Netscape's dead. No one cares.

[d1abolic]

But they don't seem to understand that. They're suing MS. With estimated 95% of net users using IE, i don't think there are many people out there who miss Netscape.

 

[Elledan]

Netscape is dead. Long live Mozilla.

 

[Zim Hosein]

d1abolic, in the early days of browsing the net, I liked NS, this was back when I got my spanking new 286, but at the time MS IE kept coming out w/ newer releases on a faster basis and I never looked back. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RossMAN]

I liked Netscape when it was only 1.1, simple and fit onto a 1.44MB floppy disk.

 

[chibchakan]

Why do they even waste their time suing MS ?

 

[UofI]

I liked it in the old days... Unfortunatly Netscape didnt do a good job of releasing new versions. And when they did, minimal changes were made

 

[Rendus]

You have to realize, this is Netscape, owned by AOL, suing Microsoft. The AOL part is signifigant.

 

[Elledan]

<< Why do they even waste their time suing MS ? >>

For the same reason everyone else in the US sues everybody and their dog: money.

 

[Nemesis77]

Why do they sue? It's simple. Courts have found that MS has abused their monopoly. Based on that court-ruling, AOL sues MS because their abuse of their monopoly killed Netscape. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Think about it: MS starts bundling IE with Windows and threatens to increase OEM license-costs for any OEM that includes Netscape in their computer. Netscapes market-share plummets from 70+% to about 20%. And of course, there are those "Let's cut Netscapes air-supply" memos. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[d1abolic]

It's funny how little is up to the actual users. I mean, at one point in time, almost 3/4 of internet users were using Netscape. Nothing really happened, to the browser itself, it was MS that killed if off. Funny thing is, those who want Netscape, can still use it - it works as good as ever. But why doesn't anyone?

 

[Insane3D]

Netscrape? Ohhhhh yeah...I think I remember that...

 

[Tsaico]

It's all about opera...

 

[woodly6]

Whats Netscape?

 

[Elledan]

<< It's all about opera... >>

I have both Opera 5.12 and 6.0 installed, but I haven't used either for a while. Most annoying thing about 6.0 is that you can either disable no or all pop-ups, whereas Mozilla offers you the option to disable no pop-ups or only those which open when loading or leaving a page. Since you don't click that often by accident on a link which launches a pop-up window, I find that to be far more logical.

It was one of the reasons why I abandoned Opera 6.0 after a couple of days.

 

[Mitzi]

I care!

What?s with all the Netscape bashing? Its free piece of software isn't it - no one gets forced to use it. I still use it under Linux and I bet lots of people around here do.

Sure, for Windows there are much better alternatives IE5.5 and Opera spring to mind. Under Linux I think it?s an excellent bit of software (well ok, it is kinda' bloated).

I'm going to get flamed for this aren?t I? :frown: *Mitzi puts on flame retardant suit *

Edit: Cannot spell!

 

[tcsenter]

<< Think about it: MS starts bundling IE with Windows and threatens to increase OEM license-costs for any OEM that includes Netscape in their computer. Netscapes market-share plummets from 70+% to about 20%. And of course, there are those "Let's cut Netscapes air-supply" memos. It doesn't get any clearer than that. >>

Let's not forget about the auto makers "bundling" cup holders with their new vehicles, making it harder for companies who made cup holders to compete. Intel, SIS, and VIA "bundling" video, audio, and LAN into their chipsets, that is hurting a lot of VGA, audio, and LAN chip/card makers. Oh yeah, lest we forget things like L2 cache being "bundled" with CPUs nowadays, virtually killing the market for on-board cache chips for companies like NEC, or the "bundling" of keyboard and IRQ controllers into chipsets, which used to be seperate chips made by different companies. lol!

The "bundling" argument is a fraud. Every industry does it, its called "improving the product" by "adding features or function". What's next, Microsoft being accused of "bundling" system utilities (defrag or backup) with its OS, hurting third-party utility makers like Symantec (Norton Utilities) or Veritas?

Netscape lost because it had the inferior product, period, and its business model was a failure. Who wants to pay $30 or $40 for a web browser?

Stove manufacturers "bundling" timers and clocks with their stoves, auto makers "bundling" tire jacks with their cars, CPU manufacturers "bundling" heatsinks and fans with their processors, milk producers "bundling" vitamins with milk...there are a million examples.

 

[technogeeky]

Netscape is the biggest pain in the a$$ when designing. It's overly strict and uselessly repressive of certian code which is really helpful with IE.

*sigh*

-tg

 

[Elledan]

<< Netscape is the biggest pain in the a$$ when designing. It's overly strict and uselessly repressive of certian code which is really helpful with IE.

*sigh*

-tg >>

You like proprietary 'standards'?

