Lessons from the Browser Wars

An anonymous reader writes to mention a piece on the Harvard Business School site talking about Lessons from the Browser Wars; specifically, what can be learned about first-mover advantages and the upsurge in Firefox use? From the article: "As a tool for exploring how standards are set when new technologies hit the market, the browser wars exhibit many features we like to study: competition between two viable alternatives, rapidly improving technologies, the ability of firms to use strategic levers such as market power and channels of distribution, growth in demand leading to diffusion of the new technology through the population, and uncertainty. Thus, this is one example from which we can generalize lessons regarding the outcome of diffusion of innovation into a market."

Comments

rapidly improving technologies? eh

[T-Bone_142]

"rapidly improving technologies".... IE hasnt had a real update in years... only now its IE 7 in the beta stage.

Re:rapidly improving technologies? eh

[baadger]

Yes on both counts.

I'm really sick of people attacking IE. Sure, IE has always introduced alot of proprietary features, but the black fact is when IE6 came out back in 2001 it was the most powerful browser in existance on the Windows platform. If not for Firefox extensions or Opera's recent offerings it would, IMHO, still be so...sorry tabbed interfaces just don't cut it from a technical standpoint for me.

There are lots of little gems in IE. Microsoft introduced the XMLHttpRequest object and XML data islands. Mozilla have done *alot* for the actual browser as an application, but when was the last time Mozilla was bold and invented and introduced something new and exciting into actual (X)HTML rendering or ECMAScript(JavaScript)?

I'm all for standards from the W3C but some people do not like or are very nervous about the way XHTML2 for example is leading the web.

When the XMLHttpRequest JS interface was seen to be 'approved' in use by Google and given a nice buzzword, or just perhaps considered slightly useful, it was soon picked up by all the other major browsers in existance as an adhoc standard.

All i'm trying to say is, don't fear proprietary experimentation and mindlessly adopt *just* the standards. You may now resume hammering MS for not updating their web standards support in so long.

Re:rapidly improving technologies? eh

[hackstraw]

Actually, it didn't come from NCSA Mosaic. It came from Spyglass Mosaic - a completely different browser...

I don't know, but "About Internet Explorer..." for version 5.2 on the Mac says "Based on NCSA Mosaic(TM)".

And no. IE did to some degree change the browser environment, for the better? Can't say. IE when it came out sucked. Then it got better, became bundled with Windows, Netscape basically went out of business. Yes kids, they made a browser at one time. The browser. They were not a brand name and a "portal". When Netscape disappeared after 4.x, there was basically only IE, or at least that was enough for 95% marketshare or so. So, when IE was king, all of the websites thought it was cool to append to the bottom of their page "Designed for IE x.y. Best viewed on my computer and my monitor at 12832x13032" Then MS thought it was brilliant to completely tie IE into the OS with version 4 or so. Yes folks, we still want a web browser built into our desktop. Again, for people that don't remember, IE 4.0 was a layer between the background wallpaper and you (actually, I think IE took control of the wallpaper as well). Then MS started innovating. They brought us VB scripting, modified Java, modified Javascript, marquees, vb controls, oh and they totally ditched all of the standards and forgot to write and publish their own.

IE has been known to be buggy, not standards compliant, and a security nightmare. With Netscape gone, a slew of underground browsers popped up (no pun intended). Mozilla started in 96 or 97 from Netscape, but took a while and a complete rewrite from scratch to get decent. Mozilla ditched almost all of the Netscape code and modularized the browser. Gecko backend engine, many GUIs or even text front ends. Email and other modules as well. The KDE guys made KHTML, which was slow to start, but then Apple adopted OSS and used KHTML as their basis for WebCore or whatever they call it, and KHTML is the backend behind Safari, which I am using right now, and its the best web browser I've used to date. Apple submitted bug fixes and enhancements back to the KDE people, and both benefitted. Opera came to the party. AOL used a modified version of IE even though they bought Netscape at some time.

To make a long story short, Tim Berners Lee created the Web and things were portable and good. Netscape made an OK browser that ran on just about anything that had a network connection. MS came along and screwed up the web while others started with new browsers and standards were published and coded towards. MS is nolonger the standard anymore, I can almost 100% of the time view any website on just about any browser. So, we are almost back where we started. The scenic detour made the cab driver rich, but we are almost happily back home.

Just be better

[Crouty]

Screw Harvard.

Be better than the competition and make sure people learn that.

Simple as that.

Re:Just be better

[TeacherOfHeroes]

Be better than the competition and make sure people learn that. Simple as that.

Ohh...so thats why microsoft is so popular.

Okay, maybe this is actually too simplistic a view. I don't think that its unfair to say that both sides will claim to be better than the other. Microsoft claims to be better all the time, and advertises heavily to that effect. How does the average consumer tell the difference?

