors? Microsoft eliminated an early rival (Spyglass) by taking their source code and then screwing them over. Apple could not have released a browser without risking Gates' ire (as it was, he wanted to kill QuickTime) and even then they would have had to slip it silently onto the hard drive the way they did with Netscape because of the "browser of choice" agreement they signed with Microsoft, and that would make it essentially irrelevant. Defaults are absolutely crucial.
People use defaults unless there is a pressing reason not to. Microsoft understands this. So besides website compatibility issues introduced by Explorer's many bugs and extensions; besides name and brand recognition; besides the fact that smaller companies don't have a revenue stream from OEM sales of Windows to subsidize their browsers; the biggest fact in Microsoft's favor is that the vast majority of people will not look for an alternative to Internet Explorer as long as it's good enough. Any competitor has to be much better to have any hope of an impact, and even then the impact will be limited to those people who are dissatisfied enough with IE to go to the trouble of looking around for alternatives. So even though Opera for Windows is widely considered to be a better, more standards-compliant browser, even though it's been around for years, and even though it's inexpensive, Opera claims a grand total of 6 million users on all platforms. Not bad, but no competition for IE.
Also, thanks to both Netscape and IE (Netscape gets special razzing, though, for being the first) the Web is a vastly more complicated thing to write a client for than it should be, which automatically makes life harder for the little guys. If OmniGroup could simply code to the W3C and ECMA standards, they'd already have version 5 out the door.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.
<strong>
I don't think that's true because so many people will still use AOL that others will want to be able to talk to their friends/family on AOL and you can't do that with MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We will see in a few years what will happen. MSN works with AOL customers doesn't it?
Not so far as I know.
Re: Netscape.
What is the use of controlling the middleware if you're just going to release to the "other" platform anyway?
Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS? (I'm sorry, but I don't buy, "Well Bill Gates just wanted to be mean and evil.")
Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?
<strong>Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?</strong><hr></blockquote>It is against the law to use a monopoly in one product (e.g., OS) to push other products (e.g., browsers).
What MS did in that regard was against the law - there's no debate about that, at least not among the judges who have heard the case. The remedy is the question.
<strong>
Not so far as I know.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes AOL users can use MSN.
[quote]<strong>
Re: Netscape.
What is the use of controlling the middleware if you're just going to release to the "other" platform anyway?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
IE for the Mac wasn't released till later. When Win95 had pretty much 80% of the desktop monopoly. Releasing IE for the Mac was just more of MS trying to take MORE mkt share away from Netscape. But IE sucked for the Mac until IE 5 showed up. All the other versions SUCKED compared to Netscape. MS actually got their browser dominance in the Mac market the right way (well almost.. we wont go into them forcing Apple to make IE the standard browser for the Mac OS or no Office)
[quote]<strong>
Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS? (I'm sorry, but I don't buy, "Well Bill Gates just wanted to be mean and evil.")
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The same reason he took Java and polluted it. It was a threat. He didn't want Netscape to have a monopoly on something so big as a web browser. HE wanted the monopoly. HE wanted MS to control the way browsers work so there would be no threat. The same reason he took Java for Windows.. and made it so those apps made in Windows Java application would only work in Windows. Defeating the purpose of Java.. therefore getting rid of the threat. The same reason he wanted Apple to kill Quick TIme cause HE wanted to control the media player. He wanted Apple to ditch QuickTime which was the standard for internet media and go with Media Player which wasn't so it could become the standard. And then MS would have total control over that too. Do you see the pattern yet?
[quote]<strong>
Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you control 80/90% of the software out there .. it is going to be hard for any one else to compete. Having a monopoly in a OS isn't bad. It's when you use that monopoly to grab other markets from businesses is such ways does it make it anti-competitive. MS goes on and on about how the GPL is Un-American. Being a anti-competitive company is even more Un-American.
Because then you control the middleware on both platforms.
Note that IE for Mac and IE for Windows are not the same platform. They behave differently. So MS hasn't diluted Windows' strength as an application platform much at all with IE for Mac. For one thing, ActiveX controls can extend IE for Windows.
[quote]Why would Microsoft want to make Internet Explorer if its idea wasn't to tie it in with the OS?<hr></blockquote>
They wouldn't. Tying it into the OS marries it to the OS, which is what they wanted. Otherwise, the Web would have become (ideally!) a platform- agnostic platform that they couldn't buy or control.
[quote]Why should anything BUT Internet Explorer be the default on Windows? Even IF IE did suck at the time, why should Microsoft have been obligated to default to someone else's program?<hr></blockquote>
It's not simply the fact that MS bundled IE that's the problem. It's the way they did, and the way that it's part of a larger pattern of behavior, that's the problem. Monopolies have to be held to standards of behavior that wouldn't apply to smaller companies to make up for the lack of competitive pressure. "The market" won't solve anything because if there's a monopoly in place, there's no market to begin with. If Windows had, say, a 30% market share, would it have made sense for MS to bundle IE3 instead of a superior (or more popular) browser?
[quote]<strong>For one thing, ActiveX controls can extend IE for Windows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Could Microsoft, theoretically, port ActiveX to MacOSX(9,whatever), or would it have to be something Apple took care of.
I still see no advantage over "letting" Netscape exist. (Netscape is allowed all the market share it wants, it's free for God's sake. It just sucked/s)
[quote]<strong>Tying it into the OS marries it to the OS, which is what they wanted. Otherwise, the Web would have become (ideally!) a platform- agnostic platform that they couldn't buy or control.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say this as if the web is something MS owns and controls.
[quote]<strong>If Windows had, say, a 30% market share, would it have made sense for MS to bundle IE3 instead of a superior (or more popular) browser?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, if they planned on the integration between the browser (that they control) with their Operating System.
It's not wise to depend on another company to take care of a vital part of your operations for you. Microsoft wanted web integration in the OS, relying on Netscape would have been stupid.
Sine:
[quote]<strong>Yes AOL users can use MSN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As in, I can put my MSN buddies into AIM and communicate with them while I'm using AIM and they're using MSN Messenger?
Innaresting.
[quote]<strong>IE for the Mac wasn't released till later. When Win95 had pretty much 80% of the desktop monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not following your train of thought here. Microsoft leveraged a supposedly-inferior browser to decrease Apple's market share?
[quote]<strong>Releasing IE for the Mac was just more of MS trying to take MORE mkt share away from Netscape. But IE sucked for the Mac until IE 5 showed up. All the other versions SUCKED compared to Netscape.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree, I liked IE 4 much better than Netscape 4 on the Mac. I still don't like IE 5 for the Mac, so maybe it's a personal preference thing.
I also remember there being a fair large demand for a Mac version of Internet Explorer.
[quote]<strong>The same reason he took Java and polluted it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Netscape and Java issues are completely different.
Why would he care if Netscape was the big boy if the plan wasn't for IE to be integrated with the OS.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
(And QT was far from "the standard for internet media")
[quote]<strong>When you control 80/90% of the software out there .. it is going to be hard for any one else to compete.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for saying something that had nothing to do with my question.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Thanks for the insight, Captain Obvious.
(That *might* have been useful if Microsoft manufactured good teachers or better inner-city economies)<hr></blockquote>
can't do that but giving the schools money instead of a billion dollars worth of MS products that are going to go to waste would be a lot better.
I don't know how you could side with MS on this one?