Posted on 01/04/2005 4:26:26 PM PST by Coleus
|
|
 |
|
|
Is this internet prodigy about to knock Microsoft off its pedestal? A Miami teenager has created a free web browser that has been called Bill Gates's worst nightmare |
A MIAMI teenager is basking in the glory of helping to create a new internet browser at 17 that is now challenging the grip of Microsoft, which once held a virtual monopoly on web surfing.
Computer analysts say that Blake Ross’s browser, Firefox, is a faster, more versatile program that also offers better protection from viruses and unwanted advertising.
Industry experts have dubbed the new software “Microsoft’s worst nightmare”, according to the technology magazine Business 2.0. It hailed Mr Ross, now 19, as a software prodigy. He is also a talented pianist and “an unbelievable creative writer”, according to his mother, Ross. “Anything he does, he does well,” she said.
As a seven-year-old Mr Ross became hooked on the popular computer game SimCity, designing and budgeting his own virtual city. By 10, he had created his own website. He later created his own computer applications and online text games.Soon he was reporting computer software flaws to manufacturers online.
At 14 he was offered an internship at Netscape in Silicon Valley. His mother drove him out to California for three summers in succession.
At Netscape, Mr Ross was introduced to the Mozilla Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that promotes “choice and innovation on the web”.
Mozilla was already trying to develop an open-source alternative browser to Microsoft’s Explorer, which many analysts felt had grown clumsy and outdated. Mr Ross and his friend David Hyatt began working on a small, user-focused browser. What began as an experimental side-project turned into Firefox.
Mr Ross is quick to point out that he was one of a large team at Mozilla who worked on the project for five years. “It’s a big volunteer effort,” he said. In fact, the pair left before the work was completed, but Mozilla credits them with making the breakthrough. After he left to go to university, Mr Ross continued to be a “significant contributor”, according to Mozilla.
The task involved throwing out all the old codes and rewriting the entire system so it would support all websites on the internet. While Firefox still has a long way to go to rival Microsoft, it seems to be catching on. Firefox has received dazzling reviews from industry analysts. Recently some 10,000 Firefox fans raised $250,000 (£131,000) to take out a two-page advertisement in The New York Times. It is not just in dividual users who are taking interest. In December, the information technology department at Pennsylvania State University sent a note to college deans recommending that the entire 100,000-strong staff, faculty and student body switch to Firefox.
Mr Ross, now a student at Stanford University studying computer science, is taking it all in his stride. As a volunteer on an open-source product, there was no financial reward.
Microsoft professes to be unfazed. Windows executive Gary Schare said: “We’re seeing the natural ebb and flow of a competitive marketplace with new products being introduced. It’s not surprising to see curious early adopters checking them out.”
Not content with making a huge dent in Microsoft’s browser share, Mozilla, the foundation behind Firefox, is also going after Microsoft’s Outlook and other e-mail packages.
Called Thunderbird 1.0, the package works on Windows, Macintosh and Linux and has been praised by the industry and press for finally offering a challenge to Microsoft’s dominance in the e-mail arena.
The software provides a number of features which other packages are struggling to offer. Key features include e-mail junk filters that analyse and sort incoming mail and greater security elements.
FF tech ping
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.
Or fewer and fewer will use MS-dependent content.
IE dominance is as key to MS as Office dominance is to Windows.
Bingo.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I can relate.
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.
" 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?
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).
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).
It is free, just go to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