More importantly, in this case, the playing field isn't exactly level. Microsoft is able to include IE with windows, so Firefox (or any other browser) not only has to be better than IE, it has to be so much better that its worth the effort of switching and learning the new interface.

Re:Just be better

[TeacherOfHeroes]

Fine. You can explain to my grandparents why they shouldn't use IE anymore, if its so simple to get people to switch. They really truely did have trouble adjusting to Firefox from IE. You see, they didn't ever really learn how the thing worked, they just learned how to go through the motions of using it, and so even the change in the iconsets seemed to throw them for a bit.

"But usually it only takes a little push to send people over to the other side"

This would explain, then, why Apple has managed to capture most of the PC market with just the little push that their "Switch" ad campaign provided to people fed up with windows 98, and why the average home user is switching to Linux en masse thanks to a little prodding from a friend of a friend who uses it?

Theres the occasional person who defects from the standard set of applications, and the move to these alternatives is picking up steam, but I'd still say that Firefox is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to popularity. People will put up with a lot of inconveniences to avoid something new. The alternatives (If they're even aware that any exist) are unknown terrain, so bright and frightening, and it unnerves them. Will they break something, will they still know what they're doing?

Re:Just be better

[ooze]

Wrong. People are lazy. People are stupid. Microsoft decided for them what they use, by distributing IE with windows. Peope didn't have to think or to do anything. Microsoft used it's power to spare the people some thinking and some work in the short run. This strategy always works when you need to deal with lot's of people.

Re:Just be better

[JulesLt]

Agreed that people will generally put up with annoyance over change. Most people will struggle on with cheap unreliable cars than spend the extra up-front on a more reliable vehicle (or learn to do maintanance themselves).

It's also worth doing a search on the Economic Theory of Lemons.

In summary, traditional market theory presumes consumers are acting with perfect knowledge - thus competition will arrive at the best product / price point.

In reality, the majority of consumers act with less than perfect knowledge, making it hard for anyone to make a return of a genuinely better product, thus driving the quality of the market downwards.

The other problem with switching is that it only takes one site that doesn't work on Firefox or Opera or Safari to make someone decide to stick with the one that 'works'.

Lesson for what?

[ian_mackereth]

It's hard to imagine a similar situation in another industry.

Windows comes with IE pre-installed, so another browser has to be sought out, downloaded and installed to supplant it. Where else does this sort of edge apply?

It would be like buying a TV from a vendor with a huge market share which only has their affiliated station(s) pre-programmed into it, with a fairly complicated method of re-tuning being required to pick up other channels.

So, it's hard to see what valid lessons can be learned from such an unusual situation.

Re:Lesson for what?

[imaginaryelf]

Example from another industry? The Dish DVR v.s. Tivo is a good comparison.

About what I'd expect from a b-school analysis

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Semiliterate, buzzword-laden, and alternating restatements of the obvious with outright falsehoods. Yep.

web developers do what!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article states that web developers are prone to developing for the browser with the greatest market share (IE) over ones that do not. What a fallacy!

Personally, I test most of my web development on firefox and mozilla, due to it's superior debuging support. Only after I get a portion of script working in those browsers do I test in IE and make the appropriate fix (through javascript or conditional compilation) to get it to work for IE. IE seems to always be the browser that needs some sort of "special case senario" code to function properly, while the other browsers need little to no tweaks for cross browser compatibility. And when they do, it is usually a sign of bad scripting which is remedied accordingly. I can say that I have never needed to use a CSS hack. IE however tends to crave bad scripting, even requiring bad scripting in some cases.

After that, I test in Opera (as I find it to be the most unforgiving browser when it comes to quirks) to make sure everything is on the up and up, and fix accorindingly. Only then do I consider that section of script ready for production.

I try to test on macs as much as possible, but, lacking a mac, this becomes rather difficult. I DO test on them at least once or twice during and after development, just not as often. Changes made acordingly unless the issue is on IE mac 5, which I refuse to support (and if you're a web dev I'm sure you understand why).

Everyone I know does their code testing in something akin to this manner. The bottom line is, IE comes second to more standards compliant browsers.

All in all, I think this harvard cat needs to do a little more interviewing with web developers. If I could, I would develop with full standards complance only, and lets the devs at microsoft worry about my site not working in their browser. However, we're pretty far off form a perfect world no...?

Re:web developers do what!?

[Shelled]

"The article states that web developers are prone to developing for the browser with the greatest market share (IE) over ones that do not. What a fallacy! Personally, I test most of my web development on firefox and mozilla, due to it's superior debuging support."

You are a web developer, not all web developers. My employer, the largest broadcast corporation in the country, forbids web developers from installing Firefox. They do it anyway of course and check against the site where they can but are otherwise actively discouraged for optimizing for anything more than IE. BTW, did I mention it's an MS-only shop?

Netscape dropped the ball

[SmallFurryCreature]

Believe it or not but there was a time when IE was the second browser and all sites were optimized for Netscape instead. The proof of that is still visible today. Just look at IE browser indentification string.

