Slashdot Mirror
The Browser Wars Are Back?
jpkunst writes "ZDNet UK reports and PCWorld.com report that, according to Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, whose comments came during a discussion with Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Dan Rosensweig at the Web 2.0 Conference in San Francisco on Wednesday, 'the browser wars are back', thanks to the emerging popularity of products such as Apple's Safari and the open-source Firefox. Andreessen warned that 'competition could compel the company [Microsoft] to use aggressive tactics to protect its Windows operating system monopoly'."
When were they gone?
When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla" on the intranet . I knew that the browser wars are over .
.NET and Java) ... but I suspect Mozilla's not as slow as Java in responding , especially when it's Microsoft
Microsoft may be able to do something however late it is (see
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
standardizing on IE? as a web designer, id rather shoot myself in the face than be saddled with IEs "enhancements" and "features" thankyouverymuch.
whats so hard about loading a transparent PNG anyway?
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Simply put: Opera costs money, so it has only a tiny market share.
Whilst it is indeed a very good browser, and I use it myself as my main browser - firefox is fast catching up with it.
Maybe the browser wars are back, but that gasbag Andreessen is clamoring to be back at any rhetorical cost. He hasn't done anything useful since he butchered HTML with the badly coded tag, which he couldn't even code himself at NCSA. Since then, he's gone from expensive blowhard spokesmodel for the biggest IPO in history, to has-been blown '90s dude. Only _Wired_ even listens to him anymore.
--
make install -not war
Tell me, if the EU were to decide to force MS to withdraw their browser from the OS, forcing people to download a copy of it seperately, how will the vast majority of people tackle this problem?
I would imagine they would most likely obtain it through some computing magazine / friend, or buy it over the counter. How many would go back to using IE, just as they used to?
OK, so they've got the embrace done.
I predict that their REALLY extreme tactic will be to start throwing every "extension" they can think of into IE, especially ones that break compatibility with other browsers and webservers.
Well, every "extension" except for security, that is. =D
When my company started putting "Best Viewed in Firefox/Mozilla"...
Why do people continue to insist on stupid "Best viewed with X" labels. Your website should be developed to display properly on any standards-compliant browser, and not be restricted to a particular platform or application.
Why not put up one of those "Try Firefox" icons instead of implying that other standards-compliant browsers (namely Opera) might have trouble with your poorly-designed site?
I can think of a few compelling reasons...
-- james
Which I'm not - and based on the popularity of adblocking extensions, I'm not alone.
It also isn't open-source which is kind of important to a lot of people here.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I still find myself having to explain what a web browser is to 90% of the people I know that use the internet. Many of these people think that their web browser is called "MSN" or "Yahoo." They pull up a portal site as their home page and actually enter URLs into the search window and wait for the portal site to give them the link. I try to tell them about the wonders of Firefox, and they stare at me blankly and say, "But I'm perfectly happy with Yahoo."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Also: What market share? If browsers are freely-available, is it really a "market"?
Now that IE is free as in beer and is the 900-pound gorilla, what will make people switch to alternatives en masse? Are security scares enough motivation? My experience is that "Normal" people seem to care little about the "backdoor of the week" syndrome, and they feel specially secure when they have turned automatic updates on
So, why will people switch?
Why would I want software with ads embedded in it?
Firefox & Co. are coming back, and that software is indeed technically superior to IE. However, Mozilla foundation still misses one crucial piece of the puzzle: a distribution channel. Until somebody with a big distribution channel jumps in and helps Mozilla, my web server access log will continue showing Mozilla user base growth of less than 1%/month/year.
That is where GBrowser comes into play. Google has a massive distribution channel that knows no OS boundaries.
Simpy
The reason that Micro$oft cannot win in this kind of fight is that there is no company paying the salaries of the programmers developing FireFox. It is a volunteer effort.
In the case of the Netscape browser, Netscape was a commerical company and essentially cut its own jugular in funding Netscape development and support and giving it away for free, but where could Netscape get its money to grow? It tried branching into commercial Web servers, but there were too many competitors in that market. Netscape was headed for bankruptcy.
