# What killed the browser Market? (Spawned from Microsoft Wimps Out)



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well obviously the MS wimps out thread has taken a new road so I have decided to move some of the posts past my "On Topic" warning into a new thread so I don't have to keep moderating the other thread. 

The Topic of this one is what Killed the Browser Market.. Some think it was the bundling of IE, others think it was bad Netscape releases, while others I am sure have other opinions.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Millions of people used Netscape and went away from it.


The side question of this thread is why did Navigator dwindle in popularity. The EU would have us believe that it was because Microsoft started bundling their own browser. I can't say I see where early versions of IE ever really blew Navigator out of the water in most of the meaningful metrics of the day.

I submit that it was either the bundling the Microsoft claimed was absolutely necessary to the function of Windows or Microsoft casting FUD on their competition that gave IE the leg-up that it needed to unseat Navigator. Either way, it was probably some manner of dirty pool on Microsoft's part for which they are now being "recognized".


----------



## rebkell (Sep 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> The side question of this thread is why did Navigator dwindle in popularity. The EU would have us believe that it was because Microsoft started bundling their own browser. I can't say I see where early versions of IE ever really blew Navigator out of the water in most of the meaningful metrics of the day.
> 
> I submit that it was either the bundling the Microsoft claimed was absolutely necessary to the function of Windows or Microsoft casting FUD on their competition that gave IE the leg-up that it needed to unseat Navigator. Either way, it was probably some manner of dirty pool on Microsoft's part for which they are now being "recognized".


They've always done similar stuff, my memory is fuzzy, but I think it was back in DOS 6.2 or 6.21 or 6.22 they incorporated some kind of expanded/extended memory management that they basically reverse engineered from some competitor. I think they were ordered to remove it for the next release. Remember the good old days of 640K memory?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

harsh said:


> The side question of this thread is why did Navigator dwindle in popularity. The EU would have us believe that it was because Microsoft started bundling their own browser. I can't say I see where early versions of IE ever really blew Navigator out of the water in most of the meaningful metrics of the day.
> 
> I submit that it was either the bundling the Microsoft claimed was absolutely necessary to the function of Windows or Microsoft casting FUD on their competition that gave IE the leg-up that it needed to unseat Navigator. Either way, it was probably some manner of dirty pool on Microsoft's part for which they are now being "recognized".


Alright, I'm tired of this crap.

First of all, IE was shipped with Windows 95 OEM version 2. And that didn't kill Netscape either.



> The aging Netscape Communicator 4.x code was slower than Internet Explorer 5.0. Typical web pages had become heavily illustrated, often JavaScript-intensive, and encoded with HTML features designed for specific purposes but now employed as global layout tools (HTML tables, the most obvious example of this, were especially difficult for Communicator to render). The Netscape browser, once a solid product, became crash-prone and buggy; for example, some versions re-downloaded an entire web page to re-render it when the browser window was re-sized (a nuisance to dial-up users), and the browser would usually crash when the page contained simple Cascading Style Sheets. Moreover, Netscape Communicator's browser interface design dated in comparison to Internet Explorer.





> Mosaic Netscape 0.9 - October 13, 1994
> Netscape Navigator 1.0 - December 15, 1994
> Netscape Navigator 1.1 - March 1995
> Netscape Navigator 1.22 - August 1995
> ...


And now, look at how Netscape died:










IE had little to no effect, it was 4.0 that pissed off Netscape users. At the time of 4.0's release Netscape had over 60% marketshare, which eroded fast.

It's starting to become quite obvious that the people posting have no clue to what they are talking about, and were kids when this happened. It's pretty obvious they never used Netscape, or even IE at the time.

History proves you wrong though.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And obviously you kids are too young to know about what us Netscape users began calling Netscape:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nutscrape+Nardigrator


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> The side question of this thread is why did Navigator dwindle in popularity. The EU would have us believe that it was because Microsoft started bundling their own browser. I can't say I see where early versions of IE ever really blew Navigator out of the water in most of the meaningful metrics of the day.
> 
> I submit that it was either the bundling the Microsoft claimed was absolutely necessary to the function of Windows or Microsoft casting FUD on their competition that gave IE the leg-up that it needed to unseat Navigator. Either way, it was probably some manner of dirty pool on Microsoft's part for which they are now being "recognized".


The reason was simple. Netscape tried to keep everything as is and wasn't trying to bring out new advancements as much as IE did. IE at the time was a better product when IE 5.0 came out. It was just a bunch of bad decisions made that doomed Netscape and Microsoft just did what they do best. They took an idea made it better and rode the coat tails of a failing company.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> And obviously you kids are too young to know about what us Netscape users began calling Netscape:
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nutscrape+Nardigrator


Well I am 45 years old. Graduated from College in 87 so I was obviously was working in the industry at the time..

As for the graphs... They are nice to see but I think if you look at the bundling lawsuit that was filed in 1998 one can concluded that the bundling was the cause and the resulting graph was the result.

It is possible that Netscape's software drop in quality was a cause or that again could be the effect.. If memory serves me, Three significant things happend at this time as I see it (I am talking pre 1998)

1) Browser sales dropped significantly as IE was bundled in the OS. Resulting in major layoffs at Netscape. MS used its revenues from its OS to provide the resources needed to catch up an some would say exceed NS. NS with its depleted resource could not compete. I used NS and Mozilla during those times 85% of the time.. Never was a heavy IE user.
2) Due to bad CSS and HTML rendering engines on both browsers, a lot of business decisions where made to create IE only version of applications. These sites though rendered fine in IE would not in NS and most felt it was a NS issue. This just added to people feeling NS was a bad browse when infact these rendering annomlys were are result of MS miss-interperting or ignoring the standards. 
3) IE was one click away providing no customer cost to use where alternatives either cost money and required a download or were free but did not require a download.

Well that is my take and I was far from a kid... For more info regarding the bundling lawsuit's history, here is a good link to check out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't think the browser market is dead at all. Maybe more active than ever with more choice and more ability to customize.


Or are you talking about the pay-for-license versions?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Sorry if I was not clear when I spawned the threads. I totally agree that the browser market is not dead today. In my opinion it has had a rebirth. 

The title refers to what happened to the browser market as NS had a dominant position and lost that position. Was it because of Browser embedding or was it because IE took at opportunity and produced a product that more peopled wanted at that time. 

This was a side conversation in another thread that was off topic and therefore I moved it to its own thread. Sorry if I caused any confusion and hopefully this clears things up.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Suffering fuzzy brain syndrome, but from what I remember, I jumped to NS as soon as I could. I didn't like paying for a browser, but I refused to use IE early on and there was NO way I was going to use AOHell despite all the free coasters they sent out. I bought some version of NS for $10 finally and was sent a CD and user guide. I don't remember which version, might have been NS4 or 5.

When I heard NS had been kidnapped by AOHell, that was it for me. I jumped to Opera and suffered through their ads and nag screens until I fighured out how to kill them off. Finally Opera went FREE. As for the sites that don't support Opera, I find Mozilla and now SeaMonkey cover most of them. If the site doesn't work sufficiently with those, I don't need the site.

I still have IE (disabled in Program Access and Defaults) just in case I need something from an M$ site.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

If I remember correctly, one of the Netscape versions was just terrible...probably 4....and didn't it 'cost money' after awhile? I was 16-18 or so around then... If they charged a little for it, even to get a 'full' version...more than likely that would've killed it off...people prefer to use included products that are basically 'free.'


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> I jumped to Opera and suffered through their ads and nag screens until I fighured out how to kill them off. Finally Opera went FREE. As for the sites that don't support Opera, I find Mozilla and now SeaMonkey cover most of them. If the site doesn't work sufficiently with those, I don't need the site.
> 
> I still have IE (disabled in Program Access and Defaults) just in case I need something from an M$ site.


 This is exactly why I run IE.. I'm not willing to open several browsers just to open a page.. IE works, that's all that counts here..


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

IE was free to corporations.
Netscape wanted to charge for Navigator.

Made my decision easy. By the time free browsers came along (the rebirth mentioned above), the battle was lost in the corporation. Corporations love standards and global images. With one browser.

So, if Netscape had given the browser away, it may have changed the battle. No idea who would have won.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

In simplist terms...

Any browser, regardless of which one, is now mostly seen as a commodity item. While added capabilities are all well and good - its seen as a means to an end - the Internet.

With the exception of some relatively minor technical variations, and features of use, as well as security controls.....pick one...they all do the basic same thing.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I use both Chrome and IE8. Chrome has been my main browser, sometimes IE8 just won't connect to the net. However, there are some webs sites that I have to use, to pay bills or do a job search, that do not support Chrome, *so I'm forced to use IE8 *which, because of the connection issues, can be a frustrating experience.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BubblePuppy said:


> I use both Chrome and IE8. Chrome has been my main browser, sometimes IE8 just won't connect to the net. However, there are some webs sites that I have to use, to pay bills or do a job search, that do not support Chrome, *so I'm forced to use IE8 *which, because of the connection issues, can be a frustrating experience.


Interesting....

I use IE7 and have since it came out, and keep it current.

I access all sorts of secure, VPN, remote access, and public sites all day long almost every day for work and personal requirements.

Have no problems, no lockups, no restrictions.

I think IE gets somwhat of a bad rap by many of those who use "alternative" browsers.

As for security...running Norton 360 here, and never even came close to any breach.

In the end...I believe it comes down to ease of use and what a user is most comfortable with to navigate.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting....
> 
> I use IE7 and have since it came out, and keep it current.
> 
> ...


