Is this internet prodigy about to knock Microsoft off its pedestal? Bill Gates' nightmare? FIREFOX

Times Online ^ | 01.04.05

[Arkinsaw]

The content producers and the tool produces control the browser standards, not the browser creators. FireFox follows the standards created by MS and others - they do not create their own standards. The war is over. MS got what they wanted and have moved on to things of which they can actually make money.

So you are saying, that MS would have had the same influence it has over the browser standards even if Netscape had won and had a 72% of the browser market? Ummm, no. If Netscape had the 72% share of the browser market then IT would be setting browser standards today.

You are assuming that if other browsers dominate the market in the future that MS will retain its ability to set the standards just because it won the original browser war and got what it wanted?

That makes no sense. I guarantee you, that if Microsoft lets IE languish and other browsers begin to dominate....other content providers will attempt to have those browser makers set standards that they prefer rather than what Microsoft prefers. It will be far easier for them to convince the Mozilla folks to ignore Microsoft's latest concept than it is to get the IE team to ignore Microsoft's latest concept.

The industry goes along with Microsoft because they have to, not because they necessarily want to.

In any event, maybe you are right and maybe we will see in the future just what happens when Microsoft has to go to Mozilla or Opera and has to convince them to go Microsoft's preferred direction.

Maybe you are right. Will Microsoft chance being in that position and trust its power as a "content deliverer" rather than dominant browser maker? I doubt it. But thats just me.

[JoJo Gunn]

FF tech ping

[general_re]

It's really quite simple why MS wants to maintain dominance of the browser market - you get to control the way content is served by controlling the way it's received. Once you have a major portion of the client end - browsers - you then create exclusive methods of content delivery that can only be used by your browser. But that's not the money making bit - the money maker is that only your servers can deliver via that method. That's where the money is, and why you want to control the client end - so you can sell a zillion dollars worth of server-end software to companies anxious to communicate with all those clients you control.

Imagine a world where televisions were just invented. The MS method of money making goes like this - first, you give away a free Microsoft television to everyone in the country. Then, once you've done that, you start approaching corporations and other deep-pocketed organizations and offering to sell them broadcast facilities for megabucks. Now, because you control the client end, you can stack the deck in favor of your broadcast facilities - the server end, where the money is. Microsoft TVs will only get color pictures and stereo sound when the broadcaster uses Microsoft studios. But if someone tries to use a non-Microsoft broadcast facility...well, Microsoft TV owners can see it, but only in black-and-white and with crappy mono sound. It only does the cool stuff if you have a Microsoft TV and the broadcaster has a Microsoft studio.

That's the impetus behind stuff like ActiveX and ASP.NET - to create channels where you can do cool stuff, but only if you use MS browsers and MS servers. So if you want to do that cool stuff, you have to buy the server from MS, because they sure aren't giving that away for free, unlike the client end.

[D-fendr]

If a new browser does not support MS standards… then all the MS created content and other content will not work and nobody will use the browser.

Or fewer and fewer will use MS-dependent content.

IE dominance is as key to MS as Office dominance is to Windows.

[D-fendr]

Bingo.

[Arkinsaw]

That's the impetus behind stuff like ActiveX and ASP.NET - to create channels where you can do cool stuff, but only if you use MS browsers and MS servers. So if you want to do that cool stuff, you have to buy the server from MS, because they sure aren't giving that away for free, unlike the client end.

Exactly, but you'll have to convince others on this thread of that. And just because you managed to pull that off, doesn't mean that your catbird situation will continue even if somebody else starts offering a better free client end and less and less people have your client in their home. You may still offer good stuff, but you have lost control of the power to create cool stuff for YOUR client. The other guys might not be so willing to develop their new market dominating client in the way you want in the future. Things change, times move on. I don't think Microsoft is dumb enough to ignore Firefox.

[freedom_forge]

The Content that is produced by MS products are produced by other people.

You've been posting about "content" for two pages now and I finally get it. You make "content" with MS products and, by induction, assume everyone does. Maybe that's not true. In any case, I think you are missing the equally valid point of some others here so let me try to explain again.

You see, it's an historical thing. Microsoft for sure tried and succeeded in controling the software market by creating proprietary file formats. They could have adopted an open format or a preexisting format for Word, Excel etc. but they did not. They did not because the file format of the "Content" was how they prevented customers from switching to other products, such as Word Perfect or Quattro Pro. Switching software would have orphaned all the customer's MS based, proprietary documents. Therefore, customers, once hooked on MS could not easily switch to another platform. So the operating system vendor became the dominant office software vendor also.

The Internet threatened to change all that because Internet content has to be readable by multiple operating systems in multiple countries and, therefore, has to be based on open standards whether created by Microsoft or not. HTML, jpeg and even pdf documents are based on defined, open (not secret) specs. The side effect is that some 16 year old can write code for a new browser. He could not do that if the web page was some binary mystery like Word instead of HTML text. You can bet that if they could the folks at Microsoft would have replaced HTML with Word-type formats and made it difficult for users of UNIX or outdated versions of Windows to surf the Net.

