Over at ZDNet, Microsoft employee John Carroll makes the case that his company’s monopolistic tactics over the past decade have in fact benefited our industry, and cites Internet Explorer as an example. Without preinstalling Internet Explorer, he says, how would anyone download Firefox? How would open-source markets grow?
So let me stop here and say, on behalf of Firefox users everywhere: thank you.
I also have a note here from the pop-up ad industry. They would like to thank Microsoft for allowing their market to boom while the IE team sunbathed in Maui for the past four years.
Sarcasm aside, the truth is that many people, I among them, never really took issue with the idea of preinstalling a browser on Windows. It would be pretty silly to buy a computer today that couldn’t access the Internet. We take issue with how Microsoft flagrantly strong-armed OEMs to leave out or marginalize competing browsers, such as Netscape. As far as I know, Netscape also allowed people to…download things.
John’s argument falls flat in other places, too. He points to AOL Instant Messenger’s lead over MSN/Windows Messenger as further evidence that preinstallation isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But of course, the value in that space isn’t in the software; it’s in the network. AIM inherited much of its network from AOL. And how did AOL build such a massive network in the first place? Well, the fact that it negotiated prime placement on the desktop for years certainly didn’t hurt. People don’t seek out AIM because it’s a better client.
John concludes that “the mere notion that such consumers are somehow so skewed by the mere inclusion of a software default that competitors can’t gain traction is RIDICULOUS…”, but capitalizing a word does not an argument make. I can see how that notion might seem ridiculous to someone with John’s level of technical literacy. How about the tens of millions of people out there who have never downloaded and installed a piece of software in their lives, even in our broadband world? Believe me, they’re out there. We’re pursuing them every day, one at a time, with SpreadFirefox.
One of the most fundamental problems we’ve encountered in evangelizing Firefox is that many people don’t even know what a browser is. If they know the term at all, they think it’s a search engine, which is understandable; the concept of the independent “browser” in a Web world is just a bit too meta for many. So you can imagine convincing someone to download an “alternative” to a product he didn’t know he used, in a genre of software he never knew existed. John’s blithe dismissal of the difficulty suggests to me that he’s never had to do that before. And that’s fine, except his entire argument is predicated on that perspective.
I think the main problem here is that John, like many techies I know, sees everything in bits and bytes: people couldn’t easily download software in the past; now the bandwidth constraints are gone; therefore, the competitive barrier to entry is gone. It reminds me of some of the things coming out of the Linux camps: Linux is technically superior to Windows; therefore, people will switch to it. These kinds of arguments ignore an entire spectrum of barriers facing “regular people” that we developers never contend with, and I think our industry would do well to empathize with them.
Though I disagree with John’s understanding of the past and present, I agree with him that eventually there will be no distinction—for any audience—between software that happens to be on your computer already and software you procure manually. But we’re not there yet.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
You say:
“As far as I know, Netscape also allowed people to …download things.”
but I’m quite sure you meant to rather say:
As far as I know, Microsoft (and/or MS Windows and/or MS Internet Explorer) also allowed people to download things and install other softwares.
Gérard
March 28th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Gérard: I think Blake was referring to John Caroll saying “if IE WASN’T pre-installed, most people wouldn’t be able to download all that IM, media playing, or even alternative browsers such as Firefox” (also quoted by Asa). As if they wouldn’t be able to download such things with Netscape or something.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:27 am
The problem with IE is that it (still) downloads things you really DON’T want it to.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Microsoft helped the industry in a number of ways:
* From their comfortable monopoly position, they never had to worry about quality, bugs, or security; leaving the smaller market that does care about such things alone.
* By building a reputation of abusing thier partners, it encouraged start-ups like Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc to all use BSD or Linux instead; which happened to be better technology anyway.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:49 am
I think he has failed to explain himself in this article. I disagree with almost everything he says, and yet I still don’t even understand what he is trying to say. IE or Netscape or AOL…. none of these are needed to connect to the internet. The windows explorer (example - when you oen a folder on your computer) connects to the internet. No preinstalled browser is needed. And as far as AIM over AOL, i DO believe that people choose AIM over AOL BECAUSE it is a better ‘client’ (or rather, better forms to there needs).