In the case of FireFox, there is no company for Micro$oft to crush. Round 1 and the game goes to FireFox and the open-source movement. <applause>
Microsoft is waiting for the competition to come up with all the new ideas and take the lead. Microsoft will then implement these ideas in IE with their own take on the idea.
Microsoft will then hype up these new developments as if they were their ideas and go on about how their right to innovate is important.
Opera was around during the original browser wars but was never a serious contender (in terms of market share). What makes you think it is a serious contender now? Firefox has mouse gesture extensions (some people don't like them anyway), has managed to gain a reputation as more secure than IE and, as others have pointed out, is free.
Decode these
And why would I want screen real estate taken up by an ad when I can use Firefox instead?
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
Or they could make it impossible to uninstall, make it the file manager, require it for security updates, and make the help system dependent upon it.
OH, WAIT. The only way could integrate IE more into my Windows "experience" is if they soldered a big metal "e" onto my ass.
Inferior how? You must be smoking something that's rotting your brain, bud.
Compared to its rivals, Opera is a smaller, faster, more feature-packed browser that's on the cutting edge. So tell me again how it's inferior?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
For I design my sites to standards.
(Sure, I kludge it a little to make it look 100% in all the major browsers, but it still validates w3c.)
vk.
A great deal of the features that FireFox users rave about came from Opera, and every version brings even more innovation. It's even smaller and faster than FireFox too (IIRC.) agreed, but with Firefox extension model, you don't have to have them all, although with Opera you don't have to hunt down / install/ update as much
Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
Firefox will most likely gain a lot of ground but I don't think it will come out on top. I would love to see it come out on top but Microsoft has a lot of ground it they're not going to give it up without a fight.
Firefox and others don't have to come out on top. There just needs to be a significant presence of browsers other than IE on the net to negate Microsofts ability to abuse. When 98% of browsers are IE, they can basterdize standards and it looks like the 2% are the screwed up ones. If several other browsers are largely in use (don't need to be #1) then it will be more apparent which browser is actually screwed up and not following standards.
Well, I can see it in Safari, and Joe can see in Firefox. Sally says it works with Opera. How come it looks so weird on your computer?
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Microsoft cut off Netscape's air supply to prevent Navigator from making the OS irrelevant (by hosting the JVM). I don't think there is any such danger from Safari or Firefox.
Just my two cents.
It may be gratis, but it's not libre.
"It's incredibly difficult to compete with a program that comes installed with the OS." - so, you'd rather use Microsoft(R) Paintbrush[TM] than Photoshop or The GIMP? ;-)
Because IE isn't standards-compliant and barfs on standards-compliant pages very often.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"But the included browser (if they know this expression) works fine. I'm used to it."
Aye, I get this argument too (and also from people I'd expect to know better ;) but I just don't get it:
wordpad comes bundled with Windows; yet the first thing most people do is install Word. I think that that needs to be our argument: "IE is a capable-enough browser, a bit like wordpad or the Windows firewall, but a power-use like you would probably want to upgrade to a proper browser"... or something similar.
Also, don't underestimate the power of themes and extensions! Most of the interest I get in my "strange" browser is from it (a) looking different fairly frequently (usually when a new Firefox is released and my usual theme breaks :( ) or from (b) me using an extension to do something faster than my colleagues.
It's a slow process, but I feel I'm winning people over bit by bit...
This is where the serious fun begins.
Even though I *am* here on OS X, methinks you don't know what 'monopoly' means. It doesn't mean that there aren't any other choices, it means that MS leverages their market share in their OS to stifle competition in other areas.
Go back a few years, and read about the original browser war. That is a good example. Or see what MS did to BeOS's OEM program.
Joe User doesn't care about that kind of stuff. He downloads WinXP SP 2 and then brags about that it's a "huge improvement" and that security problems are a thing of the past.
Whether that's true is another story. But that's the Joe User mentality.
Well I wouldn't call it inferior because it still is a damn fine browser but there are a few things that don't make me use it.
- larger footprint
- less CSS support
- not free (unless you want an annoying banner ad)
- buggier (yes, in comparison to Firefox)
- less support
- they make the choices for you unlike in Firefox where all the add-ons and extensions are there for YOU to choose.
