Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netscape Backs Away From Browsers

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the is-mozilla-a-media-hub-access-tool? dept.

Netscape 228

gutier writes: "It seems that Netscape has recognized that it has lost the browser battle, and has decided to restructure itself into an "Internet Media Hub". Information here." The article does not say that Netscape will stop making browsers in favor of various media-integration tools and business offerings, but it does hint that strongly. I don't think this is the first time that an analyst has said "It's not going to be Netscape, but rather Netscape.com," either.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Not fantastically interesting. (a8o) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#172951)

The premise of this posting is wrong. AOL cannot get mega-traffic without browser integration. How else do you think MSN gets so much traffic? It sure isn't the killer search engine. hotmail gets them loads of traffic, but hotmail has much of the "market" for free email. netscape can survive and people wont just pick up their email addys and go the ns

Re:no need for it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#172952)

And what exactly does .NET compliant browser mean? That is. other than vague hypewords that can be used to FUD competition.

Re:no need for it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#172953)

> With dot NET around the corner, there is no need nor room for a Netscape or any other non-.NET compliant browser anyway.

(maybe it was supposed to be funny, in which case I missed the joke)

Uh ? This is marketing bullshit.

I saw too much "products around the corner" that were supposed to render everything else pointless to buy to such an argument.

Analyst used to tell people *not* to upgrade to MS-DOS 3.3 because 4.0 was supposed to be multitask.

.net will render nothing irrelevant, like NT did not preclude win98 and ME. Or 1995 version of MSN did not replace the internet as it was supposed to.

CORBA did not replace internet protocols. Java did not replace C. There are hundred of examples like this.

Cheers,

--fred

The browser wasn't where Netscape made its money (5)

SiliconJesus (1407) | more than 13 years ago | (#172962)

The server is / was. The Netscape browser was just that, a browser. Since IIS doesn't run on UNIX, the two choices are Apache and Netscape iPlanet server (yes, I'm aware there are other servers out there, but iPlanet and Apache are the two market dominators). This isn't the invitation to start a flame-thread about Apache vs iPlanet, but realize for Fortune 100 companies still want a commercial entity behind their web server.
Again, please rediresct all flames to /dev/null

Secret windows code

LOST the browser war? (5)

Omega (1602) | more than 13 years ago | (#172963)

gutier writes: "It seems that Netscape has recognized that it has lost the browser battle, and has decided to restructure itself into an "Internet Media Hub".

I don't understand what you mean by Lost the Browser War. It's not something you can win or lose, unless you're talking about giving up from the frustration caused by the monopolistic, anticompetitive tactics of a certain company [microsoft.com] .

As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera [opera.com] may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux. Konqueror is making inroads, but nobody has as complete a market as netscape.

Because of Microsoft (1)

dsfox (2694) | more than 13 years ago | (#172966)

The companies you are referring to were once making end user software for the Microsoft controlled desktop. Then Microsoft kicks them out.

What it means is... (1)

dsfox (2694) | more than 13 years ago | (#172967)

they blew their (first) chance to be dominant on the platform used by 90% of browsers by failing to design their software in a scalable fashion and failing to allocate the resources to software development required to maintain their lead over Internet Explorer. They blew their second chance because of lack of focus on the important goals in developing Mozilla, with too much focus on the standard of the week from w3c. And yes, Netscape/AOL employees *are* the main developers of Mozilla.

Re:Thankfully... (2)

Genom (3868) | more than 13 years ago | (#172973)

If you've been staying away because of speed, stability, etc...you might want to give one of the latest nightlies a shot - they've gotten considerably more stable (at least for me, YMMV) over the past 2 weeks or so - and runs *nearly* as fast as konq (it may be graphics slowdown from the overly intensive "modern" theme I'm running, until x.themes.org comes back with thinice ;) ).

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest /

Re:Predictable, really. (2)

Genom (3868) | more than 13 years ago | (#172974)

* Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.


Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare. They also used illegal bundling practices to hedge Netscape out of OEMs - preventing Netscape from coming pre-installed on many consumer-level computers. It was all a ploy to get rid of Netscape - and it worked.

Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...

Wrong again. There's a big difference between "free" (IE: no cost) software, "Open Source" (IE: you can look at and report bugs in the source) software, and "Free" (IE: you have the same rights as the author) software.

Giving away "free" software is just a major undercut of your competitor's pricing, and could only be outdone by either giving away a better package, or paying people to take your software. It destroys (in some cases) much of the "value" of commercial competitors, since as long as your "free" alternative is "good enough", many people won't pay extra for your competitor's software.

This is how MS played the cards with IE. You could get IE for "free", and it worked "good enough" that most people didn't go get Netscape, which at the time cost around $50. MS went a step further by "bundling" - but that's another discussion.

"Open Source" software means that you're letting people (in some cases the public, in some cases only a select few "chosen" people) look at the source code, and possibly be able to report bugs - but there's no freedom to use the source code - only to look. While this might prevent some security flaws from going unnoticed, it provides no real benefit to the consumer (at least, IMHO)

"Free" software is just that - once you have it, you have the same rights as the author. Compile, run, modify, redistribute - you can do it all, and you are encouraged to. Many companies (most notably MS recently) are *scared* by this, since it is very tough to compete with on an even level.

Just bcause a company gives away software at no cost doesn't mean it has embraces the Open Source or Free software movements, or that eventually they will. It just means they're trying to undercut their competition and gain marketshare.

* Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.

I won't argue with you here, although Mozilla is (finally) turning into a mighty fine browser =)

I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.

They don't sell their browser as a standalone product - but you pay for it every time you buy a computer with Win* preinstalled, or purchase a copy of any MS software. (Win, Office, etc...)

MS doesn't need to sell it's browser - by bundling it with the OS, it gets to people anyway. It also makes it extremely tough for *anyone* to sell a commercial browser. Look at Opera - they recently started giving away an advertising-supported "free" version of their browser, but they still have very little in the way of market/mindshare (but they *do* have an excellent product). Can you really justify buying Opera when you have IE for free? (as well as Mozilla, Konq, etc...) It's tough.

Thanks, Netscape. Rest in peace.

Yes - Netscape has left their mark - even if they die a slow, horrible, painful death by "portalizing", they have left their mark on the world.

