Why didn't Microsoft make Internet Explorer multi platfrom browser?

[PeteRoy]

Internet Explorer had a version for Mac OS and Mac OS X until 2003.

The decision to make Internet Explorer available on Mac must have come from the notion that it is best to have your browser on all available platform to increase your market share and to create web standards.

So why didn't Microsoft make Internet Explorer available on more platforms? Why drop the Mac version? Why not continue to make the IE for Mac and add IE for Linux and IE for phones, for example Microsoft could have made IE for Nokia symbian before the iPhone came in.

I don't understand why they decided not to make IE a multi platfrom browser?

 

[Berryracer]

thank the lord they didn't, worst browser in history no matter how much they update it

I tried to use it but half the sites I go to don't even work on IE 11 and the compatibility button disappears so I cant even click it unless I manually add them to the compatibility settings, so might as well just run IE 9 as nothing works on IE 11 or stick to a real browser like Pale Moon

 

[nemesismk2]

I liked IE8 and IE10 but have so far not really had a chance to try out IE11 although i have noticed that it's fast

 

[lxskllr]

It adds work with little benefit. The only reason IE is as popular as it is, is because it ships with Windows, and people either don't know better, or don't care enough to change. IOW, no one wants IE. It's just used out of apathy. Developing a product no one wants is a thankless, pointless task.

 

[Virgorising]

thank the lord they didn't, worst browser in history no matter how much they update it

I tried to use it but half the sites I go to don't even work on IE 11 and the compatibility button disappears so I cant even click it unless I manually add them to the compatibility settings, so might as well just run IE 9 as nothing works on IE 11 or stick to a real browser like Pale Moon

I ditto. Remember, Gates did not even GET the singular importance of browsers....until Netscape started making big money! And then, he ran around screaming at his people, HURRY UP! Write a browser!!!! And, being the slick business guy he has always been, bundled it in their next OS, as if "for free" (another calculated illusion). Netscape=OVAH.

 

[Virgorising]

it adds work with little benefit. The only reason ie is as popular as it is, is because it ships with windows, and people either don't know better, or don't care enough to change. Iow, no one wants ie. It's just used out of apathy. Developing a product no one wants is a thankless, pointless task.

Bingo. Nuthin but net.

 

[ninaholic37]

Yes! My dad used to have Netscape Navigator and it worked great, then when IE **** them over we went straight to Firefox and never looked back. IE seems to lag out and run like garbage on every computer I've tried. The only site IE seemed to be better at in my experience is hotmail/outlook.com, which I'm pretty sure is because Microsoft intentionally cripples other browsers when you try to visit it... they obviously know when I'm using Firefox because I get an advertisement when I log out from outlook.com and saying "For a better and safer experience, use Internet Explorer". Most hilarious advertisement I've ever seen! I've read articles where people have even gotten viruses just by opening it (and not even browsing). Thanks for the laughs MS. :awe:

 

[Virgorising]

Yes! My dad used to have Netscape Navigator and it worked great, then when IE **** them over we went straight to Firefox and never looked back. IE seems to lag out and run like garbage on every computer I've tried. The only site IE seemed to be better at in my experience is hotmail/outlook.com, which I'm pretty sure is because Microsoft intentionally cripples other browsers when you try to visit it... they obviously know when I'm using Firefox because I get an advertisement when I log out from outlook.com and saying "For a better and safer experience, use Internet Explorer". Most hilarious advertisement I've ever seen! I've read tech articles where people have even gotten viruses just by opening it (and not even browsing). Thanks for the laughs MS. :awe:

Exactly! I am so happy I was interested enough to read the entire history of our technology.... every single part was a huge eye opener!!!! And I ain finished yet, cause more is written all the time.

 

[quikah]

There was a version of IE released for Solaris and HP-UX, I don't anyone really used it.

 

[code65536]

Yes! My dad used to have Netscape Navigator and it worked great

I'm a big advocate of Gecko/Firefox (since the days of Phoenix/Firebird), but let's not rewrite history here: Netscape Navigator was insanely buggy and unreliable. You say something should be 100px wide, and it'll sometimes render it at 110px, sometimes at 90px, but never at 100px. Worst. Rendering. Engine. Ever. Microsoft did get too aggressive with the bundling tactics, but NN4 was so bad that I'm certain that even if Microsoft played nice, NN4 would've still died a horrible death; Microsoft never needed to resort to dirty tactics to win the first browser war.

Navigator was unsalvageable. Netscape threw it in the garbage and started over with a new engine from scratch. Some people back then thought it was the wrong decision (since it meant that Netscape wouldn't have a new product for years, thus effectively ending the first browser war with capitulation), but it was ultimately the right move because that new engine would eventually give rise to Phoenix (born out of the ashes of Netscape, so to speak, but a couple of trademark disputes led to it eventually being rebranded as Firefox) which marked the start of the second browser war.


And to answer the OP's question, it's in part because Microsoft wasn't lying about IE being tightly integrated with the OS. The rendering engine is, at least. Removing IE from Windows would only remove the frontend UI that connects to that rendering engine.

