|
|
|
|
|
|
by TheRealDunkirk
4258 days ago
|
|
|
If IE was ever more standards-compliant than it's competition, it was a very short-lived period. It made cross-platform (i.e., normal, ordinary, and real) web development problematic for over a decade. You can say Netscape imploded, but they experienced a fight-or-flight response forced on them by Microsoft's scummy actions. I never said that bundling was illegal, but that's a purely legalistic distinction. I certainly implied it was unethical. Before the trial, Microsoft gave about $10K a year in political donations. By the time it ended, they were giving over a million to EACH side. You weren't the only one watching, but not everyone watched the same things. |
|
|
Remember "Best viewed with Netscape Navigator"? Netscape wanted to control the web by defining and unilaterally introducing web standards, so Microsoft naturally allied itself with the W3C.
It was short lived because Microsoft effectively abandoned browser development following anti-trust action, because it decided it could/would only ship browsers with operating systems. This turned out to be a bad choice because of the long delay between XP (which included IE6) and Vista. The slow take-up of Vista made it even worse. Microsoft didn't want people to use IE6 or XP, but the market decided otherwise.
All this goes back to the consent decree that Microsoft signed with Janet Reno. This specified that Microsoft was allowed to improve the operating system by adding new features. This more or less required it to build IE into the OS.
Microsoft was already under investigation during this period, and for the decade after the case, Microsoft operated under the close supervision of a US Judge. Whether or not you think its actions were scummy, it's unlikely they were illegal. Indeed, during this time, Microsoft was certainly easier for third parties to deal with than Netscape -- see High Stakes for examples.
As for political donations, this was also inevitable. Netscape couldn't compete in either technology or marketing so it played politics instead. Microsoft had operated on the basis that it wouldn't get involved with politics, and then it got screwed for its neglect. It simply decided not to make that mistake again. As anyone would.
Either way, Netscape was doomed in the long run. It was deluded in thinking that people would pay for a client access program. (You're welcome to provide examples of companies that have made pots of money out of this, but usually the client is free and people pay for the service.)
Netscape was even further deluded when it thought that it could charge PC manufacturers to ship its browser. The reality is that companies have to pay PC OEMs for distribution.
The final delusion was that users would pay a price for Netscape Communicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communicator in order to get their hands on Netscape Navigator.
You really don't need any conspiracy theories to understand why Netscape lost. It had a combination of arrogance and incompetence the like of which I have not seen before or since.