IE9 Beta now available

[.josh]

I don't know heaps and heaps about the history of web browsers, introduction of world wide standards etc. But when these other companies came about and the W3C began to write up web standards that are globally recognized, I always wondered what was taking IE so long to offer support for these standards that everyone else was conforming too. Surely they would've realized that these new competitors were slowly (very slowly) eating away at their marketshare. The best move for IE would've been to fully support these new standards.

 

Well see that was one of the things I was trying to address in my tl;dr... it took IE so long to start adhering to "the standard" because at the time, IE was the standard, and this whole "standard" started by w3c was just a couple of little companies trying to cut into MS's business.  You wonder why IE has taken so long to "get with the program?" The answer in summary is: Because up until recently, they were the ones "running the show" - the majority % of the market - not the w3c.  IE's presence has declined over the years, and Microsoft has "gotten with the program" in direct proportion of their market presence. 

 

I think maybe you and I are slightly crossing definitions of "standard". I am not talking about a "bar" set to a certain level in a "measurement of success." Though that certainly is one of the most prominent contributing factors of what constitutes a standard.  I am talking about everybody being on the same page.  Kind of like how functions and objects are meant to abstract details away, only on a browser level of context.

 

For example...if 100 customers all need to buy ItemX, and there are 5 brands, and 90 of them buy brandX and the the other 10 people buy one of the other 4 brands, which brand would you say is the standard?

 

Now let's say those 4 other companies (brands) decide to agree on certain things about ItemX, like how big it should be, how long it should last, what it should or should not do, etc... so that no matter how each of them went about making ItemX, it would still be familiar to people, can be used for the same purposes, etc.. regardless of brand. 

 

So now 100 more customers go and each buy a new ItemX. 90 of them still buy brandX, while 10 other customers buy one of the other 4 brands. So now we have 90 people who have ItemX doing the same thing, vs. 10 people who have ItemX that mostly does the same thing, but a bit differently. So while those 4 other brands are consistent amongst themselves, they now differ from that brandX, but overall, there's still 90 people using brandX and only 10 using the other brands.  So tell me, which brand is "the standard" again?

 

The underlying principle I am trying to convey here is that regardless of what you wanna call something, majority rules.  In this case, majority is dictated by highest % of users using ItemX->BrandX.  It is for this reason that 10% of the people/marketplace (more specifically, the collective minority of market presence), cannot rightfully claim they are the standard.

 

So the point is, you can claim that there is this so-called w3c standard, and you can claim that browsers like Firefox are adhering to them and IE is not, but the numbers are all that matter.  When IE is being used by 90% of users, the standard is IE, not w3c, and that's all there is to it.  This idea of a standard is pure. The business of it is not.  It makes no sense for MS to follow some so-called "standard" asserted by the minority of the market share.

 

 

 

 

[.josh]

Surely they would've realized that these new competitors were slowly (very slowly) eating away at their marketshare. The best move for IE would've been to fully support these new standards.

 

Well, nobody is psychic.  When you are literally sitting at 90% of the market share, there's no reason to believe that someone is going to knock you out of your throne. Fast-forward 10 years and you're down to 30%....sure, now you have a reason to start playing by everybody else's rules.  And it's not like MS has just now started "getting with the program." As mentioned, they've been doing it in direct proportion to their market share, exactly as a business should.  MS did not get to the top of the business food chain by making bad business decisions.

 

And if nothing else, at the end of the day, we're all human. For most people, 20/20 vision is hindsight only.

 

The best move for IE would've been to fully support these new standards.

 

IMO, the best thing IE could have done was very early on, use their massive market presence to spearhead the movement - but according to their currently dominating standard.  The fatal mistake MS made that made them go from 90% to currently around 30% was because instead of doing that - embracing the idea but on their own terms - they just lol'd at them and gave them the finger.

 

 

[KevinM1]

I can't imagine what it must have been like in the late 90's developing for early IE, Netscape Navigator, and AOL's mutant version of IE.  Must make all the bitching about IE6 seem laughable.

[JasonLewis]

@CV: Points taken. Bet Microsoft are kicking themselves now, even though they would have had no idea the web would've turned out like it had. At the end of the day, I myself am glad the web is where it's at now.

