Slashdot Mirror
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."
"rapidly improving technologies".... IE hasnt had a real update in years... only now its IE 7 in the beta stage.
"In Soviet America, Passport Stamps You!"
Be better than the competition and make sure people learn that.
Simple as that.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
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.
Semiliterate, buzzword-laden, and alternating restatements of the obvious with outright falsehoods. Yep.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Navigator v3 and 4 were not that great compared to IE v3 and 4.
Also, after around v4.5, Netscape didn't release a new version of the browser for about two or three years, while IE's development progressed in spades in comparison. They could have at least done some parallel development with the 4.5 code base to release 5.0 while waiting on the Mozilla team.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
While I've been trying to pry myself away from IE and meander over to Firefox, I've encountered a few bugs (quriks?) with FF in terms of how it handles fonts.
click here for jpeg explanation.
Is this because IE renders the page incorrectly? Firefox is on the left, IE is on the right. The only font settings I've changed has been increasing point size via the mouse wheel (on both browsers) 3-4 clicks. I would hate to have to change my display resolution just to make it look right (using a 19" CRT with 1280x1024).
IMO, IE just looks better to me, comparitively speaking. The way the font(s) are being displayed in FF makes for a terrible browsing experience to me - large text is extremely, overly large, while regular text is small & almost unreadable on my 1280x1024 screen (see screenshot).
Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated, I figured you slashgeeks could help me, cause I'm stumped. No, this isn't a troll, it's a legitimate question. I'd love to be able to use Firefox, but I'd want the text to be displayed *exactly the same* as it is in IE, and it would be amazing.
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...?
I've often wondered what the business model for browsers is. 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. I can only assume that the amount of money they make from this advertising exceeds the cost of maintaining the browers tech etc or there is an expectation of a large future return.
I figure that MS must be losing out cash wise in the short term. I can't see advertising revenues from their home page being too much in excess of their development costs and I would figure that advertisers would be very weary of taking their site stats for granted. Just because they have millions visiting one of their sites doesn't mean the visitors actually pay any attention to what's on there as I imagine most arrive there because they simply don't know how to set their home page and immediately move on to another site.
Having the number 1 browser has also hit their brand extremely hard, all of the security holes associated with IE taint their brand image across the board. Sure, windows would still be known for its security issues if IE had never been around but I feel that IE's security problems has seriously compounded the bad image factor. Unless Microsoft is making serious money from IE, or knows they will in the future, I reckon they'd be better of dumping it and leaving the job to Firefox and Opera etc. Is it really that valuable to them that when a computer gets a virus/hacked the finger is often pointed at IE and Microsoft on the whole?
ogglelog
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
For example, replacing "first mover" by "new regime" and "second mover" by "insurgency":
"What is interesting are the lessons we can learn about how a fast [insurgency] can upset the normally strong barriers to entry that a [new regime's] advantage in a [country] can create. In short, the big lesson learned is that a window of opportunity exists for a [insurgency] to challenge a [new regime] in this setting early on when [democracy] has not yet diffused through the entire population - the [insurgency] can try to influence new users rather than get the small [democratic] base to switch over.
The [insurgency] has to have some sort of asymmetric advantage, such as [suicide bombings], in order to slow the build-up of network effects around the first mover and ensure that the [insurgency]'s product begins to build up a critical mass."
BTW this edited version could be illegal here (plan for a terrorist attack), but f**k it, IANAT.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Who invented the electric light bulb?
[ ]Warren De la Rue
[ ]Henricg Globel
[ ]Joseph Swann
[ ]Thomas Edison's PR machine
KFG
Not that the article didn't sound all analysis-y and everything, but I think they missed the really important stuff.
I think Netscape ultimately died partly of self-inflicted wounds, and was partly the victim of Microsoft's monopoly abuse.
Clayton M. Christensen (ironically also of Harvard) foresaw the former about a decade ago in The Innovator's Dilemma. The demand curve for browsers is shallower than the supply curve because once the browser implements the standards, there is only so much more room for it to add value. Pretty soon it ends up oversupplying features that are less and less important to fewer and fewer people; the formerly underpowered latecomer catches up -- not with the other product (it arguably never will), but with the market's demand. No matter what the first-mover does at that point, it's just more oversupply. The latecomer stumbles onto some attribute that nobody originally thought was important (integration into the OS?) which the first-mover cannot match, and suddenly the first-mover's former advantage turns into a detriment.
Near its zenith, Netscape's best possible outcome was probably to license its browser to Microsoft, let it remain the standard, and get the advantage of Microsoft's OS monopoly. However, Microsoft's hubris, abetted by Netscape's constant attacks, precluded any possibility of cooperation. Netscape's best remaining alternative was probably to ignore Microsoft completely, resist the temptation to rewrite (which also killed competitors to Word), and use their resources to keep innovating in other ways. I think Christensen would have suggested that Netscape spin off as many new ideas a possible, and for the core company to concentrate on maintaining its core product.
Sadly, this pattern repeats over and over. I hope Java doesn't become the next high-profile victim.
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.
-GleeMany a true word hath been spoken in jest -- mod funny posts "Informative".
