How does Microsoft benefit from Internet Explorer?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
We all know how Microsoft attempted to use every advantage to popularize Internet Explorer and take down Netscape. But what I'm wondering is how does Microsoft benefit from Internet Explorer if it's free? Are there products that they sell that benefit directly from Internet Explorer's popularity? Or is it just that in the future they will use IE to proprietize the internet?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    farmerfarmer Posts: 7member
    [quote]Originally posted by spindler:

    <strong> Or is it just that in the future they will use IE to proprietize the internet?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I believe this part of your statement has validity. Embedding a web browser in their OS seems like one of the shrewdest (if not illegal, wrong, etc.. another argument) decisions Microsoft made. To me IE is like a tenacle extending from their desktop monopoly to the internet. Later they can add functionality that ties in well with their server products (which I use now and can see already). Desktop-Browser-Backends. They will never own it all. They do have their eyes on a big piece of it however.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    I for one was very happy when MS integrated IE into Windows. It's a great feature (being able to type in a web address in any open explorer/folder window).



    Netscape has always been the slower more buggy browser. Before IE, no one really knew any better. Way back when I used IE over Netscape simply because it was (and still is) the better browser. Netscape was still installed, just not used. Now IE 6 (nicely integrated with WinXP) is even better and faster. I certainly hope the DoJ doesn't f.uck it up. MS has every right to bundle and integrate IE with their OS.



    If Apple built a stable, fast and integrated browser into OS X - would anyone mind or care? I know I'd be very happy about that and welcome it. Would people be outraged and demand that you use or at least try Netscape?



    Netscape, AOL and REAL are a joke. If they want better market share they should have made better products. There was always a choice to use your own programs, always. The irony of AOL calling MS a monopoly who wants to take over the net is simply sidesplitting!
  • Reply 3 of 18
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Patchouli,



    I would reccomend you read up on the anticompetive practices.



    it wasn't nearly as basic as you make it out to be.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    I hear ya. But I think the DoJ should just MAKE PC Makers bundle the other programs so the user has a choice - not strip the MS products from it's OS. I agree that's where MS is wrong. By cornering PC Makers into not allowing the other programs bundled. Well, screw MS and bundle them (just leave XP in tact). It works well. I am also outraged by these companies wasting all their time and money suing MS when they should be pointing those efforts to making better products.



    At the end of the day, this is just MHO.
  • Reply 5 of 18
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    [quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:

    <strong>I am also outraged by these companies wasting all their time and money suing MS when they should be pointing those efforts to making better products.

    MHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well actually, Company A only has to let the government know that they believe that Company B is a monopoly or is employing anti-competitive practices. the goverment takes over from there (including funding).
  • Reply 6 of 18
    mmastermmaster Posts: 17member
    I think one reason they wanted their own browser to be big was that they believed there was a chance of the browser replacing the OS. This is why they feared Java also. Many people today spend more time in the web browser than any other program on their computer. The web and email together have brought so much of the population into computing as word processing has in the previous generation.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    While I agree that IE6 is the best web-browser available on any platform, Mozilla is a very very nice browser for Win32 and definitely worth a look at.



    Also, it's M$'s OS, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    Microsoft wanted IE to be the most popular web browser because it is considered Middleware. Middleware is software that sits on top of the OS that allows a developer to write software for it. This is important because that developer writes software for a web browser ( or any other middleware ) and it is the same on all platforms no matter what OS is running. That means MS could loose its monopoly since all these neat internet ( and/or middleware ) programs could run on any OS. MS wanted to be able to control that middleware tier and try to make it OS dependant, which they did with IE, J++, etc. Just think of all the web sites that don't work properly on the Mac.



    This information is straight out of the Findings of Fact. That is the ~75 page document that was released during the trial. I am one of the only people I know that actually read it. If you do, I guarentee you will have a better perspective on this whole trial. You would learn about all the bad stuff MS did to Lotus ( Lotus Notes is also middleware ), Netscape, Java ( middleware again - write once run anywhere = very bad for MS ), and others including Apple. They threatened Apple to try to get them to abandon Quicktime ( middleware once again ).
  • Reply 9 of 18
    dartblazerdartblazer Posts: 149member
    masterzeus, got a link to "Findings of Fact"?
  • Reply 10 of 18
    masterzeusmasterzeus Posts: 111member
    [quote]Originally posted by dartblazer:

    <strong>masterzeus, got a link to "Findings of Fact"?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://usvms.gpo.gov/findings_index.html"; target="_blank">http://usvms.gpo.gov/findings_index.html</a>;



