Mozilla charts why Microsoft's PC lock is 'potent'
Mozilla's Asa Dotzler, in attempting to visualize the Web's user growth since 1996, gives two startling suggestions, neither of which will endear him to the Microsoft Internet Explorer crowd:
- The Web has about doubled in size since Safari and Firefox came on the scene, and since that time, Firefox has captured almost half of that growth;
- The Web is still growing really, really fast. (This visualization) demonstrates how quickly a dominant player can fall, not from users switching, but from growth alone. This is part of what makes Microsoft's desktop monopoly and its lock on the PC (manufacturing) channel so dangerous and potent a weapon. Even if they don't get people to switch, just owning the first experience is worth about 100 million new users a year.
This is what that looks like:
Web browser adoption patterns.
(Credit: Asa Dotzler)The browser war is heating up, with IE steadily losing market share to Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome, and the stakes are huge. If Dotzler is right, and that first Web experience sticks with 100 million new users each year, ensuring that those new users have a real, open choice is critical.
This is why Mozilla is fighting hard in the European Union to ensure that Microsoft doesn't get to use its desktop hegemony to cement a browser monopoly that could threaten to paralyze the Web for decades. It's why we should want the world's first experience with a Web browser to be an open one: open source, open standards, open Web.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Try installing iTunes without it bugging you to install the rest of the crew when you update it.
yes, you are right, its just a measly little check box, but when I want something, regardless of what that is, or the method with which I go about to obtain it, purchasing it physically, purchasing it online, downloading it, whatever, IF I know exactly what I want, I don't want to be bugged about some other product by the company. It's like going to a fast food chain, and you know exactly what your going to order but the drive through employee starts telling you about their specials. Its not the most inconvenient hassle in the world, but I'd still be happier without it.
It is pretty clear, however, that Safari's current share, like IE's current share, is overwhelmingly the result of bundling with the OS. No browser, with the exception of the Open Source, public-benefit, not for profit Mozilla Firefox, has been able to mount any credible threat to either Safari or IE on their respective platforms. The bundling channel is unmatched in efficacy.
Yes they have a monopoly in the OS market but can you honestly say they don't do anything to improve there products?
IE8 has better standards compliance and they are continuing to work on it.
And its not like they are holding a gun to your head forcing you to use IE8 just because some users don't go download another browser does not put MS at fault.
But everyone seems to have the mindset that Gates and Ballmer are killing your children and raping your wife.
Took me quite some time to find all the separated parts and pieces that were scattered throughout my pc before I can say (I think) I completely removed iTunes.
Asa, Firefox is managed by Mozilla Corporation who are a for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation. I am a Mozilla fan but I hate to see Mozilla posing itself as the innocent goody kid on the block, against the demon that is IE. This is serious business and we are talking of million of dollars in search revenue.
That's why I refuse to use ANY apple junk-- because it forces other stuff onto your computer.
It's not _JUST_ safari.. it's uh.. Quicktime _AND_ safari _AND_ itunes.. Install one and you're forced to get all 3.
IE went many, many years without any improvements. It took Firefox gaining market share to force MS to do anything with it, and they have done some, but not much.
Next they will ask you to opt out of all the automatic information downloading that installs with their software. It would only take two clicks, perhaps, to disable that. You will only be politely reminded every 30 days to do it again, as your opt out would only last that long.
Easily bugged? Multiply that by every purchase, every bank, every online video or music service.
Then ask yourself why it is so easy for Chinese and Russian services to infiltrate the electric, sewage and water grid of America. Or perhaps you haven;t read those stories, yet.
Security is important in computers. Automatic installations, slippery little "opt-out" checkboxes, spyware, are all tools that hackers take advantage of.
Either Apple means to increase security for its users, or it is trying to thwart security by encouraging human error by overlooking of a "simple check box."
If you want security, choose Firefox, not Safari.