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
...was compliments of Tantek Çelik, standards evangelist, and main designer of the Tasman rendering engine which drove IE for Mac. In digging for his history with the project, I note a few things:
- Daring Fireball's archived recap of the history of IE for Mac leading up to its cancellation,
- A blog entry describing how after Tantek was finished with IE for Mac, Microsoft moved him over to
...WebTV (?!),
- An entry on the IE Blog where it looks like Microsoft is advertising for various open positions, and many people are responding with mixed emotions.
I also considered throwing in a link to Tantek's Box Model Hack (well! I guess I did after all!).As for TFA... gah. Don't get me started on TFA. It doesn't mention IE for Mac at all (perhaps the Publications Coordinator who wrote TFA never heard of it?) and makes some innocent and half-assed assumptions about Web Standards—mostly their lack of existence.
And the marginalization of other browsers? Her argument basically runs that other browsers don't stand a chance against IE's installed base, while conveniently overlooking the fact that IE itself was once an "other" browser and citing ways that IE got the leg-up on Netscape without ever noting that those other browsers are doing the same things to IE. The argument basically runs "Yes, things changed in the past, but things will remain as they are now because they're the way they are now." Buh?
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
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.
Not the case in the USA, which accounts for 1/4 of all automobile and truck sales worldwide. Every vehicle sold comes with a stereo provided by and branded by the car maker. "Premium" stereo options offered by the factory or dealer are also branded (or re-branded) by the car maker, or in some rare cases, co-branded by the car maker and the actual stereo maker. Junkyards and aftermarket stereo installers will typically resell the used "factory" stereos for $5 or less, because they are such garbage.
In some cases (the 96-00 Taurus comes to mind) the stereo is not only branded, but integrated into the dashboard so that replacing it requires major surgery on interior of the car. Aftermarket kits are generally availiable for these cars to rearrange the dashboard to accommodate an aftermarket stereo with a minimum of fuss, though.
The grandparent's analogy is quite valid.
Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
Unfortunately, your friends at Black's Photography don't support Camino, the OS X native rewrite of Firefox from our intrepid friends at Mozilla.org
Sorry, but I don't buy that Netscape 4's problems were caused by Microsoft. I abandoned Netscape when version 4 came out, and I don't use Windows. IE on the Mac had better standards support, was faster than Netscape, and was less buggy.
Netscape decided to ignore standards and add more and more proprietary hacks. For instance, they didn't want to support CSS at all--they had their own proprietary JavaScript Style Sheets, and when they finally implemented CSS in Navigator 4 it was by translating it to JSSS, so if you turned off JavaScript all your CSS broke. They didn't want to support standard tables either.
Meanwhile, the Navigator code base was becoming a mess, partly because of the focus on adding more and more proprietary NSHTML and JavaScript hacks. When it became clear that web developers weren't interested in building Netscape-only sites, it was too late to go back and undo the damage and implement CSS and tables properly.
They also took the kitchen sink approach of insisting that everyone who wanted a Netscape browser also wanted a Netscape mail reader, news reader, IRC client, and so on. That might have made sense on Linux, but on the Mac there were much better alternatives everyone used (NewsWatcher, Eudora), so nobody wanted the bloat of Netscape. Microsoft did the right thing and made their browser just a browser, and offered separate news reader and IRC clients. (Which nobody wanted, so they were eventually dropped. Anyone even remember Microsoft News?)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I get a bit annoyed by the incessant criticism of Netscape 4.x nowadays. It certainly wasn't perfect...it WAS a bit bigger and slower than Netscape 3.x, and its user interface seemed contrived, but it really was the best browser around back in its day. Netscape 4.x was one of the first browsers to support dynamic HTML features or any form of CSS. Sure, the support is pretty rudimentary now, but it was pretty groundbreaking back in '97. Furthermore, it was a saint compared to Internet Explorer 4.0. Thanks in part to web integration, THAT had a tendency to slow down the entire system by its mere presence, crash and bring the entire OS down with it, and in terms of rendering capability, it was no better. It was so problematic, assertions that it rendered other browsers unusable and required a reformat to remove were only typical of accounts at the time. The only big problem was that Netscape 4.x stayed viable for far longer than it should have or was originally intended to be. Thanks to badly-maintained code that needed to be rewritten, false development starts, and bureaucracy, the next usable version (6.1/6.2) didn't come out for about four years later. Even then, I was using Netscape 4.x sporadically myself well into 2003! Internet Explorer 4.0, meanwhile, was pushed aside by newer versions far sooner and its deficiencies masked over with the passage of time. It wasn't until Mozilla Firefox came around several years after THAT that they began to give serious attention to improving the user interface and give the browser a badly needed marketing boost.
Not at all. My point was that I don't think Opera is trying to actively compete for market share like Mozilla and Microsoft are (except possibly in their mobile phone browser). They're content to be #3 (4?) and still make money.
Or more realistically, an FF extension to change the User-agent string. My bank (Föreningssparbanken) used to lock me out before, but with an extension that was quickly fixed. Then they had a period of putting up a warning instead ("We can not guarantee the security of ..." -- yeah right..) but now it's no problem. They even keep track of new versions and tell users they might want to upgrade, at least for Opera.