    Another neat thing in there: Intel tried to optimize the MS Windows compiler. The optimizations greatly increased the speed of windows programs on intel processors. MS did not like that and threatened to make Windows incompatible with pentiums ( damn thats arrogant ). Intel had no choice but said you have to put these optimizations in the windows compiler. MS said when we get to it and has still never done this.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    masterzeusmasterzeus Posts: 111member
    Oh, I forgot to add, its 206 pages of piss you off arrogance, not ~75.
  • Reply 12 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,132member
    One compelling feature that Browsers can offer is Consumer Direction to specified sites. Type in a generic subject in IE like "Crystal" and Waterford, Billy and Crystal Reports pop up. There are companies willing to pay to be on that list. I think the Browser was overhyped a bit and things have become sane again but I'd rather be in control of how people access and view the Internet than not.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    ijerryijerry Posts: 615member
    just my rambling....I have been told that mozilla is spyware, so I have not even tried it, Netscape was horrible, unistalled it. right now the only thing that is somewhat finished is ie. Though it does absolutely suck surfing the net on a mac some days. I would give my left nut for apple to develop an (iapp) ex. isurf program. IMO it is one of the key apps missing in osX. Till that day I guess I will have to deal with bill and now his accusations of other companies having anti-competitive practices. oh well. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 14 of 18
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    Microsoft is a monopoly. So what! They played hardball with the competition. So what! The only difference between Mocrosoft and the competition is that Microsoft was succesful and its competition wasn't. So Microsoft bundles middleware with its OS. They wrote it! They developed it! It belongs to them! Why shouldn't they be able to use it in their OS. Their OS works much better since they started doing it and I hope they continue to integrate. If other companies want platforms for their middleware, they should spend the dollars and take the risk to create their own OS. Screw the competition! If they can't win in the marketplace, they should not have a chance to win in court. Besides, everyone of those hypacrites have played the same kind of hardball as Microsoft has. They just lost.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>Microsoft is a monopoly. So what! They played hardball with the competition. So what! The only difference between Mocrosoft and the competition is that Microsoft was succesful and its competition wasn't. So Microsoft bundles middleware with its OS. They wrote it! They developed it! It belongs to them! Why shouldn't they be able to use it in their OS. Their OS works much better since they started doing it and I hope they continue to integrate. If other companies want platforms for their middleware, they should spend the dollars and take the risk to create their own OS. Screw the competition! If they can't win in the marketplace, they should not have a chance to win in court. Besides, everyone of those hypacrites have played the same kind of hardball as Microsoft has. They just lost.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The whole episode with the DoJ also has a lot to do with flat out illegal activity.



    back in the 19th century the railroad tycoons played "hardball" by vandalizing each other. That was not acceptable.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>Microsoft is a monopoly. So what! They played hardball with the competition. So what! The only difference between Mocrosoft and the competition is that Microsoft was succesful and its competition wasn't. So Microsoft bundles middleware with its OS. They wrote it! They developed it! It belongs to them! Why shouldn't they be able to use it in their OS. Their OS works much better since they started doing it and I hope they continue to integrate. If other companies want platforms for their middleware, they should spend the dollars and take the risk to create their own OS. Screw the competition! If they can't win in the marketplace, they should not have a chance to win in court. Besides, everyone of those hypacrites have played the same kind of hardball as Microsoft has. They just lost.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Did you read the Findings of Fact? Until you do I wouldn't even try to get into an arguement. The trial is not about MS bundling its software, its about all the illegal things MS did to force other companies to use that software.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,132member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>Microsoft is a monopoly. So what! They played hardball with the competition. So what! The only difference between Mocrosoft and the competition is that Microsoft was succesful and its competition wasn't. So Microsoft bundles middleware with its OS. They wrote it! They developed it! It belongs to them! Why shouldn't they be able to use it in their OS. Their OS works much better since they started doing it and I hope they continue to integrate. If other companies want platforms for their middleware, they should spend the dollars and take the risk to create their own OS. Screw the competition! If they can't win in the marketplace, they should not have a chance to win in court. Besides, everyone of those hypacrites have played the same kind of hardball as Microsoft has. They just lost.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Monopolies aren't illegal..it's the abuse of them that is. I think there is substantial evidence available that proves that Microshaft has competed unfairly. Winning in competition is fair but you still have to play by the rules.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    I am not sure what Microsoft stands to gain from Internet Explorer on the Mac (here are some things I'd guess, though-- control, monopoly, better acceptance of MS-invented web technologies by making them multi-platform, less Mac users who are so vehemently and blindly anti-Microsoft, and they sure look a lot less anticompetitive when they make a browser, email client, huge Office suite, and even compatible hardware drivers for their devices for their competition). I do know, however, that we all stand to benefit from Internet Explorer, directly and indirectly.



    A lot of people just don't realize all of the "hardships" of webdesign that multiple browsers, especially those with troubled pasts such as Netscape, have caused. Huge compatibility issues, downgrading of useful and beautiful designs and features and code, accessibility for everyone (including the disabled of any degree), and many wonderful innovations have not come to fruition, and may not ever come to fruition, because of browser-manufacturers' mistakes (yes, Microsoft is included). Think of all that people (web designers, developers, artists, coders) could have accomplished with all of the time they've spent with headaches working out browser support and weighing consequences and fixing issues and correcting problems and making up for huge bugs and crappy browsers that people are too dumb to upgrade from or are even forced to use.



    If you know much about web standards or non-web standards or have done much cross-platform and cross-browser (not to mention cross-version) testing, you probably have at least a smattering of an idea ow much time and energy is wasted on these things. IMHO, Netscape 3.x-&gt;4.x set back the market years, and caused two whole numbers in HTML standards versions that were basically unnecessary and detrimental to the long-term development of REAL web standards. Mozilla isn't much better, it's proved that you can't really try to support standards well, and succeed (both financially or in market share) at the same time--so why should the browser makers even bother--it's also told the software industry at large that opensource is not a viable answer for those looking to make any kind of gains. And look, after years of the Mozilla project, it's still not even close to being able to compare to its competitors (too many cooks on the pot, perhaps?). IE has made mistakes too, but nothing that they aren't improving or rectifying all the time. They've supported standards (and non-standards, which can be either a good thing, or a bad thing) better than other browsers long before Mozilla even started trying, or Opera came about (but I won't even go there).



    At times I wished that everybody used the same browser that had the same abilities and same features and same standard support and was always in sync and didn't have any stupid quirks and no new Microsoft or Netscape-invented standards and could be instantly upgraded to support all the new features (which would also be completely backwards-compatible just in case) and code could be clean and logical and accessible to anyone. And yes, I made that a huge runon sentence on purpose, because it's really an immature, juvenile pipe dream that's never going to happen. I'm afraid that even if Microsoft's very decent browser were a complete monopoly, they'd never be able to be trusted enough not to use it to their advantage and others' disadvantage. It's pretty sad. But I digress.
Sign In or Register to comment.