After RCPU lauded readers last week for playing down Browser Wars II, we got rather a brush-off e-mail from reader Andy:
"Browsers are not an application -- they are a platform. And no one wants Microsoft to use one monopoly to gain another monopoly. Please go on and talk about something new."
Rather than talking about something new, though, your editor asked Andy what difference it would make if a company created a monopoly for a free product. His answer might be old hat to some of you, but it was educative for me (call it a "teaching moment"; I even drank a beer while reading it), and it might shed some light on the browser issue for others, as well. Said Andy:
"Browsers are now like operating systems in that 'Web applications' are written to be run on a limited set of browsers. The developers cannot afford to test on all browsers, and while there are standards that browsers are written to, it's kind of like the old 'UNIX standards.' Not all UNIX operating systems had the same tool sets, and not all browsers support all the same extensions -- think ActiveX controls as one example, Flash as another, JavaScript extensions as another. That's why enterprises get stuck on one version of IE, and why Firefox didn't take off even faster.
"Microsoft used to play this angle much harder before all the European pressure -- pushing, through Visual Studio tools, technologies that only IE could support. Now, it's becoming less of an issue as the browser standards are broadened considerably to support ever more advanced JavaScript processing, but the underlying issue is still the same. Web application developers have limited time and money to test all the different browsers. So, if you're not one of the 'big market share browsers,' the developers will ignore you.
"And it's not like this is all under the control of an individual developer or even a team of developers. Development today means using a set of development tools, and those tools in turn have dependencies on specific browsers. Try running IE 5 or old Opera or Netscape browsers today. The 'Web apps' are constantly evolving and require more and more sophisticated browsers. That's one of the primary reasons the Web appliances (think 3com's Audrey, etc.) failed.
"Now, everyone likes to preach about 'standards' -- that 'real soon now,' all the Web apps will be written to the limited set of HTML/script standards that are supported equally in 'ALL browsers.' But that will probably not happen. Think of the promise of Java itself -- the old 'write once, run anywhere' has been complicated dramatically by the constant evolution of the Java platform versions. You can't count on the response from all the different Java flavors. So, as a developer, you end up demanding specific versions because that's all you are able to test around."
OK, that makes a lot of sense. It's about development tools and platforms, which do generate revenue, not about the browsers themselves, which only sort of do (given that default-search deals can bring in some cash). Those of you who have always understood that can roll your eyes, but for the rest of us, Andy's e-mail was useful. And we understand what Andy's saying. Opera (for example) doesn't have a chance of gaining market share if developers of Web-based applications don't bother testing to see whether their apps will work with it. (Incidentally, Microsoft partners who do development work or push Microsoft's development platform might not mind IE helping their cause. Just a thought there.)
Actually, that leads us quite well into a story that has emerged this week. Apparently Microsoft's forthcoming Office Web Apps (we'll call it OWA here, although we don't think Microsoft calls it that), supposedly Redmond's online answer to Google Apps, won't "officially" support Google Chrome, Opera, the Windows version of Safari...or even IE 6.
That's not to say that OWA won't work in those browsers; it might, Microsoft is saying, and the software giant also says that it'll expand its officially supported browser options for OWA after it releases the product. Still, though, this is the kind of thing that we hate to see, and we think that it's kind of stupid. This seems like a ploy to strongly encourage users to use recent versions of IE (Firefox, we suppose, was too big to not make the list, and Safari for Mac made it to appease the Mac crowd).
Microsoft is potentially cutting more than half of the browser market, if we believe some metrics, from its list of officially supported browsers. Even with Andy's explanation and argument about Microsoft trying to win developer revenues through IE, how much sense does it make to potentially alienate more than 50 percent of Web users? What kind of a way is that to launch a set of Web-based applications that are supposed to compete on ubiquity and access from anywhere? Surely Microsoft could have somebody test these things for Chrome and Opera, even if those browsers don't represent an enormous portion of the market -- for now.
We say and always have said boo to any company that doesn't try to be as ubiquitous as possible with browser support, and we frankly think that Microsoft can be more ubiquitous with OWA than to not even support its own browser (IE 6). Did Redmond not learn from the Vista mess that it can't necessarily force people to upgrade anymore the way it always did in the past? Beyond all that, your editor surely can't be the only person who uses multiple browsers fairly regularly. Expanding browser support for Web applications just seems like good business.