Yes the mighty MS still pretends that IE is a Mozilla clone.

So what the fuck happened. Well a couple things. The easiest was that MS started to include IE by default even making it a core part of the OS (we are talking the era around the middle of 90's so this talk includes windows 3.1)

In those days when you signed up to an ISP it was not unusual to get a CD with browser software for you to install as they could not be certain you would already have a browser.

This made it much easier for netscape to "sell" its browser to ISP's to include on their installation CD (you most likely needed a bunch of other software as well not included by default with windows)

Because MS started to bundle the browser (and other network software) with the OS nowadays it is rare for an ISP to have an install CD.

This means that it is no longer possible for you to get different browser when you hook up to the net. Even if you know about other browsers and want one you will still use IE to download it.

But something else happened as well. Remember there was a time when every site was build around netscape and it was IE that had to pretend to be netscape.

So why was this followed by years of IE only sites?

Well netscape dropped the ball. Version 4 especially was a nightmare with bloat and bugs that made IE seem not all that bad after all. Or at least not bad enough for people to bother downloading a large install over a modem.

There was a long time when Netscape just wasn't worth it. Long enough for IE to take over. Not because it was that much better but it wasn't any worse either (well not at the time) so why should you download a replacement that is just as bad?

Some people say there is no similar market effect. I think there is. Car sound installations. While there is a high-tech market for after market sound systems for your car it is tiny compared to the pre-installed market.

For most of the standard cheap radio and speakers factory installed are apperantly good enough and the cost and time involved in upgrading to a product no matter how superior is just not worth it.

So does Firefox stand a chance.

Well perhaps.

After all a cheapo car radio doesn't kill you. No matter how much the boxes may distort your favorite music they do not allow anyone to drive off with your car.

IE on the other hand is the car equivelant of a start button in a convertible.

IF this insecurity ever becomes to much of a risk then in theory people themselves would look for ways to make their OS more secure.

Yeah right.

I mentioned cars for a reason. Check the history of safety belts. In all the seats of a car. The dangers of unrestrained kids/luggage/pets in an aciddent are well known (both to themselves and other passengers) yet people actually fight safety measures designed to save their lives.

So what change does Firefox have of being adopted because it might safe people from some software accidents?

When american car manufacturers refused to make secure cars did american car buyers enmass buy european/japanese cars instead?

No. Only when the fuel price became unbearable did this happen.

As always, money is the ultimate motivator. As long as IE doesn't cost people more then it costs them to install firefox (cost as in time, hazzle, having to think for a second) then IE will not be replaced.

Personally I switched from IE to opera for just this reason. Opera has the unique feature of being able to resume easily and cleanily from where it left off after a crash. IE cost me to much time by crashing just as I had found the site with free porn eh, the site with really usefull info. Opera saved me time.

Nothing to do with security. I knew enough to make IE secure. (This was back a few years whe

Just reminding people of Netscape

[Shohat]

With all due respect , Netscape had it's chance of getting a good % of the market(even with IE pre-installed) , but it was the bloated , buggy products (everything 4+) that really made it fail . Not everything !=MS is better .

Re:What did we all learn today?

[kfg]

Who invented the electric light bulb?

[ ]Warren De la Rue
[ ]Henricg Globel
[ ]Joseph Swann
[ ]Thomas Edison's PR machine

KFG

IE, Mosaic and percentages

[Gleemonex]

What I don't get is why Spyglass didn't sue MS for a percentage of their entire OS business when Microsoft claimed in the anti-trust case that IE is an essential part of the OS.

-Glee

Re:What's the payoff?

[makomk]

Since they are given away for free then I gather the primary way to make money off them, in IE's case for instance, is to set millions of peoples home pages to the page of Microsofts choice and make money off the advertising.

IE is only free if you've paid for a copy of Windows. The license for IE for Windows makes it quite clear that it's an add-on for Windows, and if you don't have Windows you aren't allowed to use it...

The real value is what always wins

[solarappleman]

Back at those days, Microsoft had put an unbeleivable effort in IE 4 (its codebase could be compared to all the windows at that time), and was a great success. It's impossible to say that IE 4 had overcome Netscape in every feature. But it was so innovative that they could not compete.

At that time most of all people needed EXPERIENCE. And IE had given so much power to web developers, as never before and later. (later they restricted some features, after security issues).

Now, when hand-crafted pages fade in front of information portals, people need easy use and security more, than experience. And IE still has to bear this burden of all supported features.

But not the IE issues is what pushes Firefox forward, but its own real value. Not that Firefox overcomes IE in every feature, but it is so innovative, that they cannot compete. For example if you discover firefox plugins, you never look back.

To go in pace, MS has to redesign IE heavily. Meanwhile, they did nothing in special in IE 7, which means that the share of happy Firefox users will continue to grow fast.