tcsenter,thanks for posting that, I had almost lost interest in the thread when I got to that item. I hadn't seen it before, thanks again.
<< 1. MS has a monopoly in the OS market. >>
True.
<< 2. OEM's are dependant on MS and on their Windows-licenses. >>
True, if they want Windows licenses. There is Linux, Sun, Apple, and a few others. Nobody is forcing them to be in the Windows business.
<< 3. MS wanted to control the Internet Browser-market >>
Every company wants their product to dominate its respective market. Its called "business". I cannot think of any business who wants to have the lowest market share, can you?
<< 4. Easiest and quickest way to achieve that was to "leverage windows" (as said on internal MS memo). >>
True.
<< 5. MS then proceeded to bundle their browser on their OS (which, if you remember, has a monopoly) >>
True.
<< 6. They also blackmailed OEM's to not include Netscape in their computers >>
Remember Apple, Linux, Sun, etc? Nobody is forced to go into the Windows business.
<< 7. As a result, Netscapes market-share crashed from 70+% to about 20% in very short period of time >>
Ah, there's the rub. Netscapes market-share crash also correlates nicely with their browser becoming increasingly buggy ever since version 3.0. Netscape had the market share advantage, and lost it because consumers liked IE just as well if not better. You CANNOT say consumers didn't have a choice, or that consumers didn't know, because Netscape had a clear advantage in the browser market at one time. Its up to Netscape to convince consumers they are better off using Netscape. They failed. Its not Microsoft's obligation to do Netscape's marketing for them.
<< 8. Netscapes "air-supply" (as said on MS-memo) was cut. >>
True, but not necessarily because of Microsoft's "bundling". Netscape failed to keep their 75% browser market share because they failed to convince consumers they were better off using Netscape than IE.
<< it has everything to do with your post. who are developers designing their web sites around? IE of course. why? because MS saw to it that their browser was distributed. MS is not creating the web sites, developers are. >>
And that is WRONG! Those developers should adhere to the W3C-standard! Why do they tie themselves on ONE platform? Why don't they use the standard that let's EVERYONE access that information? If they design around IE, then we WILL have Internet that is onle accessible with IE on MS-OS! And that is NOT a good thing!!!
Part of the reason might be Frontpage. It makes by default IE-compatible code, but other browser have problems with it.
<< That's what MS did with IE. NEtscape and IE didn't have level playing-field, one was installed by default on 90+% of world PC's, other was not. >>
After this post i'm out of this discussion. I have absolutely no sympathy for a company that had every advantage going in, such as Netscape, and then losing it to a competitor who made use of its strengths. The playing field was not level when MS went into the business; Netscape had the market. Netscape had every chance to do whatever they needed to compete in the forthcoming browsers wars but they did not take advantage of their strength. They lost because of wrong business decisions and then they cried, "Foul, unfair advantage!". Netscape lost and they deserved to lose.
<< True, if they want Windows licenses. There is Linux, Sun, Apple, and a few others. Nobody is forcing them to be in the Windows business. >>
In that case they kiss goodbye to about 95% of their business. I practice, those OEMs need Windows-licenses, and MS knows it.
<< Those developers should adhere to the W3C-standard! >>
ROFLMAO! you must be kidding right? why should we adhere to the hobbled W3C standard?
edit: no need to answer my question; as i said, i'm out of this discussion. just know that from this developer, i have very little respect for the W3C standards or the organization itself.
hmmmmmm, didn't think I was that far out of the main stream, but I still use Netscape 4.77 and prefer it over IE or the newer versions of NS. For me it seems a cleaner and more manageable browser then IE
<< After this post i'm out of this discussion. I have absolutely no sympathy for a company that had every advantage going in, such as Netscape, and then losing it to a competitor who made use of its strengths. The playing field was not level when MS went into the business; Netscape had the market. Netscape had every chance to do whatever they needed to compete in the forthcoming browsers wars but they did not take advantage of their strength. They lost because of wrong business decisions and then they cried, "Foul, unfair advantage!". Netscape lost and they deserved to lose. >>
No, no and no. while Netscape was the leading company in the browser-market, it did NOT control the platform, MS did. When MS bundled IE with Windows, they took advantage of their monopoly. And that is known as "abuse of monopoly" and it's illegal. There really was very little Netscape could do to compete against that.
The antitrust-law is there to ensure that the capitalistic-marketplace works. It doesn't work in this case. MS can just steamroll right over any opposition, thanks to their control of the platform.
<< ROFLMAO! you must be kidding right? why should we adhere to the hobbled W3C standard? >>
Sheesh... If you design for IE, you give MS way too much power! If people do that, it's not far-fethed that in the future you can only access the internet with MS-Browser on MS-OS! Using the open standards EVERYBODY can access that information, regardless of the browser/OS they use! Is that what you want? It would sound awfully alot like communist China, only in this case you had for-profit corporation in control.
<< There really was very little Netscape could do to compete against that. >>
This was not an issue of penetrating a Microsoft controlled market, it was about hanging on to a superior market share. No company LOSES a far superior market share other than due to its own ineptness, period.