Re:Thankfully... (1)

Quinn (4474) | more than 13 years ago | (#172979)

The nightlies still sucked when I tried them about a month ago. Last week, I switched to Konqueror and haven't loaded the old NS4 since. I vaguely miss some of the wizzier features of Mozilla (saving http-auth passwords, form input, themes, etc.), but the speed and reliability of Konqueror is well worth it.

Plugins actually work, too. Hell, Acrobat files even come up in the browser pane. I don't particularly like that, but it's cool to see things work like they do everywhere else.

CSS seems a little off with regard to text colors, but I'm probably doing something wrong.

Try Konqueror. You'll probably be impressed.

--

netscape icon (1)

DarkClown (7673) | more than 13 years ago | (#172985)

Why not lose the lizard in the netscape topic icon?
mozilla is it's own topic now, after all...
jwz has a new post-post-mortem that is relevant to this article at http://www.jwz.org/gruntle

Re:a8o (2)

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) | more than 13 years ago | (#172986)

No, layout won't change. What'll change is IE specific plugins and x86 Win32-only binaries downloaded to your browser will be expected to run......

Layout is irrelevent. Why bother controlling that standard when you can "extend" the Web experience to make it Microsoft-only.

That's what scares me.

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

Re:What an insight (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 13 years ago | (#172991)

This was back in the days when a lot of people didn't understand how the Net worked and were willing to be guided by the hand.

Wow, how the times have changed... :)

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:Internet Explorer (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 13 years ago | (#172992)

Based on Microsoft's past actions, the current level of standards support in IE is there to gain market share. Once they have captured enough of the market, they will begin making their own standards in order to prevent anyone else from competing. It's a means to an end, it's not really because they're serious about standards in a meaningful way.

And besides, this broken up market share hasn't been good for the public either. It is almost necessary to have multiple browsers on your computer in order to visit all of the sites that you might happen across, if only for the latest plugins that might not have been developed for your browser of choice.

Speaking as someone who was recently using Netscape 4.x on HP-UX, there's really nothing on any of those sites that you can't get along without. Now that I have access to Netscape on Solaris and Linux, which do have somewhat more plugin support, I still don't use them because I've learned the hard way that that sort of thing doesn't really add any value to my web experience. If web sites don't work for me, I go elsewhere - there are usually plenty of other places to find what I'm looking for.

Not that it wouldn't be nice if all web browsers could work together with all sites correctly, I just don't think it's a crippling problem if they don't.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:Internet Explorer (2)

ethereal (13958) | more than 13 years ago | (#172993)

Microsoft would not ignore the standards.

No, of course not. Why would anyone ever think that of Microsoft? I can't imagine ever having any issues with Microsoft's standards support - the very idea is unthinkable. After all, you have to embrace the standard before you can extend it in non-standard ways, you know.

Heaven is when one browser has 100% of the market share, works cross-platform, and could bring newer, more modern, and more useful features to the public.

Don't confuse what makes your job easier with what's better for the public - look how nice it's been when almost everyone uses one broken email client, after all. Anyone having 100% market share is always bad in theory, and almost always bad in practice. If there's anyone I would trust to have 100% share of a market, it's not Microsoft.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:I welcome everyone (1)

Hammer (14284) | more than 13 years ago | (#172994)

And it's available on Linux I presume....

Sadly.. (1)

Hammer (14284) | more than 13 years ago | (#172995)

..you are probably right

Re:Why? (2)

Jose (15075) | more than 13 years ago | (#172996)

probably because their main product (Netscape Browser), does not make any money, but is very expensive to keep developing for. Not only is it not making any money, it would be _impossible_ for it to make money. It is free(beer).
They are a company, they need to make money.

Is an Internet Portal the way to do it? probably not :(

http://www.fuckedcompany.com (1)

redhog (15207) | more than 13 years ago | (#172998)

http://www.fuckedcompany.com

Why do the better allways lose? Because the not-so-good is allways made by the Evil. And Evil allways wins, 'cause they have more means for winning.

Re:So basically... (1)

maw (25860) | more than 13 years ago | (#173000)

MS has the better technology....

Gee, you don't hear that every day!
--

Re:Future of Mozilla (2)

karot (26201) | more than 13 years ago | (#173001)

I believe Mozilla stands a pretty good chance:

1) The muckups that NS 6 and NS 6.01 made of the Mozilla image won't be there anymore.
2) IIRC, the NS development staff have already all but pulled out of Mozilla development.
3) The latest Mozilla builds are starting to *SHINE* and that alone will give it momentum.
4) Neither Konq or Opera have the same level of DOM and JavaScript support as NS or IE (Sure, nearly, but not quite)

I actually use Opera 5.0 for Linux for most things, but still use Mozilla a lot of the time because some sites require either IE or Netscape, and Mozilla is close enough to Netscape to be acceptable to these people.

I'd like to see a more level playing field in future, with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla and IE all keeping eachother in check. Without a reasonable number of players, IE will just walk all over the idea of standards based browsers.
--

Netscape and the browser.... (2)

ajs (35943) | more than 13 years ago | (#173006)

"Netscape Navigator" will likely never be a product again. This is no shock. It will almost certainly be given away (free debugging!), but AOL's primary interest is clearly in developing the next-generation of platform on which to build the AOL client.

They are trying to gain control over the browser platform for basically the same reasons that Microsoft did. Mozilla/Netscape helps them do this.

The interesting thing is that AOL needs Netscape more than ever. As MS begins to flex it muscles to see how far the Bush administration will let them go, AOL needs to be very aware of how easily a few key media deals could cripple their market, and having their own browser platform will help make them a little bit more independant.

--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)

Re:Not fantastically interesting. (2)

macpeep (36699) | more than 13 years ago | (#173007)

Netscape still has a very strong brand name and while it's no longer the case that Netscape == the Internet, the brand is still very valuable and recognized. Wasn't there a story here a couple of days ago about the top-4 web sites receiving 60% of all clicks. Netscape was one of those sites and it sounds like AOL will start pushing it even more now. It's much easier to build on something existing than starting from scratch. When AOL bought Netscape, everyone assumed it was because of the browser. Even if that was the case, the weight has definitely shifted now and unfortunately, it's much because of the failure of Mozilla.

