Slashdot Log In
IE The Great Microsoft Blunder?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Apr 25, 2006 02:38 PM
from the not-a-shining-example-of-engineering dept.
from the not-a-shining-example-of-engineering dept.
JordanL writes "Hot on the heels of the beta rollouts of IE 7, comes an editorial from John Dvorak declaring IE the biggest mistake Microsoft has ever made. From the article: 'All the work that has to go into keeping the browser afloat is time that could have been better spent on making Vista work as first advertised [...] If you were to put together a comprehensive profit-and-loss statement for IE, there would be a zero in the profits column and billions in the losses column--billions.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Offers Phone Support For IE 7 195 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is running a short piece detailing Microsoft's newest step in testing Internet Explorer 7, which just went into Beta 2 yesterday. They're now offering free phone support to U.S., German, and Japanese users who try out the trial software." From the article: "'We believe that IE 7, even at this beta stage, is a significant improvement and we want as many people as possible to try it and use it,' said the browser development team in a post on its blog. 'IE 7 is feature complete and has been through significant compatibility and reliability testing. People (especially technology enthusiasts) will have a good experience with it,' continued the post. Microsoft said the new version addresses some problems affecting banking and news sites. It is also designed to be more secure than the current version, with built-in protection against malicious software and online phishing scams."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
IE The Great Microsoft Blunder?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 643 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.slashchick.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 21 2004, @11:48PM)
Other possible revenue streams for Microsoft IE include toolbar buttons and bookmarks, as well as the licensing of Internet Explorer to AOL and other companies to use as their default browser. Whether IE is profitable or not is still a mystery, but I definitely wouldn't say it has been a zero for Microsoft.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft bundles IE with Windows to leverage Windows' monopoly to gain marketshare for IE. Once IE has high marketshare, then Microsoft can control indirectly the website developers. Have you ever noticed how many websites are written to accommodate the bugs in IE?
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Funny)
Features, man, they're FEATURES!!
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
So, the tab mix plus toolbar adds frivilous non-features? The ability to reorder tabs, or "un-close" tabs should one mistakenly close the wrong one, and the ability to lock a tab in place are all non-features?
Likewise: the web developer adds other frivilous non-features: one can resize the browser window to a specific size, clear HTTP authentication, clear the cache, clear history, outline any given element type, validate HTML against standards, display HTTP headers (basically, the HTTP response code and other server information), display element metadata, highlight broken images (broken images are not always readily apparant), modify CSS on the fly, disable certain standard browser features, and so forth. Yeah, frivilous non-features, most of which are absolutely NO help at all in debugging web applications and web sites in general. Useless non-feature, I'll give you that!
User agent switcher: can be used to spoof MSIE or Safari in order to make Firefox work with banks and ecommerce sites which have been hard-coded to expect one of those two browsers, despite being 100% compatible with Firefox. Yep, another useless non-feature.
DOM Inspector: an extension which adds the non-feature of being able to browse the document object model. It's not as though you actually need to know how address an element in order to manipulate it using Javascript. Yes, folks, another frivilous non-feature brought to you courtesy of a useless Firefox extension!
Colorzilla: a color picker which is obviously not useful at all for web developers.
Have fun slamming the Mozilla team, but check the above before spreading the FUD above. You should quit wasting time spreading FUD, check your facts, and criticise the Firefox folks over legitimate issues.
katse(at)biyn(dot)com
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @07:43PM)
The profit there was HUGE. It still is.
Billions? Easily.
Keeping people from looking at alternatives in one field helps keep them from looking at alternatives in other fields, like their biggest cash cow - the office suite.
Now that the browser isn't sufficient to keep people locked in (and now that browser-based apps are a threat to their underlying platofrm monopoly), they wish it would die, so they can lock people in with their latest strategy - dot.net. That's why, originally, there wasn't going to be an IE7.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dvorak is right: the expense of IE development could have been spent elsewhere, and MS would be none the worse off if they bundled somebody else's browser. Actually, Spyglass WAS somebody else's browser -- MS just got carried away with modifications. On the other hand, there is some Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. MS tried to "embrace and extend" the Internet. That approach works great when you have only incomplete standards and some room to maneuver. But nobody needed MS to "extend" HTTP.
If MS knew how the world would evolve, they would never have bothered with IE. But nobody knew for sure at the time. The early browsers were resource-intensive by the standards of the day; they were designed for X-windows workstations. I can understand why MS would want to get something light enough to run on typical PC hardware. The early versions of Mosaic for Windows required Win32S and more memory than most people had. Netscape was better, but there was still plenty of room for improvement. Besides, just about every product MS ever created had to displace an entrenched competitor in order to survive. They must have thought IE would do the same -- even if they had to give it away.