Of course, I must be missing the point of this article. Maybe someone can explain it… but the writer of an article should be able to convey a message.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Long before there were browsers most computers were capable of “downloading things”. It was called FTP, and it worked just fine. Still does. Microsoft didn’t even provide the first tcp stack for windows - I was using ftp and uucp with 3rd party software on my DOS and Win1.0 286 pc in 1986.
It’s funny that they take pride in naming the only good use for IE - downloading firefox. Microsoft didn’t even recognize the value of the internet until after it was well and truly visible to everyone that the bubble was growing. Trying to claim some points for being part of the growth and inception of the net is ludicrous (they probably think it’s good marketing.)
March 29th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Nobody should deny that it was Microsoft’s inclusion of IE that we are enjoying free browser. If it were for AOL/Netscape etc we will be paying to download the things that we take for granted as free these days.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I liked the article especially the piece about how a developer’s concept of a user is not entirely correct. That is so true today. Basically people do not care about the underlying bits and bytes or even things like security as long as they get something easy to use and something that is slick, not to mention having someone to turn to in case of a problem. I hope the Linux junta recognizes this and delivers a kick ass distro sometime soon. And by kick-ass, I do mean include all the twinkly-shiny eye-candy as that seems to be the current currency for an OS, with apple doing it for a while now and now MS following suite.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:58 am
This is so true: anyone who doesn’t work in the IT world knows that most people have no idea (and have zero interest in) what a browser is.
I’m willing to bet that most people only switch if they know someone else who uses a different browser, and only then if there’s a compelling reason (most likely the notion that IE will allow someone to nick your bank account details).
Anyway, if MS really thought a ’software default’ was unimportant, why would they spend millions and millions trying to retain it?
March 29th, 2006 at 7:59 am
I remember the days before preinstalled IE. You ISP would ship you a CD with a browser to two on it. You could see which one you liked better. They would also give you links to other browsers, mail clients, ftp clients, IM programs, and more. John Carroll needs to know that the Internet can work without Microsoft. BTW I don’t loaded my first browser using my ISP’s FTP server.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:00 am
John says that people could download an alternate app, but why could they not download the Microsoft apps just as well? Why do the Microsoft apps need to be preinstalled? Unless Microsoft means to leverage its monopoly to get past this download hurdle which John argues doesn’t exist. Yes, you shouldn’t tell companies what they can include, unless they’re a monopoly. Then it’s different as that monopoly is being leveraged to gain an unfair advatage over competitors.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Both arguments are valid, but you misinterpreted his point. For those that wish to pursue other software solutions, Microsoft’s integrated products act as a portal.
Concerning those that arn’t aware of what a “browser” is, they shouldn’t be categorized with people who are more savvy. If they do not understand the concept of a browser, would they be able to understand the nuance between IE and Firefox?
March 29th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Interesting and humorous write-up. Thanks for taking the time.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Please… there was a time when there was NO pre-installed anything, because the Internet barely existed. AOL was out there early and they spread themselves via mass-mailings of floppy disks. But these days, it’s tough to have “chicken vs. egg” argument. You take for granted that a computer will get on the web. Even Apple bundled IE for a while. But AOL’s software was there too. I’m not sure what kind of point I’m trying to make here - I just see MS attempting to paint itself in a better light as pretty lame. If Netscape, Mozilla, FireFox had it’s hands tied, they could resort to the same old mass-mailings and magazine tie-ins. Where there is a will, there’s a way.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Even if there was no browser preinstalled with Windows, people could still get Firefox via WGET or FTP.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Great article and I agree with you. But could you improve the damn bookmarks?
1. Make Add Bookmark Here a part of firefox rather than a extension.
2. Ability to customize icons and folders. How about the ability to use large graphics instead of stupid little icons so we can really organize the damn things.