Business and Marketing 101: If you've got the upper hand, the onus is on you to keep it. MS didn't control the platform to the exclusion of Netscape, as if Netscape wouldn't run on it. Netscape failed to successfully make their pitch to consumers, that's the bottom line. Hell, even old Netscape fans like myself no longer use Netscape, and that's not Microsoft's doing. If the majority of people who not only knew of Netscape but PREFERRED it no longer do, that says volumes about Netscape's product, not its inability to 'compete'.
<< Netscape had every chance to do whatever they needed to compete in the forthcoming browsers wars but they did not take advantage of their strength. They lost because of wrong business decisions and then they cried, "Foul, unfair advantage!". Netscape lost and they deserved to lose. >>
Uh uh, we all know how 'fair' MSFT is when doing business. They've been found guilty of illegal business practices. This means that no competitor of MSFT had a fair chance to compete, so they lost.
MSFT cheated and won.
<<
<< There really was very little Netscape could do to compete against that. >>
This was not an issue of penetrating a Microsoft controlled market, it was about hanging on to a superior market share. No company LOSES a far superior market share other than due to its own ineptness, period. >>
you just don't get it do you? How exactly can you compete when you competitor saturates over 90% of your market by leveraging their monopoly? How can you compete when your competitor denies the leading distributors (OEM's) from distributing your product? How can you compete when your competitor can use the huge profits it gets from it monopoly and pour 100 times more money in marketing and developing their product?
<< Business and Marketing 101: If you've got the upper hand, the onus is on you to keep it. >>
But if that upper hand is your monopoly and you leverage that monopoly to push your other product, then you are breaking the law. Plain and simple.
<< MS didn't control the platform to the exclusion of Netscape, as if Netscape wouldn't run on it. >>
Are you sure? MS has done that before with Win3.1 and DR-DOS. There are alot of ways how MS can use their control of the platform to their benefit. Besides crippling competitor (I don't know that did they do that, but there has been comment in IE code that ridiculed Netscape and their developers) you can make sure that your products simply runs better. For example, you can pre-load pieces of your application in to memory at boot-time so it would seem that your application loads faster than competitors. MS wouldn't do that would it? Well, they did already!
EDIT: Read this. It will give you some insight to the issue.
<<
<< 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'. >>
No, I like standards that are intuitive and not unintelligable.
HTML should be extremly easy. Some of the restrictions that Netscape adds (transparency support issues) are worthless.
-tg
Nemesis77,
Your points seem all valid to me, but some people just won't understand the argument.
They wrongfully believe that capitalism means Adam Smith's so-called "invisible hand" leads to the most competitive, efficient market. And that regulation is evil, and the marketplace always takes care of itself.
Just face it, some people would rather just bend over and take it from the man quietly, as long as it comes preinstalled with product activation.
Your points seem all valid to me, but some people just won't understand the argument.
They wrongfully believe that capitalism means Adam Smith's so-called "invisible hand" leads to the most competitive, efficient market. And that regulation is evil, and the marketplace always takes care of itself.
Just face it, some people would rather just bend over and take it from the man quietly, as long as it comes preinstalled with product activation.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
I used to be a diehard Netscape user, not from any anti MS bias, rather because I thought Navigator was a better product. The little group I was working with then doing a Novell to NT migration used to have fun but heated discussions about the merits of Netscape vs IE 4.0. To me IE 4.0 seemed more like a virus than a browser with all the nonsense it did to your system with the active desktop stuff. Then came Communicator 4.0. While MS released 4.01 sp1 and 2 which made it easy to avoid the active desktop stuff meanwhile Communicator 4.0 would give me protection faults constantly. Finally fed up with this I tried IE 4.01. After using it a few weeks I never looked back at Netscape. I suspect I am not alone in this experience.
those idiots at netscape can't even make a search engine work properly. i'm using the netscape.com search engine (using IE, it's for a search engine results project) and when you click the "Next" link for the next set of results it will randomly do 1 of 2 things:
1) take you to the next set of results
2) take you to google results
I thought I was going crazy but it happened 3 separate times when I was paying attention to see if this would happen. This is just completely retarded incompetance. Why can't netscape do the simplest things correctly?? Down with them!!
1) take you to the next set of results
2) take you to google results
I thought I was going crazy but it happened 3 separate times when I was paying attention to see if this would happen. This is just completely retarded incompetance. Why can't netscape do the simplest things correctly?? Down with them!!
Netscape's products were shoddy and slow, plain and simple. That's why I went and stayed with IE. Had MS not abused it's other monopolies it would still have won out eventually, assuming Netscape stuff deteriorated as it has.
Then when AOL purchased Netscape I knew I'd never touch another NS product and I haven't.
Then when AOL purchased Netscape I knew I'd never touch another NS product and I haven't.
NetScape sucked arse even before they were taken over by AOL. Then AOL managed to increase their degree of sucknitude, if such a thing is possible.