I have been thinking of going back to IE7. Perhaps IE8 is really designed to work with W7 and not with Vista.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BubblePuppy said:


> I have been thinking of going back to IE7. Perhaps IE8 is really designed to work with W7 and not with Vista.


Could be....I still look at IE8 as a "beta-vintage" offering...


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Everyone used Netscape; it was THE browser. But people noticed that NS3 didn't really do any better than NS2, but now Netscape wanted money for it. Most of us paid. At the time, IE 2 had been released, and it sucked. No one used it by choice.

But then, IE3 was released about the same time as NS4. NS4 was *horrible*. It was big, bloated, buggy, and slow. But IE3 was stable and fast, and after a bit of comparison, most people switched to IE. And this was around the time that large businesses first took a serious look at building web-based applicaitons, and comparing NS4 vs. IE3, there wasn't much of a comparison. Add to that the fact that IE3 was free and NS4 required a paid license, and the writing was on the wall.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In simplist terms...
> 
> Any browser, regardless of which one, is now mostly seen as a commodity item. While added capabilities are all well and good - its seen as a means to an end - the Internet.
> 
> With the exception of some relatively minor technical variations, and features of use, as well as security controls.....pick one...they all do the basic same thing.


There's the same answer I was thinking of. I think that if you look at the core functions that most people expect from a computer, browsing and e-mail are probably the top. Of course there are far more important base functions like disk management that have to be right or else browsing doesn't work, but those are transparent to the user.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)




----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> However, there are some webs sites that I have to use, to pay bills or do a job search, that do not support Chrome, so I'm forced to use IE8


One of my utility companies used a CC payment processor gateway that after an update, no longer supported Opera. Next time I went to the office I let them know about it. They blew me off, so I stopped using their website. The office was located where I had to pass by it anyways, so I made it a point to stop in every month and make them process the payment manually.

That lasted about 6 months. Then I found out they had changed gateways again to one that WOULD work with all browsers and I'm now using the website again.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> One of my utility companies used a CC payment processor gateway that after an update, no longer supported Opera. Next time I went to the office I let them know about it. They blew me off, so I stopped using their website. The office was located where I had to pass by it anyways, so I made it a point to stop in every month and make them process the payment manually.
> 
> That lasted about 6 months. Then I found out they had changed gateways again to one that WOULD work with all browsers and I'm now using the website again.


Man you have a lot of power, You really showed them!


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

I like SeaMonkey.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok folks we are wondering into the which browser is best argument and that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to discuss opinions on how IE got to its dominance. Also on topic should be rational behind if it should be allowed to continue to be bundled or should MS provide choice to its customers due to its previous actions. History definitely plays a role here so would love to hear from the folks that were in the industry during the early 90s that lived through those times.


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

Is simple why IE is dominate. It built into windows. I remember watching a show on how Microsoft went the war path on Netscape after it hit the internet. Another reason IE is #1 is a lot of people don't know there are other browser out there.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe it's just because a lot of young people enter this debate (not an insult just an observation), but I can't believe how many people have forgotten that most everything Microsoft did with IE was done by Netscape before it.

When I first got into the internet... I bought Spry's "Internet in a box". There were several relatively cheap ways to buy into an internet software package at that time.

At some point, along came Netscape. I resisted it at first even though it was free... but Netscape also made Web server software that they sold... and in order to gain market here's what they started to do.

Early Netscape started building features into their for-sale Web server software that only their free browser would render properly. This encouraged companies to buy their server software, and ultimately consumers to use their free browser.

Once they had effectively wiped out most of the for-pay browsers... they began to ask for money for Netscape. It wasn't a forced-pay... but a "try it for 30 days, and if you like it please contribute" scenario... and I'm sure they ultimately would have liked to cripple the software and force pay for advanced browsing features since they had control of the market and many of their server-side features had become HTML standards.

Now comes Microsoft... who actually bought "IE" from a 3rd party and tweaked it a little... Microsoft gave IE away for much the same reason as Netscape originally... Microsoft wanted to encourage companies to switch to Windows Server and run their web server platform.

Deja vu all over again... as Windows server began having features unique to it and IE was the only browser to properly render... + bundling with the OS meant everyone gets it that gets Windows.

So Microsoft saw Netscape and raised them.

Then suddenly Netscape cried "unfair"... when Microsoft really was just doing what Netscape had done in the years before.

That's why I never got all the hoopla.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now comes Microsoft... who actually bought "IE" from a 3rd party and tweaked it a little...


Say it with me: Spyglass Mosaic.

Both Spyglass Mosaic and Navigator were supposed to be virgin coded versions of NCSA Mosaic. How Navigator could be designed by the same person that co-designed NCSA Mosaic and still be virgin code is a question for the ages.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Microsoft buys technology and integrates it into it's systems and this is called "evil".

Netscape is created by Marc Andreesen, where he pilfers the NCSA Mosaic source code that was developed AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE and makes money off of it and this is "triumph for the entrepreneur".


----------