3. Ability to access our bookmarks from our servers say an ftp location and a standard for interfacing with bookmarking services and profiles across networks.
4. Drag and Drop organiztion of the drop down menu.
I can think of lots of more features, but those would be really really nice. The biggest problem these days is being able to manage and find sites around the internet. Bookmarks are key to that and key to useability of the browser. Sure the X on tabs is really cute in Firefox 2 alpha but it isn’t going to really improve things as much as enhancing the bookmarks would. Even IE has a better bookmarking system.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Benoit, no doubt what gerard meant was: MS IE also allowed people to download things and install other “softwares” such as activex, worms, trojans, popups, popunders, adware, spyware, malware, dirty underwear, spam, smileys, hotbar, viruses, chain letters, nigerian scams, etc.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I completely agree here…Most of my family would fall into the category of ‘Regular People’ that don’t understand that MSN isn’t the broswer, and that they can still have their customized MSN home page in FF. My gramma is a prime example of someone that only wants to use the default software that came with her XP OS. I even tried to trick her by creating a shortcut to FF w/ an IE logo but because it didn’t look exactly the same when she opened it up she could not handle it and figured out how to uninstall it…I fear for her…
–
Ben Sullins
http://BenSullins.com
March 29th, 2006 at 8:28 am
I have download many open source applications including Firefox, but am struggling to learn more. I relate to people like my 83 year old mother who struggles to turn on the computer. Techy’s forget that a huge percent of older users cannot download a program. Without what is already loaded on a computer, many would never be able to access the internet. My thanks to Microsoft for giving us a start that most can understand in our state of ignorance.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Very nicely argued.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Actually, he was rather clearly referring to the fact that Microsoft abused their monopoly to force IE to be pre-installed, *and nothing else*.
It would have been fine to pre-install Netscape (back in the days when that was a reasonable idea), but MS wouldn’t allow an OEM to do something like that, and still sell Windows.
That’s what “Microsoft flagrantly strong-armed OEMs to leave out or marginalize competing browsers” means.
In short: “Without preinstalling Internet Explorer, he says, how would anyone download Firefox?” By using Netscape .. except it was never there to use, IE was.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:48 am
If i remember well, 10 years ago i recieved a demo-cd with a webbrowser (netscape) and a couple of hours dial-in time…
And untill 2000 ISPs almost always provided a CD with a browser, irc client, ftp client, etc.. when you signed up with them.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:53 am
“We take issue with how Microsoft flagrantly strong-armed OEMs to leave out or marginalize competing browsers, such as Netscape. As far as I know, Netscape also allowed people to…download things.”
To all those who feel MS is strong arming by pre-installing their own software on their own OS are fooling themselves. Do you really think that if Foxfire came up with their own OS, they wouldn’t pre-install foxfire for use on it? No, they would preinstall just foxfire and allow users to d/l other browsers to use as an alternative. If MS really wanted to “strong arm” alternative browser makers, they would make it as difficult as possible for the mundane user to install a browser over the pre-installed IE. As I’m not hi-hoing MS for they do monopolize, but saying that MS doesn’t have the right to pre-install their own software over other free open-source software is ignorant.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Except what he failed to acknowledge was that at the time netscape cost money, and required you to go to a store to purchase. This severely limited it’s viability. Notice the internet’s expansion in relation to a free IE being released and subsequently bundled. If netscape offered a superior product, they would not have had any issue keeping market share. I see firefox is doing just fine…
March 29th, 2006 at 9:05 am
So, when will OSX ship with Firefox?
When will Firefox also allow people to download software on OSX?
If every OS comes with its own brower and media player why can’t Windows have that too?
OH! I know why, because they are really popular.
So, if popular products need to offer options to competitors; why doesn’t Apple license FairPlay to RealNetworks?