[JonnoTheDev]

Good points CV.

MS did not get to the top of the business food chain by making bad business decisions.

No, but in the browser market they did play dirty. This is how they achieved their market domination. When users saw the Internet Explorer icon on their desktops they basically though that, "this is the internet".

From recent events their market share is dropping and I would bet it will probably end up levelling out at 50/50 with IE users and everything else.

[JasonLewis]

Good points CV.

MS did not get to the top of the business food chain by making bad business decisions.

No, but in the browser market they did play dirty. This is how they achieved their market domination. When users saw the Internet Explorer icon on their desktops they basically though that, "this is the internet".

From recent events their market share is dropping and I would bet it will probably end up levelling out at 50/50 with IE users and everything else.

 

People today still associate the 'e' with the internet, and probably have no idea of other ways to browse it.

[JonnoTheDev]

People today still associate the 'e' with the internet, and probably have no idea of other ways to browse it.

Not as likely as MS were forced to display a promt to all IE users that other browsers are available.

[KevinM1]

People today still associate the 'e' with the internet, and probably have no idea of other ways to browse it.

Not as likely as MS were forced to display a promt to all IE users that other browsers are available.

 

Not in the US, AFAIK.

[JonnoTheDev]

Not in the US, AFAIK.

Really, didn't know that

[zq29]

Yeah, I believe it was for the European market only, something to do with Euro competition rules.

[.josh]

As it stands, things like OS's and browsers and well, virtually everything else on the user's computer, is ultimately the user's responsibility to learn and install and use.  Forcing MS to package other browsers with their OS is not only unfair to MS, but it's unfair to the user. 

 

For MS it is unfair because IE is there solely because MS owns it.  People have a hard time figuring out what's fair with MS because MS dips their fingers in a lot of things.  The people who call foul for IE being prepackaged on Windows and not other browsers seem to forget that MS owns Windows.  Since when should it be MS's responsibility to educate people on the internet, what it is, how to use it, choice of browser, etc..any more than them choosing which computer they bought or which OS it came with? How can someone claim that it's MS's responsibility to do that shit? Now, it's *probably* overall good business sense for MS to offer different browser choices pre-installed in their OS, and it's *probably* overall good business sense for them to educate, etc.. because it makes them look more transparent and hero-like.  But that doesn't mean they should be forced to do it. 

 

To me this is the equivalent of a bunch of people coming to your house and you are forced by the govt. to have a selection of different colored plates for people to choose for their dinner.  Or a defined list of various drinks for them to choose, as opposed to you as the host and owner of the house, getting to make that choice. Does it make sense to offer choices for your guests? Sure! Mark of a good host.  Should it be required by law? No! Nobody forced them to come in the first place!  So it is the same with users and computers and OSs and browsers.  Nobody forced them to buy that computer or have Windows installed on it. That was the user's choice.  So why is MS being forced on shit? It makes no sense.

 

As for it being unfair to the User... why should I be forced to buy a computer with a bunch of crap on it that I don't need/want? IMO that's just another bunch of crap like all the other crap pre-packaged and installed when I buy a new computer. Trial subscriptions to Norton or McAfee, MS Office, couple of ISP programs like AOL and NetZero.  Etc... Things that are there because people are trying to push products, advertise, etc... I'm only half-complaining here... I'm sure on some level I'm probably saving some tiny amount of money somewhere because of the money MS makes on the side from people bidding to have their shit packaged with Windows.  Maybe.  I hope.  If not... well that's the point I'm trying to make...I didn't go out and buy a computer to have a bunch of people trying to advertise their shit to me.  And seriously, some of that shit borderlines adware/straight up virus IMO.  Some of that shit they make it real inconvenient to decline it being installed/used for the trial and real inconvenient to get it fucking uninstalled.

 

And what do people hope to accomplish by forcing MS to package other browser options with Windows anyways? Browsers are easy as hell to install.  You go to the website, click a button and it installs itself.  People who know about other browsers already know how to get their favorite browser and have it up and running within minutes.  People who are oblivious to such things...they are not going to know or care one way or the other regardless.  They are just gonna see it as one more hoop to jump through when trying to get Windows running for the first time.  One more choice to make that they don't know anything about and call their tech support buddy bothering them about. 