<< you just don't get it do you? How exactly can you compete when you competitor saturates over 90% of your market by leveraging their monopoly? How can you compete when your competitor denies the leading distributors (OEM's) from distributing your product? How can you compete when your competitor can use the huge profits it gets from it monopoly and pour 100 times more money in marketing and developing their product? >>
If you have an inferior or even an equally comparable product, you're not. Again, this was not about Netscape attempting to break-in to a Microsoft dominated market, it was the OPPOSITE - Microsoft attempting to break-in to a Netscape dominated market that had consumer acceptance! Netscape had raised a few billion dollars at one point, yet I don't ever recall seeing a television or magazine ad for Netscape.
Netscape failed to convince the market it had the superior product and that it was worth the download (or $10 for CD) for private individuals or the $30 for corporate users. Competition doesn't mean "two or more equals" in the marketplace. Competition is two or more companies VYING for marketshare. Competition means convincing consumers you have the better product and it is worth the asking price! If one fails to convince consumers its product is worth the asking price, it means the company's product or business model FAILED.
I get it just fine, and more people are gravitating to my position from yours every day. Three years ago, this forum and others like it would have been replete with Microsoft haters out-numbering me 10 to 1. I know, I've seen it. Today, this isn't so. You don't have to like the fact that Microsoft has the better product, and it may make you feel awful to admit that Netscape's business model was a failure, but some day you'll have to admit it like the rest of us.
Its not "illegal" to convince consumers your product is just as good as the competitions and costs less.
<< But if that upper hand is your monopoly and you leverage that monopoly to push your other product, then you are breaking the law. Plain and simple. >>
Microsoft didn't have the upper hand in the browser market, Netscape did. It is impossible for a company to go from 85% market share to 10% without a fair amount of ineptness, no matter the stature of its competitor.
<< Are you sure? MS has done that before with Win3.1 and DR-DOS. There are alot of ways how MS can use their control of the platform to their benefit. Besides crippling competitor (I don't know that did they do that, but there has been comment in IE code that ridiculed Netscape and their developers) you can make sure that your products simply runs better. For example, you can pre-load pieces of your application in to memory at boot-time so it would seem that your application loads faster than competitors. MS wouldn't do that would it? Well, they did already! >>
Imagine if we applied this antitrust model, which is the IDENTICAL model upon which the government rested its failed suit against IBM, to other aspects of society. It would have been considered 'illegal' for the Bulls to play Jordan and Pippen more than 10 minutes per game. At the height of their careers, Mohammed Ali or Mike Tyson would have been required to stand in one spot and allow themselves to get hit for 10 seconds every round.
"Stop being so damned GOOD, I can't compete with it. If you won't voluntarily stop being so damned good, I'll have the government make you stop." lmao!
Back in the early days when my dad started Nook Net. Web browsers were not free. They had to be purchased. IE and Netscape as well as all others were priced simalarly. When my dad called M$ to get a license to distribute IE for customers who want it, they quoted him a price of $14,000/yr for unlimited licenses. They said however if we do not offer any other web browsers with our service, they would give us the license for free.
The end result was to this day he still does not distribute IE based on M$'s monopolistic practrices. Only now it does not need to be paid for.
If anybody flabbergast on how IE is used more because it is a 'better' browser, obviously needs to get their facts strait and stop seeing acting like: I like Microsoft and so does a lot of other people, so they should not be considered a monopoly.
Well Microsoft tried that approch in court, but serverly failed... just shows where their brains are at anyway.
In truth I have yet to see a good browser out there. They all have their ups and downs. Only people use what is given to them and adapt. If the situation were reversed and Netscape was always bundled with Windows instead of IE, the odds are extremely favorable that everyone would say IE sucks because they would all have gotten used of Netscape. For the simple reason that Netscape is different than IE people say it sucks without giving it a fair chance. Almost the same for a Mac user trying out a PC... they will almost certainly say it sucks without giving a PC a fair chance because it aint what they are used of.
The end result was to this day he still does not distribute IE based on M$'s monopolistic practrices. Only now it does not need to be paid for.
If anybody flabbergast on how IE is used more because it is a 'better' browser, obviously needs to get their facts strait and stop seeing acting like: I like Microsoft and so does a lot of other people, so they should not be considered a monopoly.
Well Microsoft tried that approch in court, but serverly failed... just shows where their brains are at anyway.
In truth I have yet to see a good browser out there. They all have their ups and downs. Only people use what is given to them and adapt. If the situation were reversed and Netscape was always bundled with Windows instead of IE, the odds are extremely favorable that everyone would say IE sucks because they would all have gotten used of Netscape. For the simple reason that Netscape is different than IE people say it sucks without giving it a fair chance. Almost the same for a Mac user trying out a PC... they will almost certainly say it sucks without giving a PC a fair chance because it aint what they are used of.
<< Netscape has been dead for many many years. It's only relatively recently that more of the market agreed with those who already knew. NS SUCKS! >>
Now this person is a perfect example of what I was talking about. A M$ brainwashee.
Hope you take no offense
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter