Netscape: AOL Buries the Dead
|
Perhaps the Web era's saddest story is Netscape's demise. May the browser rest in peace. If there is a smoking gun, Microsoft holds it. |
AOL will end support for the Netscape browser on Feb. 1. AOL will no longer offer Netscape security patches or other updates.
Gone will be:
- The browser that literally popularized the World Wide Web
- The progenitor of AJAX, JavaScript, plug-ins and RSS, among many, many other Web technologies
- The catalyst for one of the biggest antitrust losses in the history of American business
Loading the Gun
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates loaded the gun that killed Netscape with his infamous May 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo. Gates wrote about Netscape:
"A new competitor 'born' on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with 70 percent usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy, where they move the key API into the client to commoditize the operating system."
Gates saw hope and danger in the Internet. "Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats," he wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format "after 10 hours of browsing." Microsoft has long used proprietary file formats to drive sales of its products. Later in the memo, Gates articulated a strategy for controlling Internet file formats.
The Internet Tidal Wave memo is the blueprint for Microsoft's product strategy from 1995 to present day. Anyone who really wants to understand Microsoft business practices should read the memo. The strategy articulated by Gates nearly 13 years ago is still forefront. Microsoft is amazingly consistent, and the co-founder identified problems and responsive strategies that were remarkably visionary, including search. Gates didn't anticipate Google, exactly, but he did identify the importance of search and what Microsoft should do about it.
Gates loaded the gun, but the trigger was pulled when Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows. Microsoft wasn't the first company to ship a browser with its major operating system. I first surfed the Web using the Mosaic-based browser included with IBM's OS/2, in October 1994. But Microsoft had the force of monopoly behind it and, through Windows integration, the means for offering developers an easier way than Netscape.
Kill, or Be Killed
But that first shot didn't kill Netscape—remarkably, Microsoft missed. However, the sound of that gunshot rattled Netscape, leading to several crucial mistakes that later put the browser in the line of fire. The U.S. government sent troops to protect Netscape against Microsoft's invasion into the browser's territory. The Justice Department brought two separate court proceedings, one in 1997 and another starting in 1998, against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape.
Microsoft lost the battle—with US District Judge Thomas Penfeld Jackson's adverse ruling, delivered in two parts in late 1999 and early 2000—but not the war. Jackson found that Microsoft had abused its monopoly position, in a ruling far broader than just Netscape. Netscape still took a bullet, and the 2001 settlement (approved in 2002) diminished the ruling's scope. If Microsoft is Netscape's killer, the company avoided first the death penalty and next years in prison for the equivalent of probation and community service.
Still, the smoking gun haunted Microsoft for years, as likely will Netscape's ghost. The antitrust trial tainted Microsoft's reputation and diminished the luster of Windows as a brand. Maybe because of corporate guilt, Microsoft stopped Internet Explorer development with the release of Windows XP in October 2001. Microsoft would wait nearly another five years—until search became a profitable business model and Mozilla released Firefox—to resume browser development.
All the while, the news media repeatedly labeled new Microsoft business tactics as a revival of the "Netscape strategy." Microsoft couldn't get past the reputation that it would attempt to kill again, by bundling new technologies into Windows.
Microsoft somewhat changed its ways and maybe not all that willingly. If today were before the Netscape shooting, Microsoft would likely integrate Windows Live services into the operating system. Live is separate but closely aligned with Windows.
In many other ways, Microsoft continued business as usual, pursuing the competitive concerns and strategies outlined in the Internet Tidal Wave memo. The company hasn't budged from its efforts to control key file formats, APIs and Internet user interfaces. Office and Service System products are clear examples.
Only the Body Lived
Netscape was dead long ago. The body lived, but the head had taken a bullet. Maybe Netscape could have dodged the bullet, if not for a number of business mistakes following the first shot. Sale to AOL, in November 1998, was one of the biggest mistakes. As potential protector, AOL created a sense of security, and vulnerability only increased. AOL has a sordid history of buying good technologies and running them into the ground. Netscape was no exception. AOL lacked the development commitment.
For years, Netscape hung around on life support. Then briefly, about four years ago, AOL revived Netscape. But the browser walked feebly down the Internet Information Superhighway, while competitors—spurred on by search and advertising revenue—sped speedily by. Netscape collapsed again, around the time Google and AOL renewed their search deal near the end of 2005. Netscape went back on life support, never to recover. AOL has pulled the plug, and next month will bury the body.
There remains the morality of the shooting, which isn't clear even with Microsoft's verdict before hanging judge Jackson. American business still operates by wild west rules; it's kill or be killed. The moral priority of business, while likely offensive to many individuals' personal ethics, is shareholder value—for public companies, anyway. Shareholders' values, meaning ethics, are all about returning shareholder value. Microsoft's highest moral priority is making money for its stockholders. The same priority applied to Netscape. If the skirmish between the companies were likened to a gunfight, Microsoft was the quicker draw and the more experienced aim.
I really liked Netscape, and I paid to own the browser even with the free choice of Internet Explorer; during the brief time when Netscape cost something to own. Netscape deserved a better, longer life. Its contribution to the Web lives on, and will do so for many years. Firefox is Netscape's progeny, even if the lineage is indirect. Some people will contend that Microsoft got away with murder. That's history. What matters now is Netscape's end. Will AOL give Netscape a proper burial or chuck it in an unmarked grave with other bodies?
[Editors Note: Two dates corrected.]
Related Posts:
- Netscape Death Is Long Overdue, Good for Security, Security Watch, Dec. 28, 2007
- IE 8 and the New Browser War, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 20, 2007
- Think Tank: Unbundle Windows from PCs, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 24, 2007
- Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 31, 2007
Comments (28)
Hi Joe,
Please, please tell me that the following date error comes as a result of a Microsoft product thinking it was smarter than you:
"The Justice Department brought two separate court proceedings, one in 2007 and another starting in 2008, against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape."
I need a good laugh.
Posted by Christopher | January 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Christopher wrote: "Please, please tell me that the following date error comes as a result of a Microsoft product thinking it was smarter than you."
Hi, Christopher,
1997 and 1998.
Good catch. Thanks,
Joe
Posted by Joe | January 2, 2008 4:39 PM
Calling Netscape the progenitor to AJAX is akin to calling the Model T a progenitor to drive-by-wire cruise control systems. Marginally defensible, but quite a bit of a stretch.
Posted by Michael Teper | January 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Funny how things go in circles...
I wonder how long it will be before we see an article like this about Firefox killing IE.
"Maybe it could have dodged the bullet, but MS screwed up it's last chance to make good when it released version 7..."
Posted by Gavin Bollard | January 2, 2008 5:57 PM
IMHO, Microsoft Outlook's web-based UI was the progenitor of AJAX. NS came up with the "J" (Javascript), but a) you already gave them credit for that, and b) the true power of AJAX comes from XmlHttpRequest, which enables asynchronous POSTing (and it also is architecturally similar to ASP.Net 1.x's SmartNavigation feature)
Posted by Keith P. | January 2, 2008 6:38 PM
Microsoft Shareholders should be aware of what an injunction would do to the shareprice. Those who plan to short Microsoft before the injuction would like shareholder to be kept in the dark.
The subject of injunction in VCSY v MSFT is an obvious hotspot as we approach the 60 day mark counting down to the end of the mediation period March 7, 2008 as imposed by the court appointed negotiator.
I'm posting to show MSFT shareholders they have friends like anti-MSFT original_al and hawcreek holding their hand. A friend like original_al that is anti-MSFT explaining to Microsoft shareholders how they have nothing to worry about.
Never mind MSFT hasn't been able to show what they've been working at for over a year. Never mind the rest of the software industry is making huge gains in the web-platform arena while Microsoft continues to lag behind in crucial web-platform capabiliites.
Never mind you can't explain to the MSFT shareholder just how the 744 patent is "too broad". Doesn't look too broad to me. Heck, I can explain just how it's not too broad, but nobody can answer what I say. They just fall back to "VCSY is broke". Yep. That's precisely the argument VCSY will offer the court as a reason for seeking an injunction against .Net.