And yes, I know Mozilla (1.0) hasn't been released yet so it's theoretically too early to call it a failure. But that's the whole point - three years later, it's still not at 1.0 and Netscape 6.x was a flop of monumental proportions. Neoplanet has backed away from it and now it seems AOL is too.

So basically... (2)

costas (38724) | more than 13 years ago | (#173009)

...Netscape will become Pathfinder for the GenX crowd. Only that when Pathfinder was live, only us "GenXers" (I hate that term too) were using the Web in the first place, and you know how Pathfinder turned out.

The browser war is dead anyway. The coming war will be Web-based services (think IM, stock quotes, money management); MS has the better technology, but AOL has the users... it will be an interesting battle :-)...

Microsoft domination wins again! (1)

Cabby (39912) | more than 13 years ago | (#173010)

No, it's not an out and out anti-microsoft rant, but it is sad to see their only real competition in the browser market effectively conceeding defeat.
What I found more interesting however is Microsoft's plans for embedded instant messaging utilities in the next Windows release.

Having effectively now gained control of the browser market does this mean they're likely to do the same for IM? If that means that everyone's on the same standard then that might not be a bad thing, but you're then obviously dependant again on how willing they are to share with non-MS companies wishing to produce compliant clients...

Re:A Good Thing? (1)

Steve B (42864) | more than 13 years ago | (#173012)

Web design utilizing things like, oh, CSS isn't feasible if you don't want to alienate your Netscape audience.

Well, then, don't include that crap in your design. Duh.
/.

Re:Opera wins (2)

Steve B (42864) | more than 13 years ago | (#173013)

i am frustrated because people won't pay for quality software anymore.

***BBZZZTTT!!*** Thank you for playing.

From the original message in the thread:

I downloaded the free version and ended up purchasing it. For $39 it just seemed like a great deal.

/.

What an insight (5)

drfalken (43743) | more than 13 years ago | (#173015)

There was a time when netscape.com was the most popular destination on the Internet b/c it was the default start page for almost every browser. This was back in the days when a lot of people didn't understand how the Net worked and were willing to be guided by the hand. Amazingly Netscape did absolutely nothing to capitalize on the opportunity to become the critical portal on the web. Yahoo etc wouldn't have stood a chance.

I guess they can try to play catch up, but I'm beginning to think that whatever brand-equity is left will quickly be transformed into a negative image. If they can't make this reorganization work, the name will become synonymous with Betamax (if it isn't already).

For my money 'though, I'm glad that Netscape missed the boat on the web portal opportunity. I don't think the web would be half as interesting a place if everyone had to go there to do anything. The competition and innovation inspired by leaving room for this to be done by others has produced countless successes and failures over the past few years.
----------------------------

it's aol for the rest of us (1)

laslo2 (51210) | more than 13 years ago | (#173017)

...into an Internet media hub brimming with Time Warner artists and publications, aimed at office workers and Web purists not already using AOL services....

in other words, one more way to get content controlled by the time-warner-aol conglomerate, but this time it's aimed at the "independent thinking people" who do things their own way instead of the unwashed sheeple masses on aol.

bah. phooey. pffffffththththt!!!!!

Is this funny, or is it just me? (1)

MrEd (60684) | more than 13 years ago | (#173020)

So, netscape.com will become a portal forWeb purists not already using AOL services? These must be some pretty uninformed 'web purists' they're after...

Opera wins (2)

bubbha (61990) | more than 13 years ago | (#173024)

I have to laugh at some of the IE postings here on this topic. Seems the Billy's drones are ever vigilant. I've been quite pleased with Opera 5.x. I downloaded the free version and ended up purchasing it. For $39 it just seemed like a great deal. Also, as a programmer, I was impressed that a small group of people could produce such a superior browser - especially for that price. If Gates charged for IE... for the bucks he really spends on developing it... I bet it would cost $200. But then again, stick around... it another year or so, it probably will.

Re:Opera wins (2)

bubbha (61990) | more than 13 years ago | (#173025)

I paid for opera... $39. I'd be happy to pay for IE. Tell me, how much do you think MS has expended on it's development? Based upon that...how much do you think they should charge for it?

Re:http://www.fuckedcompany.com (1)

baitisj (64922) | more than 13 years ago | (#173027)

No, evil wins because good is dumb.

Everyone knows that.

Not fantastically interesting. (5)

handelaar (65505) | more than 13 years ago | (#173028)

Without a reasonably strong browser in popular use, how on earth can Netscape.com attract visitors? It doesn't work to simply have other AOL-TW companies plug Netscape.com on air or in print because users associate (for example) CNN with CNN.com. Which, if memory serves, is why Pathfinder was such a roaring success.

The premise of this posting is wrong. AOL cannot get mega-traffic without browser integration. How else do you think MSN gets so much traffic? It sure isn't the killer search engine.

Re:Not fantastically interesting. (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 13 years ago | (#173033)

Even if AOL continues to use IE as its browser, which may not happen as MS want the terms to be that AOL will never file suit against MS ever again, it can still set netscape.com to be the homepage.

Re:A Good Thing? (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 13 years ago | (#173035)

Yep, I guess I should upgrade because it makes your life as a content provider easier? Sure, ok. My point is there may be no reason to do this.

If I have an old car that works, I don't throw it out just because its old. Netscape 4.X works well for many people. But as you say, they should be forced to upgrade. Why? When you manage hundreds of PC's upgrading is a fairly nasty task that causes a lot of disruption. If your tech. support measures service levels, a mass upgrade throws a real wrench in the works. The upgrade treadmill, brought to you by closed-source vendors like MS is what sometimes makes IT a hellish place to work (I know for you its different browsers looking at your content).

Theres no real need to be on the upgrade treadmill anymore (thats what's changing MS's liscencing scheme). You can upgrade when you want and how you want. I'll upgrade all the PC's from Netscape 4.X to Mozilla when I want and how I want.

not good (2)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 13 years ago | (#173036)

That's not really good for Mozilla. Mozilla needs a big company to support it in order to get some serious market penetration. I still have hopes that AOL will eventually embed Mozilla directly into AOL.

What else can be done to gain some marketshare? IE ships with almost every computer sold world round, how do you compete with that?

