| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Netscape's folly | |
|
||
| Time: 10:05 EST/15:05 GMT | News Source: Salon.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks John. "The loser in the browser wars has filed a private antitrust suit against Microsoft. But the company doesn't deserve to win. Legal observers, however, were not fooled: the antitrust case might be over, but the door was wide open for civil suits. Sure enough, Netscape soon stepped through with a civil filing claiming treble damages -- and I happily anticipated at least a few more years of wrangling over technical and economic arcana." "Alas, the complaint offers little in the way of argument. Instead, Netscape tries to play on our natural sympathy for a scrappy little company that's been bullied to death. The lawyers can't let more than a few paragraphs pass without reminding us that in 1995, Netscape had 70 percent of the market for Web browsers. This fact is reiterated in an indignant tone, as if that share is no more than Netscape's right. " | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:26:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/15/2002 11:03:51 AM |
|
The second article is full of the same speculation that the first talks about, quotes such as "We simply don't know how the markets would have progressed absent Microsoft's wrongdoing." Interestingly, it seems to reinforce the points of the first article rather than acting as a counterpoint.
Still I think the most important point the first article brings is that the media is starting to now look into the truth of the allegations instead of relying upon false assumptions and speculations. Perhaps it is inevitable, as the Media always likes to hound on a loser. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/15/2002 11:52:37 AM |
|
How exactly do you steal a market considering you need customer approval.
This is like claiming Honda stole GM's marketshare by building the Civic. The claim is assinine. |
| #3 By 10 (12.221.49.44) at 3/15/2002 12:21:22 PM |
|
these tech companies like oracle, sun, aol/netscape are like a bunch of snotty little kids who can't get past the fact that they got their asses kicked. get over it, that's business. move on, and if u think u have a better product, let the results prove it, plain and simple. god, i'm soooooooooooo sick of them whining, it's been what, 3 years now???? move on and take the beating, u stink'n crybabies! This post was edited by Tegument on Friday, March 15, 2002 at 12:22. |
| #4 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 3/15/2002 2:14:04 PM |
| Troll on .101, troll on.... |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/15/2002 3:41:43 PM |
|
Sigh... hate to bring it up again, but read "Breaking Windows" by David Bank. It explains the browser war quite nicely.
It also explains the fact that not only did Microsoft push Netscape to stick to standards (in the early days, pre-4.0, when Netscape wanted nothing to do with the W3C), but they also gained nearly 40% market share using IE 3.0. As we can all recall, IE 3.0 was not bundled with anything. How exactly did Microsoft illegally leverage their Windows monopoly if they gained the most critical part of the market share pie before they started bundling? Once they reached about 35% market share, they had enough clout to start attracting lots of developers. They then started to become the incumbent, and introduced non-standard features. Since IE was better in nearly every way than Netscape, and their extra features were very nice, developers started to create sites that were IE-only happy. This, coupled with the fact that IE was a COM component, and could be utilized for free in any number of applications, providing extremely rich functionality (again, for free), Netscape didn't have a chance. It's called competition - Microsoft won this one fair and square. |
| #6 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 3/15/2002 4:39:45 PM |
|
I haven't cared for Netscape for quite some time, but I'm hearing from a lot of corners that the latest Mozilla Build for the Mac is pretty darned sweet.
I'll have to take a look at it this weekend... I still can't stand Netscape on the PC. IE is clearly the better browser. TL |
| #7 By 10 (207.179.208.150) at 3/15/2002 5:45:51 PM |
| #17, u must be high. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/15/2002 5:51:45 PM |
| TechLarry, it is, the X version--Apple got pissed about imitating Aqua with graphics thru XUL so they worked with Mozilla to get it to hook into Aqua. So that eliminates what seems to be the biggest complaint about Mozilla: using the engine to render the interface, how it appears, and instability of the UI. Of course, it's neither the most feature rich Mozilla nor the best-Aquafied app out there, but that was a big hurdle. It should just get better from here. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/15/2002 6:25:16 PM |
|
Too powerful in what respect? They have a lot of cable but comcast, cox, at&t, and (am I missing someone else?) plus all the dsl, plus AOL is the only company that has to share their lines.
