back

by rbanffy·17y ago·view on hn ↗
Funny he implies the bundling of IE in every copy of Windows and the threats against OEMs who thought about bundling any other browser had nothing to do with the failure of Netscape.

It's true Netscape 4 lasted very long and was tough to improve, but I think that blaming Netscape for not having resources comparable to Microsoft is not entirely fair.

A rewrite is a risky proposition and should not be taken lightly. If Netscape did something wrong it was not to do it right after 4's launch.

1 comments
Funny he implies the bundling of IE in every copy of Windows and the threats against OEMs who thought about bundling any other browser had nothing to do with the failure of Netscape.

He doesn't just imply it - he says it explicitly in another article of his [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000074.html]:

"When Microsoft released Internet Explorer 3.0, fast on the heels of IE 2.0, it was shocking just how good a job they had done. Not only did they replicate every feature in Netscape's browser, but they added some more features too, and did it all with an architecture that was robust and strategic. While it is true that Microsoft used its operating system to help push its browser, it is also true that they just wouldn't have gotten away with this if their browser wasn't great. (Case in point: even though Windows out of the box can play MP3 files, everyone I know uses WinAmp, not the Windows Media Player, to listen to them. Even though MSN is on the desktop, everybody uses AOL. Back when the browser integrated with Windows was crap, Netscape had 80% market share. So please stop fretting about the power of bundling.)"

And moreover, he's correct.

Everybody _he_ knew used WinAmp (in a time WMP was completely either useless or non-existent). About 40% of the people I know and work with would not touch Windows with a pole. Those do not make a significant cross-section of the market. Just like most people just lives with the OS their computer came with, most people just live with the browser that is installed by default either by the manufacturer or by their corporate overlords.

IE3 was the first "good enough" browser that came from Microsoft and, from 98 on, IE came bundled. For those who do not live in and for the web, "whatever comes with the computer" is what gets used. That was the last nail in Netscape's coffin.

For those who do not live in and for the web, "whatever comes with the computer" is what gets used.

MSN wasn't anywhere near as popular as AOL. But why not? After all, it satisifed your criterion, because it "came with the computer."

Also, MSN chat is nowhere near as popular as AOL Instant Messenger

Microsoft Money (bundled with my computer) isn't as popular as Quicken.

Microsoft Works isn't as popular as Microsoft Office.

and on and on and on...

The only way bundling matters is if the program being bundled falls into the category of "Good Enough" for the user in question. IE satisfied this criterion; MSN did not.