New IE Disables Netscape-style Plug-ins

Snibor Eoj writes: "In his latest column, Robert Cringely takes a look at Microsoft's motivation for disabling Netscape API plug-ins in IE. As always with Cringely, it's an interesting take on things. We'll see how this one turns out..." Among other things, this will disable Quicktime plugins.

Comments

Uhh

[Auckerman]

Gee, I don't know. I think using their monolopy position to tie the very existence of a plugin to IE and only IE just might violate the Sherman Act. As IE is shipped on more and more computers, and people just use what came with the OS (read IE), 3-D party venders will, naturally, migrate their plugins to ActiveX. From that point on, for a browser to be viable, all other browsers will have to support ActiveX. There are two problems with this 1. ActiveX isn't very secure and 2. You will need Microsofts permission.

"what is the use of supporting the api of a dead browser?"

1. Netscape 4.x did not magically stop working the day AOL bought Netscape.

2. WinME STILL runs Win3.1 apps.

3. It required time, money and effort on MS's part to actively REMOVE Netscape style plugin support. Why REMOVE a used feature when leaving the code doesn't actually hurt anything and supports your current user base?

Why all the hubbub?

[PCM2]

Microsoft's stated reason for no longer supporting Netscape format plugins is that they prefer using ActiveX components for that purpose. That's really nothing new. Some third-party companies are going that route already. For example, as I understand it, Macromedia's Flash plugin is available as both a Netscape plugin for Netscape, and as an ActiveX control for IE. Other plugin makers need only follow suit.

In other words: Big whoop.

Actually...

[kisielk]

According to an article I read recently (if anyone has the link please post) Microsoft is working with Apple to make Quicktime work with IE6, probably as an ActiveX component. So the line about it "disabling Quicktime" is not entirely accurate.

Re:You can't run IE plugins in NETSCAPE either

[gmhowell]

The problem is that (assuming Cringely is on target) Microsoft is ditching a few things (Netscape plugins, Java) that violate this patent. But they are not ditching (or haven't yet) ActiveX/OLE in the browser, which performs a very similar action (at least WRT the patent).

I don't have a problem with M$ ditching some of that compatibility. But I do have a problem with doing it to force 'us' to IE5.5.net.

hmm

[1g$man]

Netscape's plugin API is their equivelent to ActiveX on Microsoft's side. Why does anyone complain about this? If Microsoft should be forced to support Netscape APIs, should Netscape be forced to support ActiveX? Seriously, the plugin API is losing support. Why would a developer create a Netscape plugin on the Windows platform? Sure, it would make sense to develop as plugin for other platforms, but on Windows, it simply makes more sense to create an ActiveX control because not only could the object be used in a web page, but in any activeX container (very common on teh windows platform). And if you even mention security issues in regards to what I just discussed, you don't know what you are talking about: they are both running native code and have the same vulnerabilities, therefore you don't run either one from untrusted sources. I'm not trolling, I would like intelligent discussion on this, really!

Re:Microsoft is just making the system more secure

[sqlrob]

No, no. Microsoft is just trying to improve security.

Then why do ActiveX controls still work?

Re:Microsoft's stance on the Java VM

[spectecjr]

Microsoft thinks to itself ~if we change it these ways, and don't point out what we changed, lots of people won't notice they're writing "Java" that runs only on our systems~ (this is documented in the antitrust findings of fact)

If you can't tell what's MS-only and what's common to all JVM's, you shouldn't be allowed to write code. What are we doing? Treating programmers as idiots who can't even tie their shoes?

Simon