Where is all this power you all keep talking about? Why are softies so afraid of AOL? Without the cable lines, they are just like News Corp, Sony Entertainment, Vivendi, Viacom, and Disney. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 15, 2002 at 19:08. |
| #10 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 3/15/2002 6:35:11 PM |
| LOL, you must be kidding #17....! |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/15/2002 6:43:10 PM |
|
Seriously, athlon, can you explain this to me? AOl has maybe 30% of worldwide internet accounts and say 30% of US cable infrastructure (I'm just guessing but I presume on the generous side). They are a $116 Bill company. Besides that they aren't even close to having any sort of dominance in any media category. So how are they way too powerful and evil?
Microsoft is a $330 Bill company with 95% of the OS client market, 90% of the Office Suite market, 80% of the browser market, 60% of the server market, and near control of many other markets. (Again, just rough estimates) So what makes AOL evil and not Microsoft? Why are you afraid of AOL--is it because Microsoft decided they were the enemy several years ago and that they were going to become an ISP that you have this opinion? All of you Microsoft apologists describe these arcane ways to disable features or tell people to use another product if you don't like it--doesn't everyone with half a brain know AOL sucks and avoids it? So where does this convoluted idea that AOL is evil and Microsoft is the savior of the world come from? It's amazing how good MS is at brainwashing considering that AOL isn't that powerful, is hardly even a technology company--but softies fear them and treat them the way MS should be treated because Microsoft decided that they were a threat... not because they were a real threat but because Microsoft was jealous of AOLs success as an ISP, something that MS had been a complete failure at and never saw coming at the time. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 15, 2002 at 19:15. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/15/2002 7:03:27 PM |
|
But, Anon, how does that make them TOO powerful? OR for that matter any different from Microsoft?
That just sounds to me like they are an annoying company that thrives on hype and brand loyalty--much more like hating Disney then anything that is a threat to consumers, the U.S., or Microsoft. (And 34 million is not that astounding a number of customers. Over 100 million US households have internet access, never mind the rest of the world. If you add earthlink with MSN you have more customers I would guess, and that doesn't count the baby bells and cable providers and others.) This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 15, 2002 at 19:47. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/15/2002 11:01:52 PM |
|
AOL through Time Warner controls the way you think, due to their media representation.
The reason you think Microsoft is evil is because AOL has told you so. |
| #14 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/16/2002 3:42:03 AM |
| hehe |
| #15 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 3/16/2002 11:39:53 AM |
|
Sodajerk,
Cool! I just got it and I'm using it right now. No issues so far. TL |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/16/2002 6:15:44 PM |
|
"The reason you think Microsoft is evil is because AOL has told you so."
sodablue, that's ridiculous--I hated AOL long before, before the web. Hating them isn't the same as fearing them. But I have never used AOL, mock anyone who does, think Case is a bonejob, encourage everyone to not use their service, don't see them bringing anything interesting or substantial into technology, etc... Hell, I liked some of what Microsoft did long, long ago--when they first brought word to the Mac, still do like some of their software for some of their capabilities but I also find them deplorable as a company, but just because I ask you why you are afraid, feel threatened by, think that AOL has power over, doesn't mean I am an advocate for, appreciate, listen to their rhetoric, or use AOL. "AOL through Time Warner controls the way you think, due to their media representation." That's funny coming from you, soda--I thought that no body can make me DO things I don't want to do, I would think it's a lot harder to make someone THINK what they want you to. But I guess I have a different estimation of how business practices can affect options and behaviors vs. how a companies' PR, marketing, and mouth pieces affect my thoughts and feelings. The question still stands: how is AOLTW too powerful and what do they control? So far we've got one MS-and-AOL-are-both-evil vote. One they-have-too-many-customers (even though they have far, far less of a % of customers than MS's % of its market). And one: AOLTW controls our thoughts vote. Any other explanations? This post was edited by sodajerk on Saturday, March 16, 2002 at 20:38. |
| #17 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 3:17:17 AM |
|
#41 - "I thought that no body can make me DO things I don't want to do"...
They can't, unless you let them. :-) Same goes for "thinking". |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:26:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
