[Bush2000]

Nail, meet coffin.

[Joe Bonforte]

Once a browser drops below around five percent, I would expect it to go on a slide to oblivion because, as the article pointed out, site designers no longer test for that browser. In our estimates, we add 20-25% extra cost for a site that supports both IE and Netscape. People were willing to pay that when Netscape had 25% or more market share. At less than 5%, I would not be surprised if we never do another project supporting Netscape.

[isthisnickcool]

The solution to the recent Microsoft "anti-trust" litigation would have been to simply require that MS open-source the IE browser and plug-ins.

[AdA$tra]

AOL's plans for boosting Netscape market share hinge on the possibility of introducing Netscape as the basis for the integrated AOL Web browser

Considering that AOL has owned Netsacpe for a while, there are obviously good reasons they still use IE as their browser engine. As a professional web developer both Lotus/Domino applications and static HTML content I wouldn't care if Netscape went away all together. It has been nice developing for one platform that works every time, rather than developiong two verions of everything. One for IE, one for Netscape. For IE just add the feature to the site or app and go. With Netscape tweak the code for hours just trying to get a table or some other simple feature to display just how you want it. Netscape lovers, Opera lovers, Mozilla lovers, Gecko lovers....FLAME AWAY!

[Cryptic_One]

One of the problems is that Netscape hasn't really changed much since version 4 came out. But of course the main problem is that IE has continued to be shipped with the OS. Most people, unless they do web design or are software junkies aren't going to bother to download different browser.

Personally, I like Opera better than either IE or Netscape.

[Lx]

Gee, that's too bad. I use Netscape almost exclusively, version 4.79 that is.

The newer versions are bloated junk. I'm glad to people rejecting the new version, couldn't happen to a better company.

[Cryptic_One]

One of the problems is that Netscape hasn't really changed much since version 4 came out. But of course the main problem is that IE has continued to be shipped with the OS. Most people, unless they do web design or are software junkies aren't going to bother to download different browser.

Personally, I like Opera better than either IE or Netscape.

[Once-Ler]

AOL's plans for boosting Netscape market share hinge on the possibility of introducing Netscape as the basis for the integrated AOL Web browser, which would put it into the hands of tens of millions of consumers.

Wasn't Microsoft integrating IE with Windows OS the reason Microsoft were sued? Where is the Justice Dept now?
OH! AOL/TW gives lots of money to democrats...no wonder AOL can be hypocritical without worry.

[A CA Guy]

Netscape and AOL are both going to be going for 1% of the market soon.

[TheEngineer]

IE has now reached 96 percent market share, according to StatMarket, up from 87 percent a year ago.

Why is MS excited about a 96% market share for a free product? The higher the market share, the higher the support/maintenance costs for MS... with no associated revenue. It ain't like people are going to stop using WindowsXP because it doesn't have an integrated web browser.

I guess I don't see how IE helps MS. Just the bandwidth costs alone (for providing free downloads and updates) would choke any company south of an IBM or General Motors.

[TheEngineer]

Netscape has begun actively tracking down popular Web sites that do not render correctly in its browser and encouraging the sites to fix the errors.

I wonder if they contacted the webmaster at microsoft.com? :-)

Seriously, though, as several people mentioned earlier in this thread... It is a royal pain to develop for multiple browsers. Especially for different DOM and javascript implementations. But people are still doing it.

Pre-circa-2002, I ran into a lot of problems surfing rushlimbaugh.com using Netscape 4.7. It seemed to be designed for IE exclusively. However, now it seems to work very well with Netscape 4.7. I don't know what they did, but I suspect that they eliminated proprietary extensions after Netscape users complained (and stopped subscribing to Rush 24x7.).

[SamAdams76]

Netscape has begun actively tracking down popular Web sites that do not render correctly in its browser and encouraging the sites to fix the errors. The company said it has now eradicated errors from most popular sites.

Therein lies the problem for Netscape. Instead of fixing their browser to properly display the websites, they are asking the websites to reprogram their code to accomodate them! If my company adopted that business strategy, they'd be going down the tubes too.

[jordan8]

Netscape 4.8 is out for those who are interested:

Base Install (17mb)

Full Install (22mb)

[TheEngineer]

Back to the point of the article, MSIE's market share dominance... :-)

IMO, IE was the biggest blunder that I've ever seen MS commit. I really doubt they will do it again. Let's analyze: They bought the market out from under Netscape. Why? To prevent an upstart from becoming a big player in the computer business? There must be a better reason.

I figured that, after running Netscape down, they would start charging bucks for IE. But they haven't. I contend that, inside MS, IE is seen as a big loadstone around their neck. It is constantly under attack from hackers. They continually patch it for free. Everything related to IE is available for free download. The bandwidth for these downloads is very expensive. In short, IE is a very expensive program to maintain. But where is the return on investment?

They have 96% market share today, but if they asked everyone to send in $50 tomorrow for IE, their market share would probably be less than 25% by the end of next week: There is too much free competition.

Back in the MS's growing years, their approach was different. Apple was the company that wanted profit from every aspect of their computers: They wanted profit from the hardware and the OS, and they wanted to create most the software.

But MS's approach was different. Compared with Apple, MS's was the OS with which you could get "under the hood". MS had the better tools/compilers for building applications. MS became what it is today, in large part, because its OS supported more 3rd party apps than anyone else.

Lately, though, they seem to be taking more of the Apple approach: They want the entire "pie". But, if they have to "buy" business to make this happen, then what's the point? As I recall, the dot-com failures were caused by a lack of money-making activity (although initially fueled by grandiose plans for a website or something). It makes me wonder... Did Balmer hire any of those dot-com MBA's?