If Mozilla only gains marketshare in *nix, that won't really help us at all. We need some marketshare in Windows for Mozilla to become a viable browser. If we don't get that, the web is doomed to become "Windows Only".

Gee Thanks (1)

Amokscience (86909) | more than 13 years ago | (#173041)

Thanks! So I can take comfort from your statement when my web stats show that 95% of all visitors are using some version of IE? Whoopee

Old news, news. (1)

oldstrat (87076) | more than 13 years ago | (#173042)

A.K.A. What do we do for a press release? (recycle this)

I don't have the links... They probably don't exist anymore anyways.

Before AOL/SUN ate Netscape, Netscape Communications had done exactly what this 'press release' said. There was never an anouncement of any deviation from this model either.
The only change was that Sun would take over the server products (and apparently fail at most of them), and pay AOL for browser development. Go figure.

I'd have to check, but what this is probably a flag for is that that contract for browser development is probably coming up on running out and AOL wants to transition the Netscape brand into something it can make money from without looking like AOL.

Re:Internet Explorer (1)

radish (98371) | more than 13 years ago | (#173045)


people who think it's as simple as that should keep quiet until they get out of kindergarden.

Re:no need for it (1)

Macaw2000 (103146) | more than 13 years ago | (#173046)

Why the fuck is this insightful? It's actually the most uniformed, retarded post here. .NET emits pure HTML to the client browser. If the client browser supports ECMA-Script then then it gets richer client-side controls otherwise it's just more roundtrips to the server. There's no such thing as a damn .NET Compliant Browser.

Re:Explanation (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 13 years ago | (#173047)

"internet media hub" is 150% buzzword compliant.

ask your mom if she would rather visit is portal, or an internet media hub and see which one she chooses.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\=\

AOL ALWAYS wanted Netscape.com (2)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 13 years ago | (#173048)

Why would AOL buy a browser? As a result of Microsoft "cutting off their air supply" the browser has been free for years. When did it become free, late '97? I remember because the place I work was in the process of a software audit to register the shareware applications, etc., floating around the office, when Netscape went free for businesses too.

Netscape users are STILL 15%-20% of the market, maybe more. You'd be shocked how many are around, and that's will Netscape 4.x. Mozilla will bring more if Fizzilla (the Carbon Mac OS X one) and the core system improve AND Mac and Linux both gain marketshare... both reasonable assumptions.

Mozilla helps Netscape IF Netscape ships a branded Mozilla (which they STILL will). Mozilla users => web logs indicated Netscape 5 or 6 or whatever users. If 30% of my traffic is Mozilla based, I can't ignore the browser. This let's Netscape stay competitive by their browser being supported.

Remember why AOL bought Netscape. They wanted to reach more Internet users. ICQ users and Netscape users are a VERY different kind of user than their AIM/AOL users. Most of my friends at school were using AIM, so I slowly moved in that direction, but it's telling who is still on my ICQ list and hasn't moved over.

AOL wants to sell their stuff everywhere! They have a LOT to sell.

Netscape remains valuable because users with Netscape.com as their home page ARE NOT users that normally use AOL products. They would have no easy way to reach them on the Internet. Netcenter (or whatever they call it THIS week) changes that.

Alex

In fact, dot net will encourage netscape (2)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 13 years ago | (#173060)

because ASP.net works with components that generate the HTML for you, based on what the browser is able to render, so Netscape can survive the .NET age. In fact, .NET development makes it easier for webapplication builders to support more browsers, by just writing 1 codeset, so netscape users are not forced to upgrade when they want to use a certain webapplication.
--

Good for mozilla? (2)

aozilla (133143) | more than 13 years ago | (#173061)

Ya know, this could actually be a good thing for mozilla. Now that AOL has basically told us it isn't interested in making a browser any more, the importance of Mozilla becomes very high. IE cannot be the only browser, but Microsoft competing with AOL doesn't make much sense. IE is simply better than Netscape. But having an open-source alternative which runs on most platforms is important. Maybe it's time for someone other than AOL to fork Mozilla and take over development. I'm a big believer that large scale open-source won't work in today's age without corporate (or NPO) backing, but AOL just isn't cutting it.

Re:Is this funny, or is it just me? (1)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 13 years ago | (#173062)

No, it's full of yuppies.

Re:trade offs (1)

Mold (136317) | more than 13 years ago | (#173063)

And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.

Simple. Most people that have Windows, have absolutely no need to upgrade. It already supports everything the average user needs. In order to make money, Microsoft needs to keep adding more features to their main product, so the average user sees a reason to upgrade.

These may not seem urgeant to the average /. reader, but this is the sort of thing that the average consumer will want. This is what will cause the average consumer to give more money to Microsoft so MS doesn't go under. This isn't just some greedy MS concept, all companies do this. If they don't they are a (or should be) a non-profit organization.

I can see why people don't like MS for strongarming other companies, and spying on consumers, but I will never understand why everyone complains when MS adds a new feature to their major product. If a car company adds a new feature, and I'm looking for a new car, the car with the newest, coolest features are going to stand out in my mind, making the car manufacturer more likely to get my money.

Re:Internet Explorer (1)

Mold (136317) | more than 13 years ago | (#173064)

In the more recent versions of IE, standards support is remarkable, which is a change from older versions. I'd like to link to a nice summary of browser/standards compatibility, however, I couldn't find one a short amount of time. Does anyone know of any?

I said Heaven, which is supposed to be perfection. I do understand that in real life 100% market share is not the always the best. Competition always decreases prices and causes companies to work harder in order to maintain market share. It was merely wishful thinking, which will hopefully become irrelevent once XML becomes widespread.

And besides, this broken up market share hasn't been good for the public either. It is almost necessary to have multiple browsers on your computer in order to visit all of the sites that you might happen across, if only for the latest plugins that might not have been developed for your browser of choice.

Internet Explorer (2)

Mold (136317) | more than 13 years ago | (#173067)

Most people seem to forget about how the W3C works, and see this as a reason to bash Microsoft.

Microsoft would not ignore the standards. Versions 5 and 6 (so far) of IE, have incredible support of most (CSS2 stands out like a sore thumb) of the standards. The extra things are added for the advancement of the web standards. If something is popular, it is added to the standard; otherwise, it is removed in later versions of the browser.