The W3C standards are not 'overly strict'.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Let's not forget about the auto makers "bundling" cup holders with their new vehicles, making it harder for companies who made cup holders to compete. Intel, SIS, and VIA "bundling" video, audio, and LAN into their chipsets, that is hurting a lot of VGA, audio, and LAN chip/card makers. Oh yeah, lest we forget things like L2 cache being "bundled" with CPUs nowadays, virtually killing the market for on-board cache chips for companies like NEC, or the "bundling" of keyboard and IRQ controllers into chipsets, which used to be seperate chips made by different companies. lol! >>



Well, for starters they don't have monopoly in their respective markets, so they can't abuse their monopoly (MS has, it has been proven over and over again. Monopolies are not allowed to do certain things that non-monopoly companies could do). And web-browser is NOT required software in an OS. Add-on L2-cache is not a viable market. Ford is not competing against aftet-market cupholder-manufacturers. LAN-chip makers don't really suffer when MoBo-makers bundle LAN, because they are the one who supply those chips, so they benefit. Standalone IRQ-controllers are not a viable market

To continue on your example: heatsinks bundled with CPU's are not made by the CPU-manufacturer, heatsink manufacturer makes them, so they benefit. Same goes with most of the things you listed (car-jacks and the like).

Sorry, you are wrong. And courts think you are wrong. Top experts of the field testified on the case, and after months of study, Judge Jackson AND the appeals court decided that MS has broken the law. Are you trying to say that YOU know more that all those antitrust experts did? Give me a break!

 

[Mears]

tcsenter, I'm going to have to disagree with you. You said that Netscape died off becuase it was an inferior product. The way I see it is, the majority of computer users just use whatever browser comes with their computer. They probably never really even thing twice about switching and most probably never even update to newer versions.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Well, for starters they don't have monopoly in their respective markets, so they can't abuse their monopoly (MS has, it has been proven over and over again. Monopolies are not allowed to do certain things that non-monopoly companies could do). >>

Right, Microsoft's "bundling" would have been perfectly acceptable had it been a competitor doing the bundling. So, there is nothing wrong with "bundling" in and of itself. We just have a double standard if you're a company that makes products which are so successful that you become a "monopoly".

<< And web-browser is NOT required software in an OS. >>

Neither is defrag or backup utilities, they can be supplied by third-party developers. Web browser software IS required software for those purchasing computers to browse the web.

<< Add-on L2-cache is not a viable market. >>

No, not since L2 cache went on-die. Before then, it was as "viable" and competitive as any other market with more than a half dozen IC manufacturers producing L2 cache chips. Had NEC decided to make ONLY L2 cache chips, it would be in Netscape's shoes right now. Netscape's business model failed, because it ONLY had browsers and nothing else.

<< Ford is not competing against aftet-market cupholder-manufacturers. >>

Huh? By that rationale, then neither was Microsoft competing against Netscape. Ford is competing against after-market cupholder makers for the in-vehicle CUPHOLDER market, just as Microsoft was competing against Netscape for the BROWSER market. Microsoft had 50 other products, Netscape had none.

<< LAN-chip makers don't really suffer when MoBo-makers bundle LAN, because they are the one who supply those chips, so they benefit. >>

Intel, VIA, SIS, and ALI all have their OWN integrated LAN. It is a manufacturing option to use a third-party LAN chip. I noticed how you conveniently skipped those points you have no defense to, like video integration.

<< Standalone IRQ-controllers are not a viable market >>

lol! Not since they became "bundled" with the chipsets. Before then, they were as "viable" and competitive as any other market, with a half-dozen IC manufacturers making keyboard and IRQ controller ICs. Eventually, the Super or Giga I/O controllers will become part of the chipset. Evil.

<< To continue on your example: heatsinks bundled with CPU's are not made by the CPU-manufacturer, heatsink manufacturer makes them, so they benefit. Same goes with most of the things you listed (car-jacks and the like). >>

It doesn't matter. Intel and AMD chose only ONE supplier for their HSF, they don't buy from every company in the market, and if they bundle HSF with their CPUs, that makes it difficult for all the other suppliers to compete.

Same with jacks, the same company makes jacks for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. By "bundling" jacks with their vehicles, what of the 20 other after-market companies who make jacks to go into the trunk of vehicles for road-side service?

<< Sorry, you are wrong. And courts think you are wrong. Top experts of the field testified on the case, and after months of study, Judge Jackson AND the appeals court decided that MS has broken the law. Are you trying to say that YOU know more that all those antitrust experts did? Give me a break! >>

Just as many "top experts of the field" also testified against the Justice Department's position, and Judge Jackson was slammed by the US Court of Appeals for his blatant anti-Microsoft bias and improper statements to the media. But, I guess you're saying that courts are always right, eh? I'll have to note that next time I hear you crying about some court decision.