I run Windows XP Pro. Occasionally I get stuck running IE when I have to visit a retarded website that requires it. The default settings of MSN and the toolbar links lasted about 90 seconds after the first boot. I never signed up for any service because of anything IE did. MS additional profit by give me IE: $0.00. Yet their reputation for security and stability lives in infamy, thanks largely to IE and ActiveX plugins that let spyware and viruses play right through.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft would not allow themselves to be dependent upon someone else for such a critical piece of their strategy.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ucblockhead.org/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 14 2002, @03:24PM)
Re:Definitely not 0 profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.popcornfilms.com/)
Hmmm... tell that to Quicken or any number of other software apps which use IE for the UI solution. IE isn't just a browser - it's the HTML rendering component for the entire OS. And at the time it was first being developed, Netscape's HTML renderer wasn't componentized - which is yet another reason why they lost the browser wars and both AOL and Quicken went with IE instead of Netscape.
That's called dumping. (Score:4)
(http://lists.clickers.org/linuxsig/index.html | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @11:00PM)
I'd like to see M$ own up to such a strategy because it's against the law. It may be true and they have been convicted of it, but they had better not admit to it.
Dorvak's accusation forces M$ to admit anti-competitive practices or lose face on Wall Street. The second rate nature of both their browser and OS are now apparent. The only way to justify continued profits in the face of superior and less expensive competitors is to promise monopoly rents. Investors should be aware in either case. A company that screws it's customers is not much better to it's employees or investors.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
In order for the general consumer to be able to make the choice between available free and non free web browsers, something has to be bundled with Windows to allow them to obtain whatever they choose.
The fact that the average consumer will quite happily sit with IE because it's already there isn't Microsofts fault.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Is anybody else noticing how many aricles are being tagged "troll"? Won't make for a very good indexing mechanism is every third article has the same keyword...
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
See, that's where you're an idiot. (I was going to just say wrong, but it doesn't express how I feel very well.) Marketing is all about logic. One of the key datums in marketing is that people make decisions based on emotion, not on logic. Oh sure, some people develop a logical system for evaluating purchases and then stick to it zealously, which allows them to make logical decisions, but most people vote for the better-looking candidate and buy the car that looks fast, regardless of actual suitability.
Marketing exists in the really real world, not your slashdot fantasy world. Actually, it exists here too, if you don't have adblock or something. And it wouldn't exist here if it didn't work to some degree.
Logic dictates that Microsoft is getting something out of maintaining IE.
P.S. I work in a marketing department but I'm a longtime and very dedicated computer geek. Look at the number of /. posts I've made if you don't believe me :P
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
If someone wants to sell some shit, and they know they can influence people, and their business is about making money, then using marketing is a logical decision.
It doesn't make anyone do anything. It puts notions in the heads of the unconscious. Propaganda was the subject of my middle school english class, and ever since I've consciously examined every advertisement I don't immediately dismiss, looking for their methods and motivations. It doesn't mean I'm immune to marketing, but I am much more resistant. (Also, I think most geeks are very specification-oriented, and so they are less vulnerable to marketing in general.)
Come do it if you can.
But more cogently, it serves to stimulate the economy. And without marketing, no one would ever sell anything anywhere but locally, so it also enables the economy.
I have a supporting role in a marketing department - I query the database. I also do the website. Guess what? Websites are marketing, if they're associated with a business or product. I guess businesses and products shouldn't have webpages, huh?
Riiiiight. It would sell itself to people who might not even be aware that it exists? Marketing is about more than just convincing people that they need something that they have no use for. It's also about getting the message out about your products so that people who already have a use for what you're selling have an opportunity to find out about it, and then possibly buy it from you.
You are a classic example of why some people shouldn't be allowed to think on their own - you don't actually complete the thought.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 05 2005, @03:50AM)
Also chances are the IE development team are completely separate to the Vista one, and have a different skill set. By developing IE, Microsoft has an HTML engine that suits their needs, without having to rely on some third-party. If you look around Windows XP, you will soon realise how much actually relies on that engine.
The problems with Vista are probably bad management and trying to do too much in one go. If you look at one of the competitors, Apple, then you will see that they bring things out in managable increments. Sure it is $120 a year, but at least it is available and out there.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://myspace.com/adolfojp)
Opera uses Google as a default search engine because of a smart bussiness deal.
MS could easily do the same.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @05:12PM)
The biggest problem with IE is that it is linked to the OS, which is why security exploits in IE are the biggest headache for microsoft. Hell, I love Apache. I view it as pretty secure. But there is no way in hell I'd pick up an OS where Apache was an inextricable part of the kernel. The very idea is absurd...Apache touches the internet, therefore, it is a security problem. End of story. IE touches the internet, therefore it is a security problem. Firefox, Opera, it doesn't matter. Burglars couldn't get into your house if you had no doors or windows.
I think Dvorak is 100% correct (first time for me)...If they used any other browser, they could lay half their security problems at it's feet. They could point the finger, and shake their heads, and talk about how secure their system is and how, if they built a browser, it would be completely secure and oh-so-functional. Instead they look awful, and their browser is a technological fossil.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://nutsncents.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 08 2003, @07:47PM)
Microsoft has testified in court [salon.com] that IE cannot be separated from the "Core OS", whatever that means.
Therefore, what you say cannot be true
QED
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:4, Funny)
Um, if your house doesn't have windows or doors the burglars can just walk in.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, that's incorrect.
