On Wed, 30 May 2001 20:48:26 -0400, Bill Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>JTK wrote:
>> Whoah, Linux *AND* 'other devices'?!?! Slow down, I'll have to start
>> adding up those user-base numbers with an abacus!
>
>Nah, you'll only need two hands and maybe one foot to cover those numbers.
The simple fact is the Win32 platform is lost. Netscape lost to
Internet Explorer back when Netscape was still producing a superior
browser, because Microsoft owned the desktop, and had the resources to
under-sell and out-market Netscape.
To get any market share back from IE on Win32 you would have to come up
with a _vastly_ superior product, you would have to market it
aggressively, and you would have to not charge any money for it. There's
no incentive for anyone to do that,
Even if you had the incentive, there's probably not enough room left in
web browser functionality to differentiate yourself from the competition.
Since "Version 4", the only real change in browsers have been the
incremental increase in support for HTML/CSS, and stability. Sure, you can
support the standards better, but when the _practical_ standard is "What
IE supports", w3c standards are really just an exercise in geek
credibility.
I prefer Mozilla, but when I'm running Windows, I often find myself using
IE by default just because the way it's tied in to the OS makes it more
convenient when I just want to type in a URL and go somewhere.
If you're following Mozilla because you think it's Netscape's great hope
to recapture any significant browser market-share on the Windows platform,
go home now. It's not going to happen, and it has _nothing_ to do with
whether mozilla.org produces a product that is better or worse than
Internet Explorer.
So what's left? Why does AOL continue to put money into this? My guess is:
1) It allows them to say to Microsoft "If you don't keep advertising our
service on your desktop, we'll switch to a gecko-based browser." If AOL
did not have this leverage, Microsoft could have said "We're not renewing
our deal to keep you on our desktop, but you have to keep using IE anyway,
because what else is there?
AOL gets far more tangible benefit from being on the Windows desktop than
it would from switching to using Mozilla on its Windows client, but it
still needs a ready alternative in case Microsoft decide to change the
rules.
2) It gives AOL a platform for providing services on devices that do
not run Windows.
Since pundits have been saying "Next year is the year of the web appliance
and the death of the PC!" for at least the last five years, it's always
good to be in a position to capitalise on that if they turn out to be
right. Having something that runs on a free OS becomes important in this
arena, since when you start looking at the sort of price at which people
would _buy_ a web appliance rather than a PC, having to buy Windows
licenses would take a substantial chunk out of what you could spend on
hardware for each box.
Charles Miller
