 GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | "Killer"? I don't think there will be an iPod killer. They have the product everyone measures themselves against both in the product and the marketing. Features of a new product from a new competitor won't "kill" the iPod. At most, it would cause Apple to consider additional features.
--
Tweaked your connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | That is what they said about Netscape back around 1993-95 when Microsoft first created the abortion called Internet Explorer (the Kill Netscape Project according to certain Microsoft Mail Product Support people) that was to become the most used (and abused) browser in the world today.
Back then no one really thought that Microsoft would ever kill Netscape, especially those of us who were working on trying to support Microsoft Mail in a 20000 people environment, and not getting any of the promised support and updates from Microsoft. Just goes to show if you have enough people, money, and control certain aspects, you can do whatever you want.
And if there are any legal issues, the lawyers will tie up the courts while they release mod after mod that gets tested using taxpayer $'s until it works right without legal entanglements.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | Netscape didn't adapt. Plus free browsers are very different then products that are purchased. People try free things without having to make a decision. If you owned Netscape and paid $200 for it, would you have spent $200 on IE?
--
Tweaked your connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter |
|
|
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | True, but then they (Netscape) did not have entire teams of engineers and programmers to pull off of other projects and millions of dollars to throw at it. Plus the ability to make security patches to win95 that just accidentally broke one browser while mysteriously not affecting the latest version of the other.
Again, my point that Microsoft has the resources and money to make a product that can kill another still has validity. (of course, there where a few times that it did not work, but some people also say it was also partially due to anti-trust fears)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| reply to GeekNJ
said by GeekNJ:Netscape didn't adapt. Plus free browsers are very different then products that are purchased. People try free things without having to make a decision. If you owned Netscape and paid $200 for it, would you have spent $200 on IE? That and it got bloated up to wazoo after AOL bought it. Don't forget, it took MS a while to get it right as well. IE versions 1 + 2 were a complete joke compared to their respective Netscape versions, IE 3 was OK, but not enough to convince me to switch, IE 4 IMO was a total disaster. IE 5 was when things got better, and surprisingly so. At that point the only things that were added to Netscape were ads/bloat, that's when I switched to IE as it looked and felt a lot neater and cleaner than Netscape. That was until spyware nightmare and coming of Firefox.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to RayW
The fact that Netscape 4 blew chunks didn't help. Trying to develop DHTML (basically anything beyond basic static pages) for Netscape was a total nightmare. Things that "just worked" logically in IE would break or crash Netscape. And it was dog slow. I'm just glad that alternative browsers have finally caught up (and in many ways surpassed) IE. Nothing motivates innovation better than competition.
-- Rob
--
Rabble, rabble, rabble! |
|
HMS1
join:2006-01-14
Austin, TX | reply to RayW
The merits of Netscape and Microsoft browsers had little to do with it. MS took over the browser market by (a) integrating IE into Windows and (b) controlling what got installed by OEMs. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to Pirate515
said by Pirate515:IE versions 1 + 2 were a complete joke compared to their respective Netscape versions, IE 3 was OK, but not enough to convince me to switch, Yup, that was part of my point. Then AOL came in and pretty much killed off Netscape.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to HMS1
said by HMS1: (b) controlling what got installed by OEMs. Very true, although Microsoft at the time claimed that it did not do so deliberately to get rid of any specific company.
But whatever, the point being that despite what people thought about Netscape (and now iPod) at the time, Microsoft, by ignoring existing products that had issues, put many people onto a project that had one desired affect - Kill Netscape. And then when taken to court, lie about the integration over and over until they FINALLY managed to program windows such that you had to have IE and could not remove it (concept beta tested with tax dollars).
If they do the same on the iPod, then it will probably be the same scenario (although it will be interesting to see what type of 'security' change will kill iPod operations via a Microsoft computer and still hold up to an Apple lawsuit).
edit: Spelling
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| reply to RayW
IE killed Netscape because Microsoft gave it away for free.
I'd like to see them try to give away an iPod-wannabe for free to millions of people! |
|
| reply to GeekNJ
What do you mean Netscape didn't adapt? How could they? By continuing an expensive development process to compete with a free product included in every new computer and every copy of windows sold on the planet?
Get real. MS released IE, which absolutely sucked, for free. That got people to look. Then they spent a little of their considerable capital to improve the product while Netscape, robbed of their sole source of income, were unable to compete.
Get your facts straight before go around speaking nonsense. |
|
| reply to freediverx
Funny I was just about to post the same thing you beat me to it.  |
|
GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | reply to freediverx
Yes, Netscape didn't adapt. If their product was superior, even if they cost, they could have been successful. I first used a browser with NCSA Mosaic so it's not like I'm just getting into this.
What you feel is the case with IE is no different then many feel the same about the iPod. Folks feel the iPod is a poor MP3 player and there are far better alternatives, yet the iPod is "the" MP3 product. The other companies have to adapt, like Netscape didn't, or they'll be just a footnote in some MP3 history book.
--
Tweaked your connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter |
|
| reply to grandpinaple
when people use the term "xxx killer", it usually means "xxx copycat". if it really was a killer, it would render the previous technology obsolete instead of doing the same thing and claiming to do it better. like dsl as to dial-up or fuel injection as to carburetor. |
|
