The Disturbing Trend in Browsers

It seems to me that Apple doesn't seem to care much about legacy operating systems or builds anymore so I think