Posted on 04/12/2002 12:06:58 PM PDT by EggsAckley
BLESSINGS,
Class?
Microsft's reasons for writing IE had nothing to do with their desire to not be blamed for misbehaving software from third party developers and had evertything to do with Bill playing catchup on the WWW after initally dismissing it because he wanted to promote a closed proprietary MSN as an alternative to CIS and AOL.
And if M$ were truly concerned about their image as a stable platform, they would have made more of an effort to put out stable platforms to begin with. Their desire to churn out software no matter its maturity, to stay ahead of the competition, has done more damage to their reputations, and increase people's frustrations, than some other third party developers.
Got it
Got it
Sheesh... Look kid, I've been working in IT for quite some time. I was there working with the systems and reading the trades when all this stuff happened.
Here's some brief histories for you from various sources.
* Mosaic. Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina from the NCSA released the first version of Mosaic for X-Windows on Unix computers in February, 1993. A version for the Macintosh was developed by Aleks Totic and released a few months later, making Mosaic the first browser with cross-platform support. Mosaic introduced support for sound, video clips, forms support, bookmarks, and history files, and quickly became the most popular non-commercial web browser. In August, 1994, NCSA assigned commercial rights to Mosaic to Spyglass, Inc., which subsequently licensed the technology to several other companies, including Microsoft for use in Internet Explorer. The NCSA stopped developing Mosaic in January 1997. source
... Interestingly, Microsoft, by far the dominant developer of operating systems and software, has chosen to license the critical browsing technology needed for its new network from Spyglass. Similarly, Delphi, one of the largest Internet access providers and a subsidiary of News Corp., also chose to license interface software instead of developing it internally. These companies are gaining time to market for the capture of first-time subscribers, but they may be forfeiting the opportunity to lock in those subscribers by not using truly innovative and differentiable interfaces. Only time will tell, but these licensing decisions demonstrate the felt urgency to reach the market quickly. Microsoft's decision may have been a defensive move to counter Netscape, whose rapid emergence in the marketplace may foretell its future as the Microsoft (i.e. systems software standard) of the Information Superhighway. Looking ahead to the increasing importance of transactions to online services, both Microsoft and Netscape have forged alliances with credit card services--Visa and MasterCard, respectively--in order to gain access to their card holders.source
So, If as you say, Micro$oft invented IE to counter unstable Netscape code, why did they license that very code for their first IE?
More...
... But that would be better than the way it's being bundled,because if you're going to bundle it, you're guaranteeing a significant advantage. Within six months they'll have more subscribers to their service than all of the three existing guys ( AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy ) together, would be my guess..."
America Online and Netscape are dicussing an alliance aimed at furthering their lead over Microsoft." - The WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 22, 1996, p.1
Microsoft Seeking to Derail AOL Talks With Netscape ... is trying to persuade AOL to license Microsoft Internet Software instead. The WALL STREET JOURNAL, March 7, 1996, p.A3
Internet control battle heats up: Microsoft teams up with America Online. Intensifying its dogfight with Netscape Communications, Microsoft ... announced a broad pact with America Online to promote each other's products. SBee News Services, Sbee March 13 , p.D1
Okay, so why did AOL make the deal with Microsoft? Because AOL wanted to keep their pre-loaded software on OEM machines. A deal made between AOL and the OEM's. Microsoft was promoting it's new MSN (Microsoft Network) to compete with CIS,AOL & Prodigy and was including it with their then new Windows 95. Microsoft using its postition, was going to force the OEM's to end that deal with AOL.
Okay, So why would Microsoft make such a deal when they had their own fledgling MSN to promote and having a competitor's software pre-installed on new systems would seem to allow consumer's to choose something else? Answer: It was more important to them to have IE out there, and the deal with AOL forced IE down every AOL users throats, whether they wanted it or not.
Got it?
Go back to class kid, and try to stay awake. And if your misinformation was actually gleened from that class, I suggest you get your money back.
Secondly, why should Micro$oft have been allowed to force the OEM's into negating their contract and dropping AOL software? AOL had made a contract with the OEM's directly to promote its product and M$ came in and was going to use its power to force them to drop it, unless AOL made a deal with M$ to push IE. Are you telling me that the OEM's and thrid parties cannot enter into contracts unless approved by Bill???
Did you know that at one time M$ forced OEMs to pay M$ a fee for the OS even if the OS was not installed or sold on a system, just because someone would install an OS, probably Windoze?
And lastly, I just love it when people pull out the old "your against capitalism" line when arguing against a company that behaves in a monoplistic and predatory way. Being a monopoly is not a crime per se, but acting like one is. And Micro$oft has been shown to act in such a way.
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.