Microsoft has always been slow to improve IE and implement standards. They are always last on the standards front, holding back the web, but bolstering Silverlight. I agree that open source, open standards, and open web are the way to go. The more market share Microsoft loses on the web, the better off we'll all be.
We will be all be better off when their is true competition in the browser market.
The only reason that people use Firefox, Chrome and Opera is because IE is bad enough for people to look for alternatives.
Microsoft have gained an unfair advantage in the Browser market by using their Windows Desktop monopoly to do it. That is suppose to be illegal.
So anyway, I have tried them all and I still use GC and FF at least once or twice a week. But I keep coming back to IE as my primary browser because for everything that I do it is the most useful to me at this point. Whether it be pop-up blocker control, history control, or various other features that I have come accustomed to, IE allows things that the other browsers simply do not.
Some people may cry that MSIE does support some stupid plugin. Guess what 95% of users probably don?t know what a plugin is.
Some people may cry that MSIE has a slow JavaScript engine. Perhaps you should really complain to people like Google for producing crappy code. Why else would gmail need .5MB of javascript instead of 50K? The programmers there did a BAD job.
Some people may cry that MSIE doesn?t support enough standards. Guess what, even if it did, you?d still have to test all of the major platforms and code for whoever is the lowest common denominator (which for a while will be MSIE6), so your kiss your CSS3 and HTML5 goodbye for another few years.
The Add-Ons are a plus (Adblocker Plus, Server Spy, Scribefire, etc.)
Uh, ever looked at Gmail dude? It's not a simple pop up button. Google probably has some of the smartest programmers on the planet. I am sure you would kill to be working with Google. What happened, did they turn u down?
If you want another browser instead of MSIE, go and download it. If you never want MSIE on your computer, don't buy one that includes a Microsoft operating system. Simply put, if you buy a Windows box, you get MSIE, if you buy a Mac you get Safari, and if FF wants to be a default, they should contact a Linux vendor or pay Dell/HP/....
They have no right to be bundled for free. At least if they pay a vendor like Dell I would be able to automatically delete it via a reformat (the first thing I do when I get a PC - a necessity if you want a clean OS). If they make MS bundle I'm screwed and won?t be able to kill FF/Chrome/Safari/Opera or whoever else wants in.
I can just see it now, Windows 7 is delayed for 3 years while a competitor like Apple fixes a Chrome installer to properly work with the "Feature Add," so it can ship, while releasing Mac OS 15 in the meantime....
If Dell wanted to install Windows but not include IE .. IT CAN'T.
Should Windows HAVE to include competitor's browsers? Not necessarily.
Should Windows be able to remove IE and replace it with something else (like if Dell did it)? Heck Yeah.
You need a browser to get to the web smart one...
Are you assuming that IE should be able to be totally replaced by dell? Not everyone hates IE...
And in Windows 7 you will be able to make it pretty much non existant.
That is wrong, you can use the web without a browser, it is just more convenient.
Is the average user going to know that?
Should we go back to picking browsers up from stores on cds?
In your world it is either bundle IE only or go back to CD's?
Really?
See what I've done there? The world really is transitive among concepts. What we have is an attempt by someone with a communistic leaning (despite his vociferous arguments to the contrary) to thrust his non-proprietary (and thus non-Intellectual Property based) world on us. The reality is that our open roads are populated by proprietary cars that work with open standards for roads, safety and emissions requirements.
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/paytonbyrd/free-as-in-libre-15019
seriously.. I haven't had an exploit in about 7 years.. of course, I don't run pirated windows!!!
seriously.. I haven't had an exploit in about 7 years.. of course, I don't run pirated windows!!!
seriously.. I haven't had an exploit in about 7 years.. of course, I don't run pirated windows!!!
just because YOU want everything to be open.. it doesn't mean that is how things should be.
It just means you've never written an honest line of code in your life!
uh... MSIE is much more than good enough.. it supports ActiveX.. which is a GOOD thing.
It supports clientside .NET forms.. which is a GOOD thing, if you've ever worked in an intranet environment... That means that web dev / tools are easier, cheaper, more robust and faster.