Current exterior wall construction for a large portion of the housing market consists of (from the outside-in)vinyl siding, Tyvek vapor barrier, a fibrous type sheathing (sometimes no more than 1/8" thick cardboard), glass fiber insulation, and gypsum wallboard. All of these material are easily cut with a $1.99 utility knife.
You can get into most houses these days with a knife and 5 minutes by going right through the wall.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Funny)
Just make sure there aren't any electrical conduit where you're making your hole. That might make it less fun.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Funny)
5 minutes is 4 minutes and 50 seconds too long in a yard with a 120lb mastiff on the prowl.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Mattern
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Microsoft could have perfectly well bundled Netscape with Windows (or even bought Netscape with pocket change) back in the 1990s and probably have done so for far less than the cost of developing IE. I think buying Netscape (in which case Netscape's web servers could have become IIS) would be the only way it would have been considered. Why we didn't go that way is an interesting question. I have no idea what the answer is.
You may have noticed that Microsoft isn't big on bundling others' software, and when they do, it's always fully branded and user-transparent. I think acquiring Netscape is the only way anyone would have considered bundling it as the official Windows browser. Who knows? Maybe we did approach Netscape about either a buyout or a branding deal and they told us to get stuffed? I've never heard anything like that, and it's not often that a company declines to be acquired by Microsoft, but I suppose it's not impossible.
Now, combine that lack of enthusiasm for bundling third-party products with the culture of Owning what you work on, and you get why (in my opinion) Microsoft would not have bundled Netscape unless it owned the company lock, stock, and barrel: you could technically lay any security problems at Netscape's feet, but our corporate culture wouldn't want to. Plus, even if we did, our customers wouldn't buy that. They'd say "You shipped it, it's your problem. Don't tell me to email Netscape for support." Anybody's customers would say that. If you sold it to them, you'd better be able to support it, even if it's a third-party product.
Finally, there's a lot of "not invented here" syndrome that runs around our company. It seems to me (I'm fairly new here, so if you've been around longer, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) if we don't have it, we're either going to buy someone who does have it or we're going to write it ourselves.
IE has certainly had its problems over the years, and has of late been feature-poor compared to other browsers. Heck, until IE 7 betas started coming out, I even used other browsers unless someone was watching, and I still most often do because I'm very used to Firefox now. However, IE 7 is honestly a good browser. Beta 1 was usable, beta 2 is slick, and both are extremely fast, render well, and have a good, minimal interface. And finally, they support tabs! That was the huge missing feature. The first time I ever used a tabbed browser was the last time I could stand to not use one. It's just that much better. IE 7 is going to be very good. Far fewer windows users will find themselves with a reason to install Firefox instead of IE7. I expect Firefox will rise to the challenge and also become better and faster and it will benefit the industry as a whole, but there's no question about it: IE 7 is raising the bar.
Overall, do I think IE was a mistake? No. It's true that I'm a n00b here, but as others have pointed out, IE was a good loss leader for our business that allows us to generate revenue in other areas, such as MSN. Was bundling it in the OS a mistake? Well, that's another issue . I hear there's a lot of decoupling of IE in Vista. You be the judge
Notes: I don't work on either IE or Windows, so my opinions are reasonably objective, but they do tend to support our products over the competition, naturally enough.
Re:Definitely not 0 profit... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://nick.tn-uk.net/)
What's new? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.perfectreign.com/)
C'mon, didn't you ever use the TRS-80 BASIC interpreter? Didn't everyone? It worked great, and was a MS product, IIRC. I think it was Micro-Soft basic 4.5 from what I remember.
I never used the BASIC compiler for the PC, but I think it was supposed to be pretty cool. Again it worked as promised. Of course, it was cloned from an IBM product, but then what's new?
Oh, wait - you already said that.
Nevermind.
Microsofts biggest blunder? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
I'm not sure what he means by biggest, but microsoft's stupidist blunder was Bob [guidebookgallery.org] and its most expensive blunder was the Cairo project [computerworld.com] (Cairo was later renamed and one of its most important element, OFS, is still nowhere in sight).
Internet exporer was not so much of a blunder as an expensive way to kill off Netscape (they were a much bigger threat then Dvorak makes out.
(the OT part) Still, at least Microsoft Bob was not a completely wasted effort - after all, you still have Rover the retriever [guidebookgallery.org] to help you with searching in XP - and we all know that was worth waiting 10 years for...
Re:Microsofts biggest blunder? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sigsegv.cx/)
IE is just a shell around libraries which do parsing of content and rendering. These are used throughout Windows including Outlook, parts of Office, the Windows Update infrastructure, etc. These have to be accounted for when making a loss/profit assessment. If it was not for IE, Outlook would have never reached its near universal penetration. Where Outlook and IE go, Office, Exchange, Departamental intranet servers on IIS with HTML written by people on crack follow. All of these depend on IE in one form or another. All of these are commercial products and cost a pretty penny.
IE may be a loss, but it is a classic example of a well executed loss leader. If it was not for IE most of the remaining MSFT clutter would have had to be considerably better quality and less expensive to actually sell.