Microsoft pressure and unfair competition through their infringements has lead to VCSY being broke.
Precisely the situation injunction is intended to remedy.
More by Portuno at url:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=1349&mid=1349&tof=1&frt=1
Posted by I-Man | January 2, 2008 7:10 PM
Netscape is dead, long live Netscape.
Yes finially M$ managed to kill off Netscape. although it was the walking dead for years. Let us not forget though how M$ killed off Netscape, by tying in their product Internet Exployer, to the operating system, and not only giving it away for free (dumping) but making sure it was installed as the default browser on the Windows Operating System. Which brings us to the DOJ monopoly lawsuit, and the branding of M$ as a monopoly. The Opera lawsuit with the EU is about the same thing here, with standards throw in, and could be the bigger more important case.
Yes, Netscape is dead, but long live Netscape. It was born again, in the form of "Firefox," a far superior browser with many improvements over IE. Not to mention extenstions (adblock), so I don't have to waste bandwidth reading worthless M$ ads in Firefox. Netscape will have its revenge in the reincarnation of Firefox.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html
Posted by chips | January 2, 2008 7:39 PM
Explorer wont die people may not use it but as long as explorer is in the OS like Safari is in the Mac OS/x it wont die. Then like Sony saying a lot of people use Blue Ray because a lot of people bought a ps3 Microsoft can say that Explorer is not dead because millions who use Windows use Explorer. It is a fine line between what the one who purchased product A for purpose B and the company intrupting that the consumer purchased the product for purpose C use internet explorer, or watch blue ray. When in reality they use FireFox and watch HD-Dvd.
Posted by ge | January 2, 2008 8:41 PM
When and if Apple becomes a monoply will they be sued for tying Safari to the OS? Is bundling illegal? Or is it only when your a monopoly? How about tying the OS to one piece of hardware? It it becasue Apple does not have the mind set or bad business practice that one perceive MS has. So if they do the same as MS tying and dumping (giving it away for free) Safari then it is not a problem. What is bad for the goose is not bad for the gander? If something MS has done or is doing is considered in bad context ten why when others do it then it is not considered bad? Bad businesses can't do and good ones can.
Posted by ge | January 2, 2008 8:55 PM
Verizon is rolling out VCSY's Fiber-Optic patent!!
By: POSCASHFLOW
02 Jan 2008, 09:05 PM EST
Msg. 206530 of 206536
Happy New Year ALL! Hope you all enjoyed the holidays and are ready to ROCK and ROLL in 2008!!!! Verizon and Now Solutions sure have been quiet about their relationship(almost a year NOW) but it looks
like Verizon sure has been busy with their network!
http://www.verizonbusiness.com/us/about/news/releases/release.xml?newsid=24154&mode=vzlong&lang=en&width=530&root=/us/about/news/releases/&subroot=release.xml&langlinks=off
Can you say WOW! Excerpt from article:
In response to growing bandwidth demand by Verizon Business customers, the company successfully planned and completed the industry's first field trial of 100 gigabits per second (Gbps) optical transmission in November. The test was conducted on a section of Verizon Business' ultra long haul system between Tampa, Fla., and Miami and carried a live video feed on one 100 Gbps wavelength for the full 312-mile distance. Government and enterprise customers, such as financial and medical institutions, will benefit from the higher speeds and greater network efficiencies that 100 Gbps provide.
Posted by I-Man | January 3, 2008 12:33 AM
And Netscape fell behind IE in two technical areas:
1. International support - Netscape just didn't cut it to the same degree if you were a user in countries not using the Latin alphabet. Too many people forget that the internet is not all about the US of A.
2. Programmability. AOL were able to create a customized browser from IE that they could not achieve with Netscape's codebase at the time of purchase.
Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 1:27 AM
Netscape is dead, but it is Micro$oft's monopoly that deserves to die.