 

And I just wanna throw something silly out there...though it's not really a realistic scenario....it's not like an OS has to have networking capabilities. What if tomorrow MS decides that their OS will no longer support networking?  Should they still be required to package other browsers with their OS? 

 

Overall I'm just trying to point out that this whole thing with MS being forced to package other people's browsers with their OS, offer install choices during initial Windows configuration, etc... is fucking bullshit.  This is the "underdogs" sitting there thinking that average Joe user is too fucking stupid to be aware of other browsers out there, and they end up going with IE initially because that is what is initially on Windows, and they end up sticking with IE instead of going with other browsers because it does the job just fine and there's no reason to fix what ain't broke.  So now these "underdogs" are trying to make out like it's somehow an evil thing that MS offers IE and not other browser choices.  IMO this whole thing about forcing MS to offer alternate browsers to be pre-packaged on their OS is nothing but an underhanded attempt to get free advertising and exposure at MS's expense.

 

I see people talking about how MS takes advantage of their size to push things and how they are so evil for doing it.  But all I see on the other side of the fence is other people also taking advantage of MS's size and how "evil" they are to push their own shit.  How is that any better?  Especially when you know that the overall goal for them is to make money and make more of it, the same as MS.  Pay attention. You will notice these "underdog" companies, their ideals, etc... are in direct proportion to their size and market %, and the higher % they get, the less their so-called principles shine as "noble".  Never ceases to make me lol how people so readily root for the underdogs as if they are any better than the giant. 

 

Again, I am not some MS fanboy, I just try to look at it objectively. I am not saying MS is awesome, I'm simply saying at the end of the day, the "other people" aren't any better than them.

 

[zq29]

In other news, I have downgraded back to IE8 as it was becoming a bit too unstable in my VM. Does Microsoft accept bug submissions? I couldn't find anything on the IE9 website...

[JonnoTheDev]

Overall I'm just trying to point out that this whole thing with MS being forced to package other people's browsers with their OS, offer install choices during initial Windows configuration, etc... is fucking bullshit.

The fact is, it is law that a company cannot create an unfair market domenence. MS effectively killed Netscape & others by shipping windows 95 with IE.

I think you may see things differently if you were one of the smaller companies making browser software but I can see you have agrievance with the law.

You can see the difference between MS & Google. In Google Chrome the user has the option to select a different search engine to use in the browser. They give the user the choice in a select list. If they had fixed it to Google then there would have been hell to play. When Microsoft released Windows 95 they gave no choice to the user who were not aware of any other web browser software.

 

I don't know. Its a difficult subject and there are clearly 2 sides.

[.josh]

I mean yeah true, if I were a small company trying to succeed in the market, of course I would be doing what I had to do to survive.  I'm just sayin' though...I don't like how those smaller companies are spinning it off to the consumer that MS is evil and they are noble when it is clearly just a business strategy.

[Daniel0]

Since when should it be MS's responsibility to educate people on the internet, what it is, how to use it, choice of browser, etc..any more than them choosing which computer they bought or which OS it came with?

 

It isn't, but since they decided that they want to do business inside the European Union, they are also subject to their laws concerning monopolies. If Apple, Canonical or another company takes over the monopoly on the operating system market, they will also be subject to the same laws and regulations, and Microsoft would again be free to bundle whatever browser they wanted with Windows without any interference.

 

Microsoft are more than welcome to not follow that ruling, but the consequence of not doing is that they can no longer do business within the European Union.

 

I'm not saying whether it's a good law or not, but Microsoft obviously has to follow it as long as it's in effect.

 

[Google] give the user the choice in a select list [of search engines]. If they had fixed it to Google then there would have been hell to play.

 

Not really seeing as Chrome has a market share of about or less than 10% depending on whose statistics you use. That is hardly a monopoly.

 

You're just not allowed to (ab)use a monopoly in one market (e.g. operating systems) to gain a monopoly in another market (e.g. internet browsers).

[Alex]

Honestly, I was expecting a lot more. Everything was very convincing in pushing that it would be a huge improvement, and sure it is a large improvement in many ways, but I couldn't even use the browser for more than a minute without running into bugs.