Al in all, I would still use Opera LONG before I got back to IE but it took a different approach than Firefox and I really have to say I like that I get to choose my own extensions rather than having them bundled.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
It is not Offtopic. It is a joke, which, if funny, would be modded Funny. It is a lame joke, so mod it Overrated. I find Overrated is rather under used. It is very applicable to many situations, such the mountain of "In Soviet Russia..." jokes. Some are still funny, but most a poorly thought out, poorly written and, hence, Overrated.
Now, mod me into oblivion because I injured your already fragile, self important image.
After being ignored the 1st time I decided to keep a copy the text of my latest email to Bellsouth. When trying to access their page with my latest version of Opera I am told to "upgrade" to IE or Netscape. For the record most of the times when I access this page it's to pay my bill.
---
Once again I would like to renew my request that your website be updated to support all modern browsers. The idea that by running a current version of Opera but then being told to "upgrade" speaks poorly of your website and it's staff.
The fact that all one must do to access Bellsouth's website is to change the user agent gives lie to the fact any upgrade is need.
Please respect your customers by allowing them the option of using whatever modern browser they wish instead of making them think that they must use a browser that has so many security issues that the federal government has dissuaded it's use or one that has become outdated.
Thank you.
---
Yes it may be a little harsh but sometimes you have to be pretty forthright to get past the corperate mindset. Until I get a response I plan on sending this same text once a week.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Opera was around during the original browser wars but was never a serious contender (in terms of market share). What makes you think it is a serious contender now?
I'm no Opera Fan, but I have to point out the logical fallacy here (which, by the way the people who marked this guy insightful should read): Product A had no market share at some point in time. Support your argument that it should have more market share now.
Can you see how easily that same argument can be turned against your favorite browser? I believe the term is non sequitur. Get a better argument. One based on facts would be good.
Today is a good day to code.
You joke, but with the amount of money that Microsoft makes they could very easily refocus on their browser and make it a lot more competitive. If they added tabbed browsing, popup blocking, and a few other popular FireFox features they would prevent a lot of average Windows users from switching to FireFox.
With all the money they make there, I really can't understand why they _don't_ do this. It makes no sense at all why they'd just give up on their browser like they have.
501 Not Implemented
they offered IE for free in the hope that they could "embrace and extend" the internet - stopping all other browsers, and thereby stopping all other platforms - but it didn't work. so why should they bother any more?
Imagine what they COULD have done by leveraging IE into developing weblications!
The biggest problem with web-based anything is the lack of control you have over the browser. Not coincidentally, this is why development time for web-based applications is quick - the application output is very simple.
For example, I've written a medium-sized application (~40,000 lines) in PHP-GTK and love the control I get over the client experience in the application. User chooses X, I pop up a dropdown list to get more information, pop up an editor that captures their input in real time, etc....
It's hard to impossible to do all this with javascript, but it's sort of what I'm talking about.
Take javascript, make it 10x more powerful, and provide some security measures.
For example, a certificate that would have to be installed in the browser first before scripts from NNN site would operate. Control the distribution of the certificates, and you control access to the application! You could use a bi-directional certificate so that both sides authenticate each other!
Run this over HTTPS and you'd have a damn secure application framework that would allow for:
1) Rapid application development times - On the server it'd be a set of ASP/PHP style scripts.
2) Rich client-ish interfaces that make XUL look tame.
3) Secure by design. Your scripts would only be accessable to somebody with a valid certificate.
4) If sufficiently developed, the javascript replacement could operate offline merely by saving the script to disk. (stretching things a bit, here)
In short, all the advantages of web-based design with all the advantages of client-side design. What's not to like?
They botched it with ActiveX, but it was an attempt at what I'm talking about. Can you imagine trying to fight that?
Java comes close to the above - but it lacks the security features I'm mentioning, and it's operational characteristics are "heavy" - the JVM is large and slow, particularly in low-memory situations.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Your therory is good.. However FF is not full of the holes IE is. + it dosnt run activeX. So... I don't see a problem. Plus there are updating it. unlike IE ever gets..