March 29th, 2006 at 10:35 am
I agree with what this is saying, as being an IT support tech, it is very obvious that 99.9% of the computer population use computer for the sole purpose of using them, not understanding them. To them browser is just a word to explain an object, like the word speaker represents the thing that blurts out sound. It is not necessary to understand an object to enjoy it, therefore trying to explain the technical aspects of a superior speaker doesn’t matter if their old one works. Magnificent article.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Tim,
The issue is that Netscape *tried* to get bundling deals (and thus offer an alternative to the trip to the store) with OEMs and wasn’t able to.
On the issue of Firefox doing fine: (1) it’s a very different climate now than it was back then (I agree with John there, just not to the extent he does); and (2) let’s not forget that Firefox has just 10% of an enormous market, and a large percentage of *those* are computer-savvy users for whom software defaults do indeed mean nothing.
-Blake
March 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
David wrote “IE or Netscape or AOL…. none of these are needed to connect to the internet. The windows explorer (example - when you oen a folder on your computer) connects to the internet. No preinstalled browser is needed.”
this is factually incorrect. to connect to the world wide web (a part of the internet) a browser is needed. whether it is a text based, command line browser or IE or FF. the “windows explorer” that opens a folder on your computer *is* a browser. microsoft integrated their web browser with their OS so that they could force their web browser upon all users. then they told dell and hp and gateway, and all the other manufacturers that if they bundled netscape with their computers they could not include the windows OS. using their monopoly on the OS market to introduce a de facto monopoly on the web browser market.
Additionally, “And as far as AIM over AOL, i DO believe that people choose AIM over AOL BECAUSE it is a better ‘client’ (or rather, better forms to there needs).”
The issue he writes about is not AIM over AOL, it is AIM over MSN messenger/ICQ, etc. AIM got its large market share by offering a free service to people who were flocking away from paying for AOL as theri ISP, thereby giving them continuity. ICQ was far more customizeable and such, but because AOL had such a large user base before the telco’s took over, they monopolized the market for the past decade or so.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Mindless MS bashing, if Apple was the only player in town, this page wouldnt exist, Ipods wouldnt exist, most of the internet wouldnt exist, our economy would be based on other things really.
March 29th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I agree that most people don’t know what a browser, I tried to explain to a friend what Firefox was.
In Dummy terms I said it’s like Internet Explorer but much cooler, he asked me How is it like IE (couldn’t understand what a browser).
And just for a clarification, it’s Firefox not FoxFire.
Firefox should get bundling deals (change the tagline to Firefox, The Web browser on bundled systems)
We should mostly to gain China and India, with a little less than 1/2 the planet, they should be targeted the most (the one’s with internet I mean)
March 29th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
“I among them, never really took issue with the idea of preinstalling a browser on Windows. It would be pretty silly to buy a computer today that couldn’t access the Internet.”
Dork, Web access is not the same as Internet Access.
Email would continue without a web browser.
As far as getting firefox, wget of ftp work just fine.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
BBS, FTP, and CDs were the primary distribution methods before OSes included web browsers.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Just a bit of an explanation for David McKee.
You said that “none of these [IE or Netscape or AOL] are needed to connect to the internet. The windows explorer … connects to the internet.”
Windows Explorer actually runs IE (Internet Explorer) behind the scenes when connecting to the internet, so yes, IE or something else is needed. You probably should be concerned about this. If your brand new computer came with several new browsers to try, maybe Opera and IE and Firefox, and none of them were the default, then you could pick the one you like best. You would have to try at least one of them. But you are actually–if you don’t know any better–settling on IE, and you will walk into security holes that it does not handle.
That’s what I don’t like: a de facto throwing of the masses over a big IE security cliff, and a large percentage of them (you included), have no idea that this is happening.
Security holes you say? Don’t get me started. . .
March 30th, 2006 at 12:35 am
I personally think a lot of the hatred directed at Microsoft is justified. They have used dirty tactics from the start to maintain their monopoly position. The company was swimming in money while we had to pay a large wad of cash for Windows 9x who’s sole purpose seemed to be crashing.