Let's get back for a minute, though, to Andy's point about browsers being vehicles for selling development platforms and therefore generating revenue. That really only seems to be an issue for companies that have major development platforms, like Microsoft and Google. If anything, Microsoft has used the ubiquity of Windows much more than it has used IE to lock down development revenues. We're still not sure how much damage it does for Microsoft to include IE in Windows.
Are people really going to stop developing for IE (and using Microsoft development platforms) if the browser isn't included in Windows? No -- it's Windows that attracts developers, even on the Web, not IE itself. Would devs pay more attention to browsers with smaller market shares -- and therefore branch out from using Microsoft development tools all the time -- if IE weren't a Windows default? Maybe, and that's probably the strongest argument for decoupling IE from the OS. We get what Andy's saying there.
Still, we're not sure how much sympathy we have for some of the also-rans out there. Look at Google, which -- while not having been declared a monopolist (yet) in search the way Microsoft has been in the OS game -- had a massive Web presence with which to launch its Chrome browser almost a year ago. Yet, Chrome still has low-single-digit market share at this point. In fact, the only browser that's challenging IE in any significant way is Firefox (RCPU's preferred browser), which has no operating system on which to ride and no overwhelmingly popular search engine to support it.
If anything, the success of Firefox weakens the argument that inclusion in Windows is an unfair advantage for IE. Firefox is a product made by a midsize company that ultimately falls under the umbrella of a non-profit organization. Its success, more than anything else, is a testament to innovation, tremendous viral marketing and Mozilla Corp.'s ability to mostly stay one step ahead of its bigger competitor in terms of stability, speed, security and functionality. Firefox competes the old-fashioned way, and we like it. (And, yes, Mozilla whines a lot about IE, too, but we're ignoring that for now.)
What we don't like, though, is the lack of respect for browser standards (or the lack of real standards themselves) that Andy alluded to. Browsers should be commodities -- it really shouldn't matter that much which one someone uses, and Web-based applications should work as well in one as they do in another. We're not just being magnanimous when we say that, either. It makes good business sense for Web applications to work in as many formats as possible and support as many browsers as possible. Cutting out or alienating chunks of users -- even small ones -- isn't a wise move.
Besides, who knows how long IE will rule the browser roost? Chrome could make a run at some point, and Firefox is continuing to gain popularity. Beyond that, Windows itself, while still dominant, doesn't have the absolute chokehold on users that it used to. (Need we mention Vista again?) So, Microsoft, Google and friends -- do try to play well together. You'll all be better off in the end for it.
Since we've spent so much time talking about browsers, here's a little more browser news. Google has a new Chrome beta out, and Microsoft issued a patch yesterday that changed IE's default settings.
What's your take on how browsers generate revenue? Do they make any money for your company? As a partner, does it matter to you which browser a customer uses, and if so, why? Answer these questions or drop any comment you like to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/12/2009 at 1:22 PM3 comments
Your .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010 betas could be at risk if you upgrade to Windows 7. But since this problem only seems to affect Vista users, there probably aren't many of you who care.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/12/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
The first Community Technology Preview is out there for TechNet and MSDN subscribers.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/12/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
It turns out that Windows 7 Starter Edition, the version of the new operating system aimed at netbooks, will be pretty lame after all. And that it will be for OEMs only. And that it will be more expensive than XP, meaning Microsoft will be damaging one of the main value points of buying a netbook (the price). And that Steve Ballmer just doesn't like netbooks that much in general. Dig his quote from the story linked above:
"Our license tells you what a netbook is. Our license says it's got to have a super-small screen, which means it probably has a super-small keyboard, and it has to have a certain processor and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
You know what, Steve? XP runs just fine on the netbook your editor is using to type this post right now -- and it probably will for a while. And if at some point it doesn't, that free Linux thing might be kind of tempting after all. Don't mess with the netbook crowd.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/12/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Forgive us a bit of a departure from partner-related stuff, but this is RCPU's favorite story of the year so far. Twitter, the annoying social networking site that RCPU recently joined because, well, we apparently had to, has been struggling with denial-of-service attacks recently. That much, you knew. But if you decided to take the weekend (and, we suppose, Friday -- as we did) off, you might not know that the attacks seem to have been the work of a bunch of Russians trying to knock a Georgian (Euro-style, not the college-football-fan kind) off the Web.