<< You said that Netscape died off becuase it was an inferior product. The way I see it is, the majority of computer users just use whatever browser comes with their computer. They probably never really even thing twice about switching and most probably never even update to newer versions. >>

You have a point there. I was eluding to the fact that I was in love with Netscape @ 3.0 Gold (the pinnacle of Netscape's success) and hated IE 3.02, but every version of Netscape since seemed to get progressively worse WRT freezing or crashing, while IE just seemed to get progressively better. So, Netscape's demise correlates perfectly with it producing a crappy product.

 

[jjones]

<< Who wants to pay $30 or $40 for a web browser? >>


not me and i'm very glad MS started bundling IE with Windows. an internet browser should have been standard issue with the purchase of a computer. Netscape could have done the same as MS but unfortunately, that was the only product they had so if they gave it away, where would their real income come from? IMHO, they had a very short-sighted business model and lost out to MS. too bad but i'm not shedding any tears about it.

 

[tcsenter]

<< IMHO, they had a very short-sighted business model and lost out to MS. too bad but i'm not shedding any tears about it. >>

Exactly. If I had built an entire company around keyboard controller IC's, and I went bankrupt because chipset makers began integrating the keyboard controller, I should sue them because I had an extremely narrow and limited business model? No.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Wasn't IE upto version 3.02 Netscape reskinned? It seems to me IE code was discovered and most of it was indeed Netscapes own browser.

Ahh, it most likely was. M$ is a bunch of theives. Hell they could not even make DOS themselves when they started out, they had to steal the code also.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< Well, for starters they don't have monopoly in their respective markets, so they can't abuse their monopoly (MS has, it has been proven over and over again. Monopolies are not allowed to do certain things that non-monopoly companies could do). >>

Right, Microsoft's "bundling" would have been perfectly acceptable had it been a competitor doing the bundling. So, there is nothing wrong with "bundling" in and of itself. We just have a double standard if you're a company that makes products which are so successful that you become a "monopoly". >>



If you use your monopoly of one business to gain unfair advantage on another business, then yes, it is unfair abuse of your monopoly power. MS has monopoly of the OS-business, and they used that monopoly to gain dominant position in the web-browser business. They also exploited OEM's dependancy on MS by threatening to increase their prices if they include Netscape in their computers. That is illegal. It doesn't get any clearer than that! Is MS wasn't an monopoyyl, then that action might be acceptable. But since MS IS a monopoly, that is considered to be unfair abuse of that monpoly to gain access to other fields of business.

Do I need to draw you a picture or do you understand now?



<< Web browser software IS required software for those purchasing computers to browse the web. >>



Yes, web-browser (an application) is required to browse the web. But it's an application, it's not needed by the OS. The reason MS bundled it with their OS was to leverage their monolopy in the OS-business to gain access to ohter businesses. And that is (again) illegal.



<< Ford is not competing against aftet-market cupholder-manufacturers. >>

Huh? By that rationale, then neither was Microsoft competing against Netscape.[/i] >>



MS was competing against Netscape. MS wanted to dominate browser-market, and the quickest and easiest way to do that was to leverage their monopoly on the OS business. And that is illegal.



<< Ford is competing against after-market cupholder makers for the in-vehicle CUPHOLDER market, just as Microsoft was competing against Netscape for the BROWSER market >>



Ford does not manufacture cupholders. Their standard cupholders are propably made by one of the other cupholder-manufacturers. And Ford isn't leveraging their (non-existant) monopoly of automobile-business to gain market-share for Ford-branded cupholders. No law is broken.



<< LAN-chip makers don't really suffer when MoBo-makers bundle LAN, because they are the one who supply those chips, so they benefit. >>

Intel, VIA, SIS, and ALI all have their OWN integrated LAN. It is a manufacturing option to use a third-party LAN chip. I noticed how you conveniently skipped those points you have no defense to, like video integration.[/i] >>



None of the LAN-chip manufacturers have a monopoly. None of the integrated video manufacturers have a monopoly. They are not leveraging their existing monopoly to gain markets in other business. No law is broken.



<< To continue on your example: heatsinks bundled with CPU's are not made by the CPU-manufacturer, heatsink manufacturer makes them, so they benefit. Same goes with most of the things you listed (car-jacks and the like). >>

It doesn't matter. Intel and AMD chose only ONE supplier for their HSF, they don't buy from every company in the market, and if they bundle HSF with their CPUs, that makes it difficult for all the other suppliers to compete.[/i] >>



Neither Intel or AMD have a monopoly. None of the heatsink-manufacturer has a monopoly. It's NOT difficult to buy a CPU without heatsink, so you can easily buy a heatsink that you prefer. No law is broken.



<< Same with jacks, the same company makes jacks for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. By "bundling" jacks with their vehicles, what of the 20 other after-market companies who make jacks to go into the trunk of vehicles for road-side service? >>



None of the car-manufacturers have a monopoly. They have no monopoly to leverage to help them gain market-share in the car-jack business. No law is broken.

I could go on and on, but I guess you are starting to get the picture.