I would have no problem with microsoft if it was actually committed to innovation and making the use of computers a more pleasurable experience.
To see how competition benefits the technology industry you only have to look at the CPU market. Now that AMD has become a serious competitor to intel we have seen prices go down and a genuine attempt by both corporations to release a superior product.
In fairness, windows XP hardly crashes. Good plug and play functionality. So it has been a significant improvement.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:07 am
“… many people don’t even know what a browser is.”.
This should read: The vast majority of people out there don’t even know what a browser is. Pretty much the 90% that don’t use Firefox. Most people I explain this to equate IE with internet, it’s one and the same to them. Not that they have a hard time understanding it, not at all. They have just never bothered to think about it.
It’s laughable to claim that pre-installing is not an advantage. You would have to be either demented or lying though your teeth to claim that. Given a product A and a product B, with A already available and ready to use and B available through some research and work, how many people would choose A over B if they were roughly equal in terms of functionality. 100% of course, tech-savy or not. That’s not an advantage??
The only reason people are bothering to download Firefox is because it provides a vastly superior experience and is infinitely more secure.
PS: For the record, I don’t think John Carroll is demented.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Larry says:
“Dork, Web access is not the same as Internet Access.
Email would continue without a web browser.
As far as getting firefox, wget of ftp work just fine.”
And you dare call someone Dork??? Your bathroom mirror will show you one!
Together with IE, any windows installation, will (by default) also install Outlook Express. And guess what? OE will not function without IE being present, because it leans heavily on IE’s technology. And how would you read/collect you email without either of them? Email is ‘transmitted’ over the internet (ie: over the Web).
So, in effect: No Browser? No Email!!
March 30th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Guess what? I’ve switched back to IE because Fx’s so damn slow.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:50 am
The article is a funny insight into the sheer ignorance/arrogance of some MS staff, and how they just refuse to see things even factually correct, because it doesnt suite them or MS. MS was illegal with regards to its behaviour to OEM’s and its pretty shameful behaviour that has damaged the IT world, along with other things.
Mozilla stands for choice which is beginning to moderate that power and monopolisation, and thank god for that. This article may anger some former Netscape staff, Mozilla and many people, but what it really shows is that Mozilla needs to get serious with its tactics with Firefox, only just make them fair tactics, then we’ll see real growth. It takes more than being a good product to succeed, well yes, lets see some of both. To get onto users desktops cannot and should not be only via downloading, business tactics, serious alliances, co working, deals and more is needed. Mozilla need to to OEMS, manufacturers, ISP’s, build up communications, relationships because none of that has happened to anywhere near the extent it should. You cant wait for people to come to you.
If MS succeeded by getting good deals with OEMS, manufacturers, ISP’s and more than Mozilla need to do the same, only not without strongarm dirty tactics, with a presentation that says: “were not here for money, were here to benefit you and your users with less security issues, a better internet, and a better functioning problem free PC”.
Even Dell had to take the initiative to trial Firefox in the UK which didnt go brilliantly because there didnt seem to be clear communications between Mozilla and Dell, so clearly there isnt enough communication with any manufacturer. Dell pre installed a security out of date version just before 1.5 also, Firefox was the only thing on the desktop which scared users, and more. Now as a result of it not being better implemented which could have happened with communications with Mozilla, these trials didnt go anywhere near as good as they could and should have, looking not so good to Dell or other manufacturers at a time needed to shine.
Now is the time to get serious and go to OEMs, manufacturers, ISP’s not with dirty tactics like MS, but with only benefits for them and there users, then we’ll a fairer, more open web. Its not just being a good product, its the business, relationships, alliances, co-working, deals, mutually beneficial arrangements and more that need to seriously step up, and in a fair way, fancy that, an honest browser and an honest corporation - an attractive incentive wouldnt you say, lets shout about it!!
March 30th, 2006 at 9:50 am
“They would like to thank Microsoft for allowing their market to boom while the IE team sunbathed in Maui for the past four years.”
And yet Microsoft will not bring IE 7 to W2K. Never mind, I install FireFox & Thunderbird as an option in my repair shop.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
“BBS, FTP, and CDs were the primary distribution methods before OSes included web browsers.”
Ah yes, xmodem, zmodem, kermit… Those were the good old days.
I still have around here somewhere a copy of Netscape .9. Pretty
much useless now with forms, tables, CSS, etc. everywhere. It’s on
an ancient storage device known as a floppy disk, even though it
isn’t really floppy on the outside (I should take one apart and see how floppy it is on the inside — nothing like the old 8″ ones).
I’ve never been a fan of IE, and with MS giving it away for free, and bragging that it was better than Netscape because more people
used it (free vs. fee), it made me just that more motivated to avoid IE.
Sure monopolies benefit people, but just which people is that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
March 31st, 2006 at 2:55 am
FreeBee Says
“Together with IE, any windows installation, will (by default) also install Outlook Express. And guess what? OE will not function without IE being present, because it leans heavily on IE’s technology. And how would you read/collect you email without either of them? Email is ‘transmitted’ over the internet (ie: over the Web).
So, in effect: No Browser? No Email!! ”
In fact it is not send over the “web” but over the protocol TCP/IP - Yes Microsoft have mudded up the water by making all their Programs depending on each other locking the user down in their “free” add in programs
March 31st, 2006 at 6:58 am
„The vast majority of people out there don’t even know what a browser is. Pretty much the 90% that don’t use Firefox. Most people I explain this to equate IE with internet,…“
:) But there’s also the reverse, I’ve succeded to install Firefox on my parents computer just before they started to use he internet.
Now when we have a problem with the internet connection, my father calls and says „Mozilla is not working“… the fist time I thought, „now what could go wrong with the Firefox installation, surelly someone un-installed it“ .. but then I understood … see, for him the internet is Mozilla :)
… most amusing
April 1st, 2006 at 9:13 am
Just posting against this thread, it could be presumed that most of you are reasonably more savvy than the average user. However, to make comments such as “email is transmitted over the web” is scary to me.
It’s true that OE requires parts of IE to function. if you use OE, you can still use alternative browsers. You simply need to leave IE on the system to support OE. This is not rocket Science.
In terms of users having options available to them, this has been said a few times before, but I’ll reiterate it. if a user is savvy enough to have an informed opinion about browser preference, accessing/installing alternative browsers is a non-issue. Those users who don’t understand the distinction between a browser and the internet or wouldn’t know how to install an alternative browser probably wouldn’t care about the benefits of an alternative over the default anyway. So it’s almost a non-issue anyway.
If Microsoft wants to bundle IE with their OS (I understand that they’re not with Vista), more power to ‘em. The tech-savvy will have no trouble circumventing the default, and the non-savvy who don’t know or care how their computers work will benefit from having a preconfigured solution that will work (usually) out of the box.
My 2c
April 8th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Thanks to Microsoft for pre-installing Internet Explorer so people have a way to download Firefox. :)
April 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Hello,
Sure would liked to have listened to Blake’s podcast on computer
america on 3/23/06!!!
Craig doesn’t keep them all available, if you miss one weeks worth,Tough!!
Any suggestions where they might be on the web?
Ipodder doesn’t have them nor does podcast bunker??
Thanks ~~ Charter subscriber to Firefox and Thunderbird!! Only way to
work the net these days..
JS in Dallas.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:23 am
I see it like this, Netscape 4 was a pretty horrible browser from any standpoint.
If Microsoft hadn’t crushed it with Internet Explorer, it probably would have gone on like that.
Irony, because of IE’s dominance and Microsoft having essentially abandoned it for years, it created the perfect environment for standards compliant web browsers like Opera and Firefox to emerge.
If Netscape had gone on unchecked, we’d still have to deal with a closed source browser that made up it’s own de-facto standards on a whim, didn’t listen to users, and cost money to license.