Well, naturally, the poor guy who has been the victim of the attacks is an Internet star now and will probably end up with some sort of endorsement deal or massively hit-producing YouTube channel soon. But for the rest of us, the attacks have meant that we don't have to mess with posting updates on that ridiculous site -- um, uh, we mean, the attacks have meant that users have started to raise more questions about the safety of social networking sites and maybe even about the security of the whole Web 2.0 model.
But for many companies (including partner companies, we're sure), the Twitter outage hasn't been bad news. In fact, it has had the silver lining of preventing employees who don't necessarily need to be on Twitter from playing around on it all day. And it has also eliminated -- for hours at a time, anyway -- the chance that some employee will download malware or do some other accidentally nefarious thing by clicking on a link in a Tweet.
Social networking is supposed to be the sales tool of Web 2.0, the way we're all going to communicate and make deals and contacts now that e-mail is about as modern and useful as the floppy disk. But, as with any other technology, is has its drawbacks and its risks. Your editor's main opposition to Twitter is that as a (let's say) thorough writer, it's hard to keep Tweets down to 140 characters or fewer. Beyond that, Twitter seems even more self-serving and (harsh word coming) pompous than most social networking applications.
Beyond that, we can understand how difficult it must be for IT folks and managers in general to get a handle on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites in their companies. Block the sites completely, and IT people risk alienating employees and denying access to those workers who "need" to use social networking. Leave them wide open, and social networking sites can become breeding grounds for time-wasting (as if we needed another place to do that) and malware -- not to mention vicious attacks on Georgians.
We don't really have a solution to this dilemma. To be perfectly honest, we at RCPU were kind of hoping that Twitter would just sort of go away -- but that seems unlikely, despite some Russians' attempt to hassle a Georgian guy. (So, you might as well follow RCPU at http://twitter.com/leepender, right? Honestly, we mainly just re-post what you read here, but we might throw in a surprise here and there. All in 140 characters or fewer, of course.)
And we're sure that there are some companies that use Twitter and other similar sites for practical purposes. All these attacks have really demonstrated is that nobody is impervious to hackers (but we knew that) and that Web 2.0, for all its hype and all the excitement around it, probably presents as many problems as it does benefits. Still, we're enjoying the total randomness of the fact that some spat in Eastern Europe seems to have brought down the darling of the social networking scene. We really do feel for the guy who is being targeted here -- but would it be wrong to hope that the hackers win and to ask our Georgian tragic hero to take a fall here in the spirit of the greater good? Yeah, probably. But if we did cheer for that to happen, we have a feeling that we wouldn't be alone.
How do you handle social networking at work? Do you use it for actual business purposes? Do you have trouble controlling it among your employees? Are you addicted to it? Spill it all at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/11/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Microsoft's been busy patching lately, and there are
nine more fixes on their way today. But, hey, Redmond's faring better than Twitter has been lately, right?
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/11/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
In a move we like to see, Microsoft is selling Razorfish, one-time star of the Web world and a company that Microsoft bought when it acquired online ad agency aQuantive,
to a French advertising giant, Publicis.
We like this because it's one less distraction for Redmond, hopefully meaning that maybe Steve Ballmer is toning down his dream of becoming a media magnate and is starting to focus on Microsoft's (struggling) core technologies again. (To be fair, the company does have a huge launch wave coming, with Windows 7's arrival in October being the obvious marquee event.)
But we're also curious to see what the chefs at the Publicis Drugstore (which is really more of a café-slash-swanky shop) can do with Razorfish. After all, if the French can make pig guts taste good (and they can), they can surely find a way to spice up Razorfish, right?
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/11/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
As if Google jumping into this game along with OpenOffice.org wasn't enough, a Chinese company called Evermore (quoth the raven, although we think he actually said "nevermore") is launching a Web-based productivity suite. Good luck with that, Evermore. Nobody has knocked Office off of its throne yet. Then again, with a market like China in its back yard, it might not matter how well Evermore's suite takes off anywhere else.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/11/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Good news for at least 400 Yahoo employees: Microsoft is going to hire you as part of its deal with the search also-ran. Bad news for the 5,000 or so Microsoft employees the company has laid off recently or will lay off soon: While you're out of work (hopefully not for long), 400 Yahoo employees will be moving (at least virtually) to Redmond.
Microsoft is also forking over $150 million over three years to Yahoo to get things rolling on the almost assuredly futile chase to catch Google in search.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/06/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
With regard to Microsoft's plan to offer a ballot of browsers in European versions of Windows 7, we'd like to thank John from Kentucky for pretty much writing today's newsletter for us:
"I just don't understand why the EU keeps pushing this issue. Browsers don't inherently deliver ads or make money (at least not off me). They're a free 'product.' This whole debate seems so 1997!"
Let us just stop you right there, John, to say bra-vo! (Yes, we liked that so much that we accentuated the syllables in "bravo" for emphasis.) We at RCPU have never understood the modern, post-Netscape browser wars. Is it not the applications and the advertising that matter, rather than the browser itself? Can we not Bing in Chrome or Google in Internet Explorer? Do Google and Microsoft not serve ads and run apps in browsers other than their own?
We just don't get why browser market share, browser competition and the like are so important. Browsers are a commodity -- a free one, at that -- and almost interchangeable as far as we can tell. If somebody would like to explain to us why browser market share is so important and why vendors, regulators and analysts are so concerned with browsers, please feel free to do so at [email protected]. We just don't understand the hype and the controversy.
But we digress. Now, back to John:
"I'm not ashamed to admit I prefer Paint to Photoshop (or Gimp or Paint.net) on most projects I undertake for its sheer simplicity of just moving something around. There are times when you need to bring out the big guns, but my point is, why is IE a 'product' prone to antitrust lawsuits but Paint is not? I know plenty of Firefox and Safari users who consider IE to be the 'Paint' of browser choices. What sets a browser apart from any other essential part of an operating system? If they added layers or a selection wand to Paint, would it become another monopoly issue?
"I remember when I first signed up for the Internet in 1995. I had a Windows 3.1 machine and a little too late realized I had to wait a week for my ISP to ship me a Netscape Navigator CD before I could use the Internet. Talk about torture! I couldn't imagine going through that in 2009! Microsoft should release a browser-less 7 and replace the IE icon with a text file that says, 'Please contact the EU for a browser to get on the Internet. Have a nice day!' Why doesn't the EU give it a rest already?"
Applause, John, applause. That's really all we have to say. And thanks for articulating better than your editor ever could how RCPU feels about the whole browser debate.
On the same topic, we received an e-mail from an actual European, who also wasn't too impressed with Microsoft's browser democracy. Notes Remco:
"The point is that we, as the people of Europe, are made able to choose a browser we want to use, including my and your preferred browser mentioned in the article [that's Firefox -L.P.]. All browsers should have an equal chance in the market.
"The proposal Microsoft is making to the European Union is exactly the opposite of that! I think it's hilarious. They should split the OS and browsers, just like they do with all the other software they are making. And that is a big list of software; they know how to do it."
Remco, we know what you mean. Microsoft's vision of browser democracy isn't exactly all-inclusive; the slots on the ballot are based on weird market-share calculations and other odd metrics. As for separating the browser from the OS, though, we like John's suggestion: Let the EU pass out browsers in Europe if the regulators there are so worried about Microsoft having an unfair advantage. (By the way, we noted this week that Firefox passed the 1 billion download mark -- and ate up some more of IE's market share. Just sayin'.)
Can you explain why browsers are such a big deal? Please do at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/06/2009 at 1:22 PM4 comments
In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft has admitted that Linux (and, to an extent, Apple) is a competitive threat to Windows. Well, that might very well be true, but we all know what the biggest competitive threat to any new version of Windows is: the old version, Windows XP. Whether Microsoft mentioned that, we don't know; to be honest, we didn't read the whole filing. If you really want to, check out Annual Form 10-K here.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/06/2009 at 1:22 PM1 comments