But, in fact, that's just what they tried to do. Microsoft responded to the Internet by creating all the tools you use for making content and extending the standards in an attempt to entice and then require both client and server machines to use Microsoft products (in the same way they inticed office workers into use and then dependency on MS Office). On the server side that would be Windows 2000 Server etc. and on the client side that would be IE. IE was part of a three pronged plan to get the whole Internet to be as dependent on MS as the business office is.

Fortunately, in my opinion, the tactic did not work for two reasons. The first was MS was late into the game and the Internet community was not so interested in fully adopting MS solutions. The second reason was the success of non MS servers, particularly Apache, but also Netscape and others. This success prevented MS from controlling the server side.

Without a majority of servers serving content created by MS products to IE clients they could not create secret Word-like formats that would be illegible to competing browsers, operating systems or servers. Therefore, the plan failed and they had to become good Internet citizens, abiding by open standards for the most part. But that doesn't mean they haven't tried and won't try again to make the Internet proprietary. Active Server Pages and other technologies not supported by Linux servers are part of that legacy to dominate the net in the same way and using the same tactics MS used to dominate the desktop.

[general_re]

Right - if you lose control of the client end, there's not so much incentive for those broadcasters to spend extra money on your studios. After all, what's the point, if most people can't receive that cool content anyway?

There's nothing inherently wrong with that business model, of course - if you're in the business of selling software, you want to create some way of differentiating yourself from the pack, something that makes your stuff more attractive than the other guy's. It only becomes a problem when you get into - ahem ;) - monopoly situations.

[unixfox]

I'm afraid he's got a LOT of catching up to do. Microsoft has thousands of products that are used all over the world. This guy has 1. Most of those are runinng it under, you guessed it, Windows. But hey, good luck on the venture.

[MarkL]

It's not going to kill IE.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of web based ASPs that require IE. My company has an application that I have to use, and it simply will NOT work with anything but IE. I've tried Netscape, Firefox, Mozila, Opera, and Conqueror (sp?).

Nothing but IE will work.

So I use IE for that and WindowsUpdate. Firefox for everything else.

Mark

[MarkL]

I use Netscape for the email package mainly. I'll wait for Firefox's email program to come out to try it. I HATE OUTLOOK!

It's been out for quite some time, although I don't believe it's at v1.0 yet. It's called Thunderbird, and you can download it from the same site.

Mark

[Arkinsaw]

Nothing but IE will work. So I use IE for that and WindowsUpdate. Firefox for everything else.

Same at the company I work for. But not for new development. I've attended demos for other teams new stuff and in a couple of cases the demo was conducted using Firefox. My team is supporting an older app that needs IE. But future projects will avoid that I suspect.

[Last Visible Dog]

Sigh. You seem to be saying that businesses are solely interested in things that directly equate to direct cash sales and have absolutely no interest in controlling the environment their products function in.

You REALLY don't get it. The browser is NOT the environment their products run in. MS tools create content that conforms to the W3C standards (that is the body that defines the standards for the Internet). The STANDARDS are the environment the products function in and the browsers FOLLOW the standards. MS's experience with IE helped them assist in defining the standards. That phase is over.

Clearly you do not work in the Computer Industry.

Movie producers do not make money off of the plastic blanks that their movies are distributed on. But they would love for those plastic blanks to be a one-use format and would love to be in position where that content delivery format made up 72% of the market and where they could influence any future standards. Its about control of the environment your product lives in, not direct cash sales.

Once again you don't get it. Movie producers must conform to the standards - just like Microsoft and just like Microsoft movie producers TRY to influence the standards. Using your logic - movie producers would strive to be the dominant maker of DVD players because using your logic the one who controlled the device that plays the content controls everything (for the Internet that is the browser and for movies that would be a DVD player). Movie production companies have an interest in the DVD format but they make their money off the CONTENT not off of DVD players. MS has an interest in the standards but they make money off the CONTENT.

As for your comments on the usage statistics table....any of your products that you see a steady decline in market share over a year should be a concern if you are in business.

Not sure what business school you went to but a product that makes no money is not usually considered a business. Let's review: MS makes $0.00 a year off the browser and FireFox makes $0.00 a year off their browser. Firefox is currently not taking any business away from MS unless you wish to argue FireFox is taking away part of the $0.00 MS made last year. MS does not sell browsers so another free browser is not going to affect MS's business. I hope you don't invest real money based on your business logic. MS sells operating systems, development tools, and business software. FireFox does not sell operating systems, development tools, or business software. Claming a FREE browser is going to effect MS's business is ludicrous.

You can pooh-pooh the usage statistics, but it does signify a sustained decline in market share over time.