The thing about IE that I love (as a proffesional web developer) is its support for practically anything I need. If something is programmed one way for NS4, it is different for Mozilla, but using IE, I can write the code either way.

Mozilla isn't too bad; it does support non-standard properties (eg. innerHTML), but Opera is another matter. It supports nothing new. It can never help advance the standard (Is this needed with XML coming up?), and therefore is merely a bane to web development, weakening modern tools.

Heaven is when one browser has 100% of the market share, works cross-platform, and could bring newer, more modern, and more useful features to the public.

Sorry about the rant, but I do get tired of writing, checking my code in six different browsers (Have to check in Op4 and NS3..*shudder*) all the time.

Re:LOST the browser war? (1)

bellings (137948) | more than 13 years ago | (#173068)

As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux.

Yes. Netscape runs (barely) on headless servers. But Internet Explorer works reasonably well on anything I'd plug a monitor and keyboard into -- Macs and Windows machines.

Re:The Death Knell (2)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 13 years ago | (#173071)

You won't find a reference to this anywhere. It's just one person's (rather uninfomed if you ask me) opinion of things.

They seem to be forgetting that the web is much more than just Windows desktop systems.

If you want your apps to work with Linux, mobile internet, console devices of the future etc, java is probably the way to go.

Iplant is the money (1)

lonesome phreak (142354) | more than 13 years ago | (#173072)

Netscape has realized that end-users aren't where the money is: Iplanet products are. Microsoft's "enterprise" software doesn't even begin to compete against the likes of Enterprise Portal, ECXpert, Directory Server, and such. M$ is just now making a foray into such technologies. Netscape has been selling them for years. I have been working with Iplanet software for about six months now, and now see why no one who really knows anything aobut enterprise-level systems considers Microsoft a contender. Active Directory is an attempt, but it's still not nearly as powerful or flexible as directory. Nor is it mature or as stable. Everyone is talking about AOL fighting M$ on the end-user connectivity side. No one seems to notice the enterprise-level battle going on between win2k and Iplanet, who is also owned by Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner, respectivly.

This is old news (1)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 13 years ago | (#173074)

When AOL took over NS, it was made clear then that the focus of Netscape would change to being the access point for AOL content. AOL would continue supporting Mozilla development for its own purposes.
This is like Columbus "discovering" the new world; forget those pesky inhabitants who have been there for millenia.
It has been obvious for a while now that browser technology has become "jellybeaned" (so common it is like a factory cranking out jellybeans), and is insufficient to be the sole support for a company. Of course what AOL wants is software that can be embedded in any box imaginable, delivering AOL/Time Warner content, where the real money lies.
Some Mozilla spawn on a wireless Linux webpad would be just perfect. Jellybean that , please!

Re:Thankfully... (1)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 13 years ago | (#173078)

Mozilla is protected.

Mozilla has gone down the stairs?

--

It was only time, I suppose (1)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#173079)

Netscape has fallen way behind other browser makers, even the Mozilla project which came from Netscape itself. It doesn't surpise me that Netscape is going to quit making browsers.

Future of Mozilla (3)

Skuto (171945) | more than 13 years ago | (#173085)

How will this affect the future of Mozilla?

Yes, its under a free license, but let's not
forget nearly all development is still done
by Netscape employees.

If 80% of the developers have to work on other
stuff, it's going to be Nomorezilla fast enough...

--
GCP

trade offs (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#173086)

it almost sound like Microsoft wants access to the AOL instant messanger market in exchange of AOL being on the desktop.

And Aol is pushing to have the AOL Instant messanger be the standard or else it will start converting lots of its users to Netscape. or something like that

This somehow ties into the fight over Windows XP. The big companies didn't care as much when microsoft was going after smaller companies like Netscape. Now suddenly it is their lunch on the table, and it becomes important.

And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

Why? (2)

YKnot (181580) | more than 13 years ago | (#173088)

Why is it that all companies have to become Portals after they give up their main product and before they die?

Re:trade offs (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 13 years ago | (#173091)

"This somehow ties into the fight over Windows XP. The big companies didn't care as much when microsoft was going after smaller companies like Netscape. Now suddenly it is their lunch on the table, and it becomes important."

this all sounds like a parable I heard once. It ended something like this:

... and when they came for me there was no one left to complain ...

Re:Why? (5)

referee (191944) | more than 13 years ago | (#173098)

First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then they become a portal?

Re:Why Netscape FAILED (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 13 years ago | (#173099)

Sad to say I have to agree with you.

The thing that hurt Netscape was the fact they released Netscape 6 based on a relatively old version of Mozilla code (Version 0.6). No wonder why everyone hated it; it was sluggish, had a look and feel that was totally different from Netscape 4.7x, and many web pages wouldn't render properly either.

I just hope Netscape might just redeem itself by releasing a new version of its browser based on Mozilla 1.0 code due later this year. It would also help if AOL 7.0 defaults to this new browser, but at the rate things are going that might not happen. :-(

Explanation (2)

phaze3000 (204500) | more than 13 years ago | (#173101)

How exactly is an 'Internet media hub' different from a portal?

And how exactly do Netscape intend to make any money from it when companies who have been doing it from the start [yahoo.com] can't?



--

Re:Predictable, really. (2)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 13 years ago | (#173102)

Sorry, but your rather strange conclusions cannot go unchallenged.

"Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free."
OK, I guess it depends how you define "won", but using the generally accepted definitions, M$ did indeed win - there are far more copies of M$IE in use round the world than there are of NS. Heck, depending upon which figures you use, there are far more copies of M$IE in use than ALL other browsers put together :/
Oh yeah, and how on earth does M$ releasing IE for free mean NS won?!?! I guess, using your own argument, M$ won the OS wars because Solaris, *BSD, Linux, ANX, BeOS et al are all available for free, right?

"As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday,"
Oh dear! You quote a saying and from that draw a completely unconected conclusion.
Just because M$ give IE away for free (for now) doesn't mean they will Open Source it. Nor, indeed, does it necessarily mean they won't start charging for it again in the future if they feel the can get people to pay for it.

"Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run..."
Yeah, right. And selling software is the first step toward realising that Open/Free Source is an inferior marketing strategy in the long run, using your own argument.
I hate to burst your bubble, but software can be given away for free without it evenr being Open Source.

"Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free."
Ah yes, of course, because there was no free software before NS were forced to release their browser for free (note - FORCED, not CHOSE TO, but FORCED to in order to "compete" with M$ who gave their browser away for free to try to beat NS).

"I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon."
You do realise you are talking about the company which charges people real money to beta-test M$'s software for M$, don't you?
If M$ thought they could con enough people into paying for IE, it'd be sold rather than given away again tomorrow.
Of course, they can give it away for free because they just subsidise the costs via all their other software anyway.

--

Predictable, really. (1)

87C751 (205250) | more than 13 years ago | (#173103)

The browser is a major development expenditure, for which there is no real revenue stream. A "loss leader", as it were. Looks like Netscape is trying to stanch the cash hemmorage.

Watch Opera (1)

sabine (206851) | more than 13 years ago | (#173104)

Maybe now Opera will take off.

~sabine,
who misses BeOS's browser also

Re:Mozilla (1)

satanami69 (209636) | more than 13 years ago | (#173105)

You should try IE Beta 6, it's even better. This is good news for me, since I work in tech support, and almost eveyone calling that has a problem with our website is using either Netscape, or the AOL browser. That, plus our webAdmins suck, should make it less likley for me to roll my eyes when I ask what ISP they use, and they tell me, "Oh Ize use Netscape."

Re:So basically... (1)

satanami69 (209636) | more than 13 years ago | (#173106)

Yeah, AOL is using the square wheel still.

Re:A Good Thing? (1)

ryber (209932) | more than 13 years ago | (#173107)

I'm sorry, you cant make excuses for it. The Netscape 4.x browser sucks with a capitol S. The old car analogy is good though because driving navigator is just like driving an old car with burnt out shocks and struts and a cracked engine mount. It doesn't even render HTML 4 correctly and its CSS implementation is horrible. like it or not web developers are going to use things like CSS and if you cant see it properly because your using a badly written program that's your fault. Now that it looks like Netscape may go the way of Mosaic maybe we can all get on with the job of supporting good HTML standards (like css).

Hmm.. (1)

dj28 (212815) | more than 13 years ago | (#173108)

So how is this going to effect AOL and the role netscape has been playing to keep MS in check? Like the recent talks about AOL wanting to preload AOL software onto XP. Very interesting..

The Tech Company Life Cycle (4)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 13 years ago | (#173109)

1. Start-up -> Overnight Success
Start telling everyone that the old economy is dead and that you're the only one with any new ideas. When your stock options mature, put your hand over your winnings and tell the dealer, "let it ride, my man!"

2. Failure of the Core Business
Your competition has eaten your lunch. Those bridged you burned in step 1 are starting to look like mistakes. Maybe your mom was right, giving stuff away is no excuse for a business plan.

3. Bring in the Cavalry
If your customers abandoned you, perhaps the federal government will be more sympathetic. It may take years to reach any kind of legal satisfaction, but hey, at least history will remember you better this way.

4. Become an Internet Portal
During your hard road to financial catastrophe, you may not have garnered much cash, but you have earned a commodity far more important in today's economy: name identification. Parlay your fame into portal success until the money runs out completely. This is also a great way to lay off large numbers of employees quietly- in the same way that letting the air out of a balloon slowly makes less noise than a pop.

I think I know the next big dot-com to go under [ridiculopathy.com] .

Re:Mozilla (1)

abdulwahid (214915) | more than 13 years ago | (#173110)

"...but I mean Mozilla 1.0 without major glaring bugs."

I don't know if this is relevant really. I mean, since when did Microsoft ever release any software package without glaring bugs in it. Remember Windows 95 that used to crash after every 57 days (or however many) when the clock cycled. IE hasn't been much better. They nearly always release an updated version within days of the first release. Obviously Netscape releasing Netscape 6 so early is another sign that really the version number means nothing. The difference is with the Mozilla guys is that they are being patient and wisely not pushing something out until they are 100% ready. However, it doesn't mean that Mozilla isn't already stable in 99% of the cases. Actually, I can't even remember when my Mozilla last crashed. I can't even say that it is slow, sluggish, lacking important features. Sometimes, I even wonder why they don't just release 1.0 because I can't see anything wrong with the latest builds. However, they are being meticulous and should be commended for that.

I don't think it really matters if they end up taking 4 years to fix up Mozilla enough for a 1.0 release. At the end of the day, when 1.0 does finally come, at least the Mozilla team will be able to comfortable say they delivered a storming browser.

Also, in many ways I think the superiority of IE may already start to crumble away. There definately haven't been many good innovations in IE for a long time. And for non-Web stuff like reading emails Mozilla already kicks IE. Outlook Express is one of the biggest piles of trash that MS have ever written. They should be embarrased to release such a thing.

Re:The Death Knell (4)

mr_goodwin (220609) | more than 13 years ago | (#173112)

Actually this probably isn't the case. The vast majority of java development (for a couple of years now) has been server-side. For many companies, the main strength of java as a language is not platform independance, but the comprehensiveness of the APIs available for it.

A Good Thing? (1)

SpunOne (222681) | more than 13 years ago | (#173113)

Maybe this will send a message to the people using the 4.x versions of Netscape. Web design utilizing things like, oh, CSS isn't feasible if you don't want to alienate your Netscape audience. Rather than upgrade to something more suitable, (like Mozilla or IE) people seem to hold on to their old browsers and complain when things don't render properly.

I won't miss the Netscape browser, it's been a pain in the ass for far too long already. If any good will come from this, it's that it will force people to upgrade.

Re:Why? (2)

hillct (230132) | more than 13 years ago | (#173115)

So is this then Netscape's second death? First they make browsers, then they're a portal (as announced circa 1998), then they're bought by AOL, which brilliantly gave SUN all of the company's real products [iplanet.com] . And now they're a portal again? Weren't they a portal before? Back when they announced the deployment of MyNetscape...

But wait a minute, now they want to start developing media agrogation products (maybe)? Weren't they o their way to doing that before all their server products were sold off to sun as the iPlanet 'partnertswhip'?

Sounds like yet another major direction change... Bad management? or maybe I'm just confused...

