> From: Bob Munck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 4:20 PM
>
Netscape is surviving because a lot of people are gambling that
> > they will be able to hang in long enough to prove a viable
> > competitor to MSFT.
>
> That's a very thought-provoking statement. I don't think you're
> referring to NS investors, although they certainly are gambling.
>
It was the investors that I was referring to. You pointed out how
capitalized they are -- and that K has come from investors, not from
profits, as I don't think they are making any yet.
> I think you're saying that a lot of web developers are investing
> effort in making their sites work with the NS browser, at a fair
> cost to their clients or employers.
>
No, this is NOT what I was saying.
I do NOT write code for browsers. I write accessible/usable code that, if it
takes advantage of a proprietary tag (like font color was prior to HTML
4.0), it will degrade to "spec."
> my Expanding Outlines (Mill-Creek-Systems.com/WebTips/ExpandingOutline)
> function under NS is easily ten times what it took on MS.)
>
Hmm. Is the code "spec"? Of course, CSS implementation isn't there yet, in
either browser. And most of the DHTML flash I've seen is just that, flash
not substance.
> OK, if NS succeeds, what do those gamblers win? Emotional satisfaction?
> Not a good criteria for business decisions.
>
> > > ... twenty-five years ago. IBM had a larger share of
> > > the market and more of a strangle-hold on it, but they were squashed,
> > >
> > IBM. Squashed? I don't think so ...
>
> IBM was as much as 90% of the entire computer industry; they dominated
>
SQUASHED to me means something different. IE, "gone." Studebaker comes to
mind.
> they're tiny compared to the current size of the industry.
>
>
> > I'm not sure which economy you think you live in, Bob. But as several
> > economists have pointed out (and DOJ is learning), there is absolutely
> no
> > correlation between "innovative product" and "market share" in an
> > infrastructure-related product (telephone, railroad tracks, PC-OS).
>
> Economists? You believe something that economists say?
>
I am one.
> Your examples are interesting. The railroads were supplanted by
>
The analogy was lost, I see. The point was not that RR was supplanted by
autos -- but that for there to be interoperability, someone (the gov't?) had
to regulate the size of the rails and the width of the tracks. For until
this little detail was worked out, we did not (could not) have efficient
transcontinental RR traffic.
I'm talking interoperability. WHich MSFT does NOT facilitate (see the Sun
Java suit, DR DOS suit, etc.)
> > The costs to competitor are too great (barrier to entry -- [1]
> > how the hell do you get on the WinOS desktop if you are a competitor?
>
> Build better software than they do.
>
Interoperability. This is a concept that I don't seem to be able to get
across.
Seems like you've listened to a lot of idealistic "we live in a pure free
market" economists ...
Kathy
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