Gates's "vision" for controlling the Internet is based on unrivalled greed and lust for power. That is what it really all boils down to. Micro$oft has become the corporate expression of one man's insatiable hunger to control everything tech. It's an old story that has repeated itself many times.
Fortunately, an old adage also remains true: "You can't take it with you."
Remember that, Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer.
Posted by Maddog | January 3, 2008 4:51 AM
re. ge -
there are a few small differences and one big difference between apple and microsoft that you seem to gloss over.
Small:
.) Safari is just a preinstalled application - unlike IE which is a part of the OS that cannot be removed.
.) When Safari was released all other major web browsers were already free. Not so with IE. For future reference - don't expect apple to be leading the way in terms of free or cheap... ;)
.) Selling a single product that comprises both hw & sw (since inception of the company no less) is not the same thing as bundling in your context - particularly for competitive gain.
.) Most browser marketshare stats i've seen measure based on the user agent strings of browser clients - not merely being installed on a Pc or mac that may or may not be unused or the whole box even sitting in the pond.
Big:
I think the CEO-at-the-time of Netscape said it best when interviewed recently. He was asked if in his opinion Microsoft's business practices.
He said, he of course admired Microsoft's take no prisoners aggressive attitude when they were small and young. However their behaviour is not appropriate to the amount of power they now wield.
Like a primary school kid can bash up another in the yard without serious consequences - not so much when you're in your 40s...
Posted by whatever | January 3, 2008 6:40 AM
Joe,
Seriously, I know how you feel about not removing posts by users but you have to do something about I-man. I wouldn't think any less of you if you remove posts that are obvious trolls and spam marketing. Or maybe have ZDNet devs add in a "digg" style feature that lets us bury innane comments.
Posted by Jason | January 3, 2008 8:38 AM
Well, big bad Microsoft ... and of course, everyone forgets that Netscape made huge error after huge arror that was glossed over by everyone making Microsoft the Boogie Man.
Errors like:
1. Charging $50 per license for the browser at a time when the world was heading to open source.
2. The code base was a pile of crap that was put together during one of those periods where the world thought software engineering was just fluff
3. Don't forget the aquisitions they made (directory server, a commerce server, an application server, a mail server, and a couple of others I forget), all of which where a pile of crap. These were handed over to Sun/AOL, and neither one could make a commercially viable product out of them, sans for the directory server which Sun was able to extract some useful product out of.
4. An earlier post made mention of the fact that AOL could not use Netscape for their browser based offering, even when they controlled the dev's and owned the source, and had to go with IE instead. Talk about your major embarrasment.
5. The Netscape management team was not at all stellar folks, except for Andreesen who was more of a CTO type at the time than a businessman.
The only member of the Anti-Microsoft vendor faction that was cheering on the various AG's and DOJ at the time that made any significant progress as a business was Oracle, solely because Ellison was smart enough to know that he could not afford to let his company stagnate under the expected protection the government was supposed to provide. Netscape relished the victim mentality, Sun was too busy tormenting Microsoft with a programming language no less, and IBM was just interested in impeding the progress of the mainframe demise. AOL thought it was invincible when it was in favor with the democratic administration of Clinton and crew. This all led to open source taking the thunder away from the RISC unix crowd, which needed to be giving away software assets to look "cool" and "open".
I think today, if you still believe that Microsoft won what they have on sheer marketing ability and not innovation, then you really are in denial.
Posted by Jameskil | January 3, 2008 5:24 PM
Re. Jameskil
So Netscape made an error charging $50, when the world was heading open source. How about Microsoft then, is that an error of theirs now too? Or on the other hand the unix crowd giving software assets away to look cool - wouldn't that be exactly what Netscape would have done? By the way, Sun Microsystems != the whole UNIX crowd.
Do you remember Netscape was the fastest growing business over it's first 48 months of operation - ($5 billion company in that timeframe)
The CEO of Netscape at the time was Jim Barksdale. Somewhat famous for turning FedEx into what it is today through technology and innovation and all round a bit of a CEO-legend by most accounts.
