Microsoft and Netscape made two competeing internet browsers. Each company tried as hard as they could to prove that they had the better product, so that they could increase market share. Eventually, Microsoft won, and Netscape tumbled into obscurity. Now, with MS on top, they have enjoyed absolutely no increase in profits, because both IE and Navigator were FREE! Why were they competeing to give away more of thier products for free???? I don't get it, how is this beneficial to either company?
Why was there ever a browser war in the first place?
- Thread starter notfred
- Start date
b/c it will make microsoft's encoding proprietary. People will have to adopt to the microsoft standard, thus giving them rights to the code. rights=$$$$$
-=bmacd=-
edit: or something like that.....
-=bmacd=-
edit: or something like that.....
When Microsoft's own version of the internet the original MSN failed (wonder why) they needed a way to enter the Internet market, so the enhanced their own browser (IE 2.0) to make it more up to date with Netscape.
Basicly IE won for two reasons, they had their browser built in in the OS and they skipped ahead of the W3 consortium who create the HTML standard so if people wanted more features they had to use IE.
Basicly IE won for two reasons, they had their browser built in in the OS and they skipped ahead of the W3 consortium who create the HTML standard so if people wanted more features they had to use IE.
true but they desperately need it more right now with all their debt and I certainly dont want them to fold and have microsoft swallow them up.
You're wrong. AOL is twice as dangerous as MS, as they control both the media's content and it's means of distribution. It also allows them to not run competitor's ads on their networks. The FCC(the biggest waste of money and resources in the government) told them not to, but they did it anyway.
apoppin
Lifer
More like Netscape's proposal got rejected because it sucked but they moved on with it any ways.
apoppin
Lifer
IE is free, but microsoft can license the Server side apps for big money, since they control the Client side, they can control how the server side is displayed to the clients, so the Servers have to co-operate with microsoft to make sure they have their servers displaying what they want displaed.
So far, I didn't see any significant benefits Microsoft had with their server products that benefited from Microsoft's dominance in the browser market. They can push some ActiveX controls and some client features specific to IE, but for most web apps, they maintain compatibility with Netscape (i.e. ASP.NET).
It'll make it easier for them to push Windows Forms clients embedded in IE though.
wtf are you talking about? what encoding? put down the crack pipe. IE almost exclusivly uses W3C standarededs or IETF standards.
"I don't get it, how is this beneficial to either company?"
It's a matter of becoming the standard. Remember when RealPlayer was free. It became the standard and now they want to reap the reward. ICQ, AIM and MSIM are still duking it out. Remember when IM could accept AIM messages? Remember how AIM changed the code to foil that, then MS changed theirs to accept the messages again, and back and forth they went? Not sure what came of all that, since I don't use 'em, but it was a hoot! It's all for controlling the standard, though. That control can bring the bucks in the end.
It's a matter of becoming the standard. Remember when RealPlayer was free. It became the standard and now they want to reap the reward. ICQ, AIM and MSIM are still duking it out. Remember when IM could accept AIM messages? Remember how AIM changed the code to foil that, then MS changed theirs to accept the messages again, and back and forth they went? Not sure what came of all that, since I don't use 'em, but it was a hoot! It's all for controlling the standard, though. That control can bring the bucks in the end.
Businesses that want to stay around do it for money. Without money companies fail. Have you noticed how many open source projects fail because everyone wants it for free thereby insuring the company makes no profit? No profit = No company. No company = No product.
The case of RealPlayer is different.
For IE, Microsoft built it around the draft/recommended standards or worked to standardized their newly introduced proprietary stuff afterwards. And most of them are now standardized at W3C. Netscape pushed their strange technology most people thought didn't accept and they failed. It's actually pretty sad because they, for some reason, decided to take a hike in some strange new world unlike the good things they had done in pre-4.x versions.
ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger are all proprietary technologies. There are no standards or consortiums to work on a standardized instant messaging technology, afaik. Similarly, RM and WMA (WMV is based on MPEG4 though) are both proprietary codecs. I think that you mean to say "controlling the market."
Because most people try to prove they are the best. If you do not have a competitive strategy then you will fall behind and no one will buy your products.
I also believe Netscape shot themselves in the foot. Their "Communicator" program was practically unusable. It constantly crashed for no particular reason at all (whereas Navigator had always been rock solid, at least for me). I used Netscape religiously a few years ago, but they just got sloppy and then AOL gobbled them up. :frown:
Open source is not as bad as people think.
A bunch of enthusiastic programmers from around the world work on the same project and establish a shared vision - which could be anything from "the best VNC client" to "a replacement for Windows."
Whether open source or not, any team with a shared vision creates powerful products.
And as far as money goes, most open source programmers have a side job of their own. And imo, the product is no longer open source once a company distributes the software for profit.
A bunch of enthusiastic programmers from around the world work on the same project and establish a shared vision - which could be anything from "the best VNC client" to "a replacement for Windows."
Whether open source or not, any team with a shared vision creates powerful products.
And as far as money goes, most open source programmers have a side job of their own. And imo, the product is no longer open source once a company distributes the software for profit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter