Replies

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.

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.

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).