 

[Virgorising]

I'm a big advocate of Gecko/Firefox (since the days of Phoenix/Firebird), but let's not rewrite history here: Netscape Navigator was insanely buggy and unreliable. You say something should be 100px wide, and it'll sometimes render it at 110px, sometimes at 90px, but never at 100px. Worst. Rendering. Engine. Ever. Microsoft did get too aggressive with the bundling tactics, but NN4 was so bad that I'm certain that even if Microsoft played nice, NN4 would've still died a horrible death; Microsoft never needed to resort to dirty tactics to win the first browser war.

Navigator was unsalvageable. Netscape threw it in the garbage and wrote a new engine from scratch, and even then, it took years before the new engine, Gecko, matured to the point that Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was possible.

While I don doubt anything you share, (all of it was before my time, but I read), I was in no way rewriting history.

I was offering an accurate example of 1) Bill's dearth of VISION, AND 2) Bill's insatiable greed and living the end justifies the means in precluding free market competition, and anyone else MAKING A BUCK.

And, even getting the downsides in Netscape you delineate......does anyone think for all its builds IE is a viable browser???? EVER WAS???? Talk about buggy!

 

[code65536]

I was offering an accurate example of 1) Bill's dearth of VISION, AND 2) Bill's insatiable greed and living the end justifies the means in precluding fre market competition.

Gates did overreact. And if you were in charge of Microsoft at the time, and you see this thing that could be an existential threat, would you not panic? It's easy to play armchair general with 20/20 hindsight and say, yes, Gates overreacted. And with 20/20 hindsight, we can say that Microsoft probably would've squashed Netscape anyway because Netscape, delirious with the spotlight of success, fast cash, and rapid growth, sacrificed long-term quality for short-term product rollouts, resulting in a code base so shoddy that it was unviable, especially when put up against the more disciplined engineering of IE. But at the time, nobody knew that. Can you honestly say that if the future of your company was at stake, you wouldn't do everything in your power to protect it?

And did you read the recent Ars article about Android? Because the Mobile War is looking a lot like Browser War 1. With Apple causing Google to panic and push out Android and now Google engaging in tactics with OEMs that smell strangely familiar. Is that because Page and Brin fit your "insatiable greed and living the end justifies the means in precluding fre market competition"? No, I think they just saw an existential threat and did the best they could to defend themselves. Browser War 1 was really just a defensive move by Microsoft--evidenced by Microsoft basically stopping everything once the threat was neutralized.

And, even getting the downsides in Netscape you delineate......does anyone think for all its builds IE is a viable browser????

IE was the most innovative browser back during the first browser war. CSS? You can thank IE for that. Yes, IE was kinda late to the game, but they did genuinely make a good product. At least in the early days.

Once Netscape died, IE stagnated. How many years between IE6 and 7? You know, the people at Mozilla say that their greatest success is IE7. Specifically, that IE7 exists, since they feel that had it not been for Firefox, we'd still be stuck with 6.

But that's all after BW1. During BW1, IE really was a good browser.

 

[Virgorising]

Again, that Gates panicked for obvious reasons was true and BESIDE THE POINT.

He never was the genius, creative visionary Jobs was! Jobs, whose only staggering take away when, back in the day, he went to Xerox....which, like IBM was truncated by necrotic, dry corporate sensibility, and, for the life of them, no way could they be Marcel Proust and see anything with New Eyes (pls C my sig).....his stunned single take away was the singular genius of GUI.....something unimaginably, Xerox just could not get!

Gates only, finally got the foundational importance of browsers.....because the existing one was making money!!!

THAT WAS THE POINT. That, and what that was emblematic of.
_________________________________________________________

Edit: below, just found to follow up on the event about which I posted above....AND, WHAT IT REFLECTED IN JOBS, who had EYES BY MARCEL PROUST, of the sort Gates never did. Job's passion was innovation off the hook and perfecting EVERY MINISCULE ELEMENT .....the MONEY CAME SECOND. Jobs, NEVER PANICKED FOR THE REASONS Gates did. I hope you get this nuclear distinction!!!!! Has nothing whatsoever to do with the nuts and bolts of IE vs Netscape.

It's WHY someone is driven to evolve and build a better mousetrap. NEVER JUST THAT THEY ARE. iT'S NEVER WHERE SOMEONE GOES, it is what they BRING and where they are coming from.

"Why hasn't this company brought this to market?" Jobs had exclaimed during the demo. "I don't get it!" That was a testament to Jobs' ability to detect the promise in a novel technology several steps ahead of anyone else. The same idea wasn't lost on PARC's frustrated innovators. Recalled Tesler: Apple "understood what we had a lot better than Xerox did."

 

[bonehead123]

Internet Explorer had a version for Mac OS and Mac OS X until 2003.

The decision to make Internet Explorer available on Mac must have come from the notion that it is best to have your browser on all available platform to increase your market share and to create web standards.

So why didn't Microsoft make Internet Explorer available on more platforms? Why drop the Mac version? Why not continue to make the IE for Mac and add IE for Linux and IE for phones, for example Microsoft could have made IE for Nokia symbian before the iPhone came in.

I don't understand why they decided not to make IE a multi platfrom browser?

3 words for ya:

sAfArI
webkit
money......