The other applications weren't crap. But anyways it's easy to say that such and such was a pile of crap now. BTW, I wonder how IE4's source code would compare to your standards.
As for AOL not being able to make a useful product out of their acquisitions; you sound like you know or think you know a lot about IT history - go connect the dots... :-)
However, you're right Netscape in general miss-stepped when Microsoft came a-knocking. As for other businesses lingering - yes you're right with some businesses, although I have my doubts whether that's got anything to do with the Microsoft court case.
I think if you believe that Microsoft is where it is today only through innovation or only through marketing, then you're really in denial. They're just really good at many aspects of doing business, and a little bit too good at a few others.
Posted by whatever | January 3, 2008 6:27 PM
Maddog: Given Mr Gates' rapidly growing endowments, which are absolutely and relatively greater than any other hi-tech name, you might be giving advice long after the horse has bolted. I'd like to see Jobs, Ellison, McNealy et al pony up some money for the public good, but then again Jobs can barely recognise his own children let alone others'.
For most of Gates' career he has been getting around $200K salary and no additional stock, so it is the American stockmarket that has rewarded him. Compare the follies of Philippe Kahn, Jim Manzi etc whose pay-packets went to their heads. Gates represents the achievement of every American CEO's dream, due in no small part to the hubris and incompetence of his competitors.
Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 11:40 PM
@Mike -- Gates's "rapidly growing endowments" are tax shelters too, in case you forgot. And they are also used to fund questionable causes, such as population control and abortion in nations that do not want these. His "generosity" is just as questionable and hardly admirable.
And his success is not really due to the incompetence of his competitors, but to his dirty tactics and monopolistic shenanigans. Bill Gates belongs in the Hall of Shame, along with other thieves like Imelda Marcos.
Posted by Maddog | January 4, 2008 2:48 AM
Netscape itself may be stopping, but the gecko engine, developed by Netscape and then open sourced, was the basis for Firefox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_(layout_engine)
Quote; "Gecko is the open source, free software web browser layout engine used in all Mozilla-branded software and its derivatives, including later Netscape (discontinued) releases. Written in C++ and licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, Gecko is designed to support open Internet standards. Originally created by Netscape Communications Corporation, its development is now overseen by the Mozilla Foundation."
----------------------------------------------------
So Netscape lives on, in a stronger open source reincarnation, known as Firefox. Netscape will have its revenge in due time.
---------------------------------------------------
To Maddog;
Quote; "Bill Gat s belongs in the Hall of Shame, along with other thieves like Imelda Marcos."
---------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, although, I would have said perhahs jail time would have been more approperiate at any earlier time in his life. But that is not going happen now, to a person with that much wealth and power. Bill Gates, and the media companies mostly control the laws that get passed, and the news that gets put on the air, in this country now.
We can only hope for Bill, that he will see the errors in his ways. Unlikely, as it seems to be all business as usual means at M$. And the Master's hand will still be at the helm even when he leaves the day to day operations to Lord Ballmer. After all, he will still be the largest stockholder, holder of many patents that M$ uses, and the Chairman of the board.
Posted by chips | January 4, 2008 1:53 PM
Maddog - I think you need to "put up or shut up" on all of those issues.
Posted by Mike | January 5, 2008 1:55 AM
Oh please, Firefox killed Netscrap, when it wasn't doing it itself.
It's been years since their business plan clearly involved writing a browser rather than other activities like suing MS (a new, major industry, but still bound to be shortlived...)
While people stayed with NS out of a hate for MS, very few ever stayed without out of a true love for NS. Many(most) of those people moved to Firefox. Doesn't leave a lot of love left to run the product on, now does it? And after NS became just another firefox variant, did it actually matter anymore, even then?
Those looking for directions on how to NOT run a succesful, long term software project, take notes.
Posted by Xepol | January 5, 2008 4:23 PM
Point the finger at Netscape. Netscapes inability to implement standards it promoted to the IEFT and W3C helped its demise.
Posted by Ionize | January 6, 2008 8:32 PM
Mike, what you think doesn't matter. Maybe YOU should just shut up.