I am not sure where you studied statistics but a 7 point drop in 6 months is not sustained decline – market share usually means a money-making proposition. Let's review: MS controls 69.7% of the browser market. Are you willing to bet FireFox will have a controlling share of the browser market by the end of 2005? Like I said, I hope you don't invest real money on your business theories.

Let's do some more math:

MS controls 69.7% of the browser market and they make $0.00. So if their market share goes to 100% they will make $0.00 off the browser and if the share goes to 0% they will fall back to making $0.00. FireFox is making $0.00 on their browser yet somehow they are going to knock Microsoft off their pedestal. Yeah. Right.

MS makes billions of dollars

FireFox makes $0.00 yet they are going to knock Microsoft off their pedestal. I hope nobody invests their retirement money on this logic.

I like FireFox. I use FireFox. It’s great.

I want more competition. I want more options. NEVERTHELESS it is absolute nonsense to claim another FREE browser is making Microsoft lose sleep.

[kezekiel]

I'm a waste.

I can relate.

[Arkinsaw]

You REALLY don't get it.

There is really no point in arguing with you. You have it set in your mind that Microsoft has won and has no need to be concerned with the browser any more. That the benefits achieved via the win over Netscape in years past is permanent even if Microsoft does nothing browser related ever again.

I am not alone in my opinion that this would be a very foolish view for Microsoft to take...even on this thread. I do work in the computer industry. And only time will tell whether Microsoft will, or even needs to, aggressively defend its browser share numbers. Its my opinion that they will need to do so, will recognize that fact, and will do so.

We just flat out disagree. Further back and forth is pointless.

[kezekiel]

FireFox is currently less vulnerable because it does less (that is pretty much how the model works - expanded functionality means expanded vulnerability and less options means less vulnerability - this is not rocket science).

I don't think that's quite what's in play here... IE, because of it's integration with the OS, has built-in vulnerabilities. Firefox doesn't share those limitations. The only thing I haven't been able to do is browse some sites written specifically for IE, which has more to do with lazy, non-standard website authoring than it does IE.

[Poser]

" BTW: I use FireFox. I like it. From what I understand it currently has CSS problems so it is not a business contender."

XHTML and CSS are supposed to be the standard. Oddly, they aren't. I like CSS because it makes some things easier and better, but if the browsers aren't going to support it, what's the point?

[Last Visible Dog]

So you are saying, that MS would have had the same influence it has over the browser standards even if Netscape had won and had a 72% of the browser market? Ummm, no.

You still don't get it. The business war was over content not free browsers. MS's IE experience allowed them to influence the standards but a company does not make a dime off of influencing standards. IE helped give MS a reputation in the Internet world, something they were late to enter - but MS does not make a dime off the browser itself. MS needed to prove they were a or the Internet player and dominating the browser was a way to prove it - they have already done that. The money is in the tools: OS's and .NET. MS geared thier OS's and development tools toward the Internet - now they are the major player so they no longer need to prove it and therefore the significance of the browser war is all but gone. Business is ALL about making money and nobody makes a dime off of browsers. The ONLY way MS could be hurt by a browser is if the browser dominated the "market" and would not display MS's content. MS's content conforms to the W3C standards so this browser would have to go against the Internet standards and therefore little to nothing would work in it and therefore it could never become dominate. The browser war is over.

You are assuming that if other browsers dominate the market in the future that MS will retain its ability to set the standards just because it won the original browser war and got what it wanted?

First, standards don't work like that. Second, MS has only influenced the standards. MS won the browser war because Netscape blew it - their product turned to crap.

The browser war proved MS was an Internet player. That battle is over.

That makes no sense. I guarantee you, that if Microsoft lets IE languish and other browsers begin to dominate....other content providers will attempt to have those browser makers set standards that they prefer rather than what Microsoft prefers. It will be far easier for them to convince the Mozilla folks to ignore Microsoft's latest concept than it is to get the IE team to ignore Microsoft's latest concept.

Ok. This is getting silly. That is not how the standards work...it just doesn't work that way. Clearly you are not in the computer industry.

That is like saying if a DVD manufacturer dominated enough of the market they could create a format that would not play movies produced by Paramount and therefore run them out of business.

If you want to believe another free browser is going to knock MS off it pedestal, don't let me stop you (but please don't invest any real money in this theory).

[kezekiel]

Controlling the browser gives Microsoft an edge when it comes to setting standards. They would like nothing better than to have everyone creating web pages with their software that can only be loaded with their software. Once they have the content encoded in their proprietary formats (such as they do with Word and Excel), every couple of years they turn over a ton of $$ by forcing everyone to upgrade.

Those Office file formats are legendary for being so badly documented that even Microsoft has trouble writing filters for it, and I have yet to see a 3rd-party filter that is 100% faithful in rendering Office documents (especially Word).

[Maigret]

I skimmed through the article. Where did you get Firefox? How much did it cost? I'm about sick of Windows.

It is free, just go to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html