A renewed browser war is going to benefit everybody. Microsoft has sat on its ass for far, far too long and allowed IE to stagnate. That was arrogant on their part and now they have to play catch-up to the Mozilla/Firefox/Safari browsers. Regardless of which browser you prefer, real competition and innovation is a good thing and should be welcomed by everybody.
Jim Lynch
Tech Analyst and Community Manager
I'll agree with you. Mozilla is a bit on the heavy side for phone/PDA use. However, I just don't see why people expect that a _desktop_ browser should work on a Nokia Phone. I think a separate (or heavily cut down) rendering engine is a better idea, specialized exactly for small screens.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
You forget one thing M$ cannot under any circumstances let IE go from the OS. That is the entire reason why they are allowed to send out coppies of it right now with your new machine.
By Microsoft taking IE out of the deep depths of the OS all of a sudden you have an "external" browser. Sure the OS will benifit from security and a smaller foot print, but who will be able to say "it cannot be removed from the OS because with out it the system doesn't work"
That is why I think M$ is doomed to carry this monkey on their back and apparently after having it for the past 9 years they have no idea how to isolate it from the os, or just dont want to.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
I don't think that'll work anymore because there are just too many people using open-source browsers nowadays, including all Mac users.
Microsoft's enormous mistake was to drop IE for the Mac. Back in the days, when you complained to a webmaster about a webpage not rendering well on Linux, you'd get laughed at. I got even insulted once, about how i had to use a 'serious' browser. Now, when you complain about a page not rendering well on a Mac, webmasters take you seriously because Mac OS gets a lot more respect as a desktop OS.
While there are still web sites out there that don't render well outside of IE, there are a LOT less of them compared to three years ago.
If I were MS, I'd make a huge marketing campaign about a brand new browser, with a different name and all, with all sorts of new features, and make sure you provide a Mac version. If they were smart, they'd release a Linux version too, but god knows pigs will fly when that happens...
-DZM
It's a nice tool for documents of small or medium size, but the document format is a nightmare. Try changing the margins in Word 97, for example, and then reading the result in Word 2000. The margins are all messed up in many cases... :-(
If only they'd kept the document format simple and added a nice "review codes" feature like WordPerfect used to have...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
ASP.net,outlook web access, CRM, sharepoint, and pretty much all other MS web apps will not work on anything other than IE. Firefox activeX plug-in still does not get around this. Forcing Corp. users to stay on IE is a great way to keep people stuck on IE.
Actually it is a big deal. PNG provides many advantages over GIF for both designers and Web users. But because the dominant browser doesn't support PNG properly, even those people who don't use IE are saddled with its limitations.
That's one of the most pernicious effects of monopoly control - the weaknesses of a monopoly product become liabilities to everyone.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
But I thought that Microsoft got rid of all of the competition by illegal exercise of its monopoly power?
The good news is that innovation (including better security) are good reasons to switch from even heavily-entrenched products.
The bad news is that some people may have to admit that Microsoft isn't as guilty as they want it to be. IE beat Netscape for the simple reason that it sucked less. Sure, maybe being a "monopoly" helped, but that doesn't mean much when browsers were and are still given away for free (a trend which M$ didn't start).
If Firefox overtakes IE, I win. If IE gets better, I still win. If Netscape pulls out from under years of browsers not any better and usually worse and more bloaty than IE, I still win. I win, I win, I win. And, honestly, I don't care who else wins with me. It can be MS, or Apple, or the open source community. The point is that competition is still alive in the browser world, even if all of the things Netscape whined about were true.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Ad-supported does not equal free in my book. It costs my time and attention, and my monitor is cluttered enough as is. That goes for Eudora as well.
For the record, I use Safari, which boots and runs faster than Firefox in my experience and looks better, although on occasion does not render correctly. My only major wish is for mime-type behavior control. Of course, it's mac-only.
I tried Opera once and while I don't recall the details, I remember not being impressed with performance or stability. I just downloaded again to check it out. My initial impressions:
1) That banner is freaking enormous.
2) It does seem to be fast and rendering correctly, although not much faster.
3) The panel on the left is ugly and takes up too much space
So a casual inspection gives me no compelling reason to switch, and a couple rather obvioius reasons not to.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?