Posted by Maddog | January 7, 2008 5:24 AM
I have some old photo's that were saved using Netscape...which I no longer have.
Will anything else work for me?
neal@socket.net
Posted by Neal | January 7, 2008 10:47 PM
I, for one, will still use the latest version of Netscape as long as I can get it. I have about a dozen browsers installed for different reasons.I have always like Netscape. And back in the time, I liked their email program, too. It seems to me that if AOL / Time Warner cannot make a go of Netscape, they should turn it over to someone who can. There must be someone left in the world with a warm place in their heart for Netscape; someone who would take it into the future.
I love Opera for its voice-activation and reading of web pages and a host of other nifty features. Let's all hope and pray that Opera is not affected by the death of Netscape.
I don't know about you, but I have Vista Ultimate 64-bit running on a top-notch system with 4GB of RAM and IE still crashes almost everytime I use it (I am sometimes FORCED to use it because some websites only work with IE). When it does "work," it is the slowest browser I have ever had.
The best certainly did NOT win out in this battle.
Posted by MrKit | January 8, 2008 11:20 AM
I started using Macs because I didn't like using DOS. I was very happy using Mac OS 7.x through 8.x. and several versions of ClarisWorks. My mother was using Windows (pre-95)and it was not a superior product. Microsoft products have always been just good enough, but never great. Their biggest success was in market manipulation.
Catering to the majority of people using less expensive x86 hardware made perfect sense and was a legitimate, and smart, move. Credit where credit is due. But I was constantly seeing other companies make themselves compatible with Microsoft products and formats, only to see M$ release a newer version that removed that compatibility. They went out of their way to prevent compatibility. I want to choose my software on the basis of what I like best, not on the basis of what is left, or even what is compatible. If M$ had taken all the time, effort, and money it put into dirty business, and used it to make their products better, they would have won fair and square instead of down and dirty.
M$ should focus on it's original core businesses, and let someone else make a living too. Stop expending so much energy and money making inferior copycat products to kill the competition.* (And if M$ wouldn't declare war on them, they wouldn't be the competition in the first place.) Isn't hundreds of billions of dollars enough to go around?
*It occurs to me I should elaborate a bit. MSDOS to compete with DRDOS. Windows to compete with Macintosh. IE to compete with Netscape. Microsoft Office Document Image Writer to compete with Adobe Acrobat. .Net to compete with Java. IE7 to compete with Firefox. Windows Live to compete with Google. Windows Defender to compete with Symantec and others. And of course, Vista, just to try to pay for all of this decade's unprofitable competition.
I don't have a problem with MS offering free bundled apps with it's OS. But it would be nice if I could uninstall them and use what I want without fudging up the whole OS install on my PC. (Did someone say .dll hell?) My wife always complains, "Why can't this stupid computer just work?" If M$ had spent the last decade making better and more compatible software, instead of trying to kill and thwart every other profitable business and/or technology it saw, maybe it would just work.
Posted by Michael | January 8, 2008 1:31 PM
I still use an older Ver 7.2 (2004 vintage) version of Netscape every day, and only fall back to IE or Firefox when necessary. The 7.2 version contained a very handy password feature that still works well today, way better than any other browser version I have looked at. As mentioned, Netscape has been dead for years but that doesn't mean it's headed for a museum anytime. Just like the Atari 2600 or OLD 70's TV shows released to DVD, there will still be diehards using it every day. Long Live Netscape!
Posted by G-MAN | January 11, 2008 8:53 AM
Strange things do happen... I'll read this through again and do my research. Like many, I make use of Netscape for my more critical work. It also happens to be a primary for military use do to the holes, unreliability, and security problems with Internet Explorer. I got the news from AOL just a short time ago that the washout of the merger was going to be AOL was going away except for e-mail, which would be the e-mail, and Netscape was going to be the surviving browser. Kind of strange isn't it? It sounds to me like AOL/NETSCAPE doesn't agree with your report. Have you given them this news?
Posted by J Mansf | January 12, 2008 9:48 PM