Oh, and for anyone who needs a recap of the earlier merger speculation around Netscape, before AOL bought them, here's a pretty good article from 1998 [zdnet.co.uk] that evaluates each potential suitor as to what they would have added to the company.

--CTH

Re:Explanation (1)

sumengen (230420) | more than 13 years ago | (#173116)

Did you read the article?
I guess Yahoo doesn't own Madonna or Sopranos (the series in US) as opposed to Time-Warner.

Re:Opera wins (1)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173117)

Inheriting, not ripping off! Inheritance!

Re:So basically... (1)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173118)

  1. Actually, I quite like the term GenXers and all its derivatives. X means transformation, mystery, treasure, pirate maps, all kindsa good things.
  2. Douglas Coupland, who made the term popular with his book by the name Generation X, also wrote a book called "Microserfs" which revealed the inner doldrums which come upon the souls of those who work for Gill Bates.
  3. The coming war will be corporations vs. sovereign states. The corporations will win, and then the war after that will be corporations vs. sovereign individuals. The only thing keeping corporations from eating us alive already is the freedoms set in place by things like the Constitution, Bill of Rights...
  4. zot zot zot!
-jdjs

Re:http://www.fuckedcompany.com (1)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173119)

  1. Someone once asked Job this very same question. His answer was not what you'd expect:
  2. Job 21: Why do the wicked live, reach old age, and grow mighty in power? Their children are established in their presence, and their offspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, and no rod of God is upon them. Their bull breeds without fail; their cow calves, and does not cast her calf. They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They sing to the tambourine and the lyre, and rejoice to the sound of the pipe. They spend their days in prosperity, and in peace they go down to Sheol. They say to God, 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit do we get if we pray to him?' Behold, is not their prosperity in their hand? The counsel of the wicked is far from me.
  3. Not changing the subject, but answering with a reference which contains some degree of authority on the topic of good and evil.

-jdjs

Re:Predictable, really. (1)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173120)

Why are you evaluating 1994 technology with 2001 eyes? Have you no dignity? Netscape kicked Mosaic's ass to Jupiter and back when it came out. It was quicker, prettier, smaller... nevermind, I think you missed my original point entirely anyway...

Re:Predictable, really. (1)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173121)

Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare.

The reason is irrelevant. The fact is, M$ gave something away for free. Look at that fact 50 years from now. See how its repercussions are still thumping through cyberspace. That's what I'm referring to. "Open Source" software means that you're letting people ...

I do appreciate the clarification for the use of folks who are not aware of the distinction, but I am aware of it, and consider it to be irrelevant. Open Source is one flavor of Free Software to me, or the other way around if you wish. Doesn't matter. The attorney [slashdot.org] who addressed Stallman's question yesterday on the new legal FAQ put it concisely, if you want to see how someone else sees this idea. Free beer or free slaves, use the word any way you want, as long as you do it with integrity (not like MSoft, who did it as a monopolistic ploy), and you're bringing something beautiful into this selfish little world we live in... I'm saying that I agree with your point, that's all.

Re:Predictable, really. (2)

Water Paradox (231902) | more than 13 years ago | (#173127)

  1. Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free. As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.
  2. Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...
  3. Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.
  4. I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.
  5. Thanks, Netscape. Rest in peace.

-jdjs

Good Ridance (1)

sourcehunter (233036) | more than 13 years ago | (#173128)

I'm glad to see this happen - I hate that there is not going to be much competition for M$... BUT this could be good on two fronts...
  • Microsoft can't argue that there is competition in the browser market (one area that the DOJ has tried to bust their balls on)
  • IMHO, Netscape sucked because it was so damned strict on tags... you miss a single table tag, and the browser gives up parsing the file.
Besides, maybe this will mean Javascript will stop changing every 2 weeks ;-)

What about.... (1)

plastercast (234558) | more than 13 years ago | (#173131)

What happens to the people at Netscape who have been working on Mozilla? Will they still be there with the rest of the company moving in a different dirrection. It would be a big loss to the Mozilla project to lose them all. Also, does this mean no Netscape 6.5?

Let's all be monolithic (4)

pkesel (246048) | more than 13 years ago | (#173135)

The browser war, Microsoft versus software vendors, Microsoft versus OSS, these are all variations on the idea of a monolithic computing environment versus the standard computing model of an OS and apps. Microsoft wants to make its Windows environment a complete system where users are not inclined to add or replace components. Like a car today. Few people replace the radio or the seats, or even wheels and tires. It comes as a unit. Microsoft wants your computer to work this way. That's why it's bundling everything in XP. The rest of the world, especially the Linux/OSS camp, wants to have the computer be a skeleton on which they hang all their neat toys.

I can't imagine why a browser will remain a viable tool in the next few years. Microsoft and others will be putting little pieces of net content into very app, serving small pieces of data content rather than pages and links. The browser and page-based content is a cumbersome way to do business. It's going away some time soon, I'd bet. It's another step to the monolithic computing environment.

Re:Good Ridance (2)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 13 years ago | (#173137)

If you thought Netscape was strict on tags, what do you think will happen when browsers are 100% standards-compliant? I'm pretty certain the parser is supposed to break when tags are malformed. Think of it like a compiler: You couldn't get C to compile if you left out a crapload of closing-parentheses and end-braces; why should *ML parsers try and figure out what you meant when you left out all your /P and /LI tags?

Help! The Big Picture Looks Very Bad. (2)

CrazyLegs (257161) | more than 13 years ago | (#173140)

I work in a large corporation where my job is to help set and implement multi-year technology strategies. One of our fundamental principles is to exploit 'open' technology standards whereever possible (Java, IP, browsers, etc.). The underlying goal in this is to avoid vendor lock-in and give us room to maneuver.

We run quite a bit of our internal admin function on a browser, so here's my problem with the whole Netscape fiasco. Since they abandoned the browser business (had to be prior to the garbage that is Communicator 6.0!) my choices for a corporate-standard browser are pretty limited. I have a lot of Win32 desktops (arrghhh!!) and I'm pretty much stuck with IE. Whether you like Netscape or not, at least we had a veneer of mainstream competition for the browser.