FF and Safari and Opera-- they can't compete with IE, because they don't offer as broad of a package as MSIE.
MS shouldn't be forced to do anything-- because no other browser in the world can provide half the functionality of MSIE.
Firefox is competing, without it you would still be using IE6. IE used to have 90% market share, it is south of 70 and dropping fast.
"MS shouldn't be forced to do anything-- because no other browser in the world can provide half the functionality of MSIE."
LOL
Ignorance is bliss.
FF is becoming IE notice every release they get more bloated and less compeled to compete its only a matter of time before FF shares the same fate as IE
"Ignorance is bliss."
Wow. Just wow. Obviously pentest isn't a programmer who actually gets paid to write code, or he's so buried into the Java propaganda pit that he wouldn't know a good technology if it bit him in the hind quarters.
Face it, without Firefox we will not be having this discussion, maybe include chrome in a few years, but Safari!? gimme a break!
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0
safari just has a monopoly on apple, no different than IE - though slightly better than IE
I have used chrome, and tho it is a clean browser, IT IS IN NO WAY COMPARABLE TO FIREFOX, it has quite a few bugs, and no Addons. A far cry from the real browser.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Chrome
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Firefox
Microsoft does not like competition policy. Fine. It needs to respect the rules of markets nevertheless. And the point that Microsoft criticises these policies clearly shows they haven't learned their lesson.
but the main problem in IE6 it still has something like 20% usage share according to net Applications
it's the primary reason the internet has not able to move forward with stuff like HTML 5 and CSS
Somebody needs to think someway to get rid of that POS called IE6
and I Entirely blame Microsoft for the situation !
Oh my, what a naive outlook you have. Very, (and I mean VERY) few GNU/Linux admins actually allow automatic patching through the package systems. GNU/Linux suffers from DLL hell FAR more than Windows and upgrading core packages can and do nuke entire applications. And lets not talk about what happens to device drivers when the kernel gets recompiled. Do you feel like reinstalling VMWare Tools on each of your servers every time you do an upgrade to the kernel, even if it's just to fix a security problem?
- by NocturnalCT April 9, 2009 7:01 AM PDT
- Most people who buy a computer expect to be able to browse the internet without having to install extra software. So WIndows, MacOS and many (most?) Linux distros include a browser. Naturally this browser is the one that the OS packager prefers. IE on Windows and Safari on MacOS. The browser is just as integral to the computer as a file explorer or a picture viewer. All can be upgraded to different applications by those who want to do so. I don't see the problem with this. MS will *never* add Firefox (which I use) to Windows and to ask them to do so is ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous to tell MS to remove the browser (or Mediaplayer for example) from the OS. Neophites need these applications installed when they get their PCs. More advanced people know how to obtain and install alternatives.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by pentest April 9, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
- That clueless web "developers" code for specific browsers is a huge problem. It breaks the point of the web.
- Like this
-
- by pentest April 9, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
- Addendum: It is easier, faster and cheaper to code to standards.
- Like this
-
- by plbyrd April 9, 2009 7:31 PM PDT
- @pentest
- Like this
-
(57 Comments)As for IE not being standards compliant, that may be true but meanwhile the majority of the web is written to work with IE. Things are getting better but it took Firefox years to become as reliable as IE when it comes to actually properly showing all web pages. And still it happens that I have to start IE because some obscure site doesn't work with FF. So you can call IE names and accuse it of all kinds of problems but the fact is that for most people it simply works better with more sites.
"Addendum: It is easier, faster and cheaper to code to standards."
Excuse me while I go to the ER to fix the ribs I just broke laughing at that ridiculous statement.
First, there is no browser that implements "standards". They all render everything differently. And the cuter you try to get with style the worse it gets.
Second, QA testing a website that has to support multiple browsers costs much more money than only officially supporting one browser.
I don't where you learned about economics or cost accounting or even information management, but you obviously didn't get your money's worth.