I have the current dilema of moving 10,000+ desktops off OS/2 over the next few years. Since browsers play a factor in deciding the new o/s we'll use, what are my options? I'm serious folks! I'd love to consider some flavour of Unix client, but I need a standards-compliant browser from a reputable vendor that will provide support if I need (I don't mind paying!).

So, I think the Netscape debacle (for me) is all about erosion of choice - especially for large corporations that are fairly conservative about who they bet the business on. Tell me I'm wrong folks!

Re:no need for it (1)

kipsate (314423) | more than 13 years ago | (#173149)

With .NET, we'll soon be at the mercy of MS. Sure, it will be nice and compatible with all browsers in the beginning. But as soon as they have a significant marketshare, MS can change the rules of the game. They can shut down support for a specific browser. They can shut down support for all browsers except MS ones ("sorry people, we will no longer support Opera 7.2, since it hasn't got ").

Netscape and friends will then be obsolete. It's extend and embrace, in a way.

Sorry for being somewhat off-topic.

Re:no need for it (1)

kipsate (314423) | more than 13 years ago | (#173150)

With .NET, we'll soon be at the mercy of MS. Sure, it will be nice and compatible with all browsers in the beginning. But as soon as they have a significant marketshare, MS can change the rules of the game. They can shut down support for a specific browser. They can shut down support for all browsers except MS ones ("sorry people, we will no longer support Opera 7.2, since it hasn't got "). Netscape and friends will then be obsolete. It's extend and embrace, in a way. Sorry for being somewhat off-topic.

Thankfully... (3)

emn-slashdot (322299) | more than 13 years ago | (#173154)

Mozilla is protected. This is what Open Source software is all about. I wonder if this will tip the tides in the konqueror/mozilla battle. I, personally, don't use Mozilla (was never impressed too too much) but I'm glad it's OSS/Free Software.

Thanks Netscape,

-EvilMonkeyNinja
a.k.a. Joseph Nicholas Yarbrough
Security Grunt by Day
Programmer by Night

All your browsers are belonging to us. (1)

pklong (323451) | more than 13 years ago | (#173155)

I hate to admit it, but Microsoft were probably right about the browser becoming irrelivant. The web should now be integrated onto the desktop as it is with any desktop worth using.

Re:AOL ALWAYS wanted Netscape.com (1)

cosmo7 (325616) | more than 13 years ago | (#173157)

Mozilla will bring more if Fizzilla (the Carbon Mac OS X one) and the core system improve AND Mac and Linux both gain marketshare... both reasonable assumptions.

You know why Mozilla will never get a good fraction of Mac users? interface-wise it looks like third-rate shareware. For better or for worse, Mac people hate that.

Re:Predictable, really. (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 13 years ago | (#173160)

Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.

This is true, if by "astounding" you mean:

Astoundingly tiny, ugly, unreadable fonts.
- or -
Astoundingly strange behaving widgets.
- or -
Astounding waste of screen real-estate with huge, inflexible toolbars.
- or -
Astounding number of bugs patched and repatched until some 4.x release almost works and beomes a mysterious standard of compatibility frozen in time.

:-)

Why Netscape FAILED (2)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 13 years ago | (#173161)

Quite simple really. They were 'fat and happy', and then IE comes and starts kicking their asses, and they start work on a browser that is basically unusable! dum dum dum ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Re:Predictable, really. (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 13 years ago | (#173163)

MS doesn't need to sell it's browser - by bundling it with the OS, it gets to people anyway. It also makes it extremely tough for *anyone* to sell a commercial browser. Look at Opera - they recently started giving away an advertising-supported "free" version of their browser, but they still have very little in the way of market/mindshare (but they *do* have an excellent product). Can you really justify buying Opera when you have IE for free? (as well as Mozilla, Konq, etc...) It's tough.

Yes. Opera is significantly faster, and believe it or not, it saves me time. I think the small fee is acceptable to save 20 minutes per day and allow time for a "coffee break". It adds up over time.

GreyPoopon
--

Re:The Death Knell (1)

jelling (412920) | more than 13 years ago | (#173164)

Eek. Does anyone have a reference for this? I ask because I'm in the middle of developing a slew of corporate Intranet apps and I was thinking of switching from ASP (it was free and MS, as required) to Java. Lemme know.

Time to Retire Logo? (1)

Tachys (445363) | more than 13 years ago | (#173167)

No wait need it one more time when Netscape.com dies.

Re:Future of Mozilla (3)

leifb (451760) | more than 13 years ago | (#173170)

How will this affect Mozilla?

Not at all, but not because of any licensing protection. To quote:
"The browser is a crown jewel. However, six months from now, you won't consider Netscape to be a browser company"

That's nowhere near a statement that they're dropping the browser. If anything, that's close to saying "the browser is *done*! We're going to start developing to it as a platform now!"

And hey, here's a surprise: that fits with the Mozilla roadmap! We should have been expecting this, and many people were.

From further on:
"Netscape is by no means a rejection of its software legacy, as components of its browser technology will continue to power new features of Netscape's media services aimed at office workers, small businesses and sophisticated Web users."

No, Netscape doesn't back away from browsers. (5)

leifb (451760) | more than 13 years ago | (#173171)

It takes a community browser and builds services on that infrastructure, almost as though the company had realized that software is not a product, not an end in itself, but rather a tool, in this case a means of distribution.

Isn't that how they're supposed to make money with open software?

Re:Apache cretins (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 13 years ago | (#173172)

Knowing how full of holes IIS is and how easy it is for developers to find and repair security-bugs in Apache, it's a good thing to use it! Why else majority of worlds web-sites run Apache?

Desktop and browsers. (1)

IncarnationTwo (457191) | more than 13 years ago | (#173174)

Now that you say it, I did realize that this idea of user interface could relly work. Not for the techies, but for the baseline users. But then what do we need the desktop for? To the basic user (win that is) desktop is just a handy place to have your most importan doc's and games.

On user level, it would be pretty revolutionary, if your computer would not have just a GUI, but a BUI (browsing user interface). To the user this would not be an OS but an single browser to browse your programs, and hopefully as easilly as browsing channels on TV.
Imagine the popularity of .NET if all its programs were "browsable". No more desktop. No more programs. No more difficult filesystem to handle. Just "computer". This could really be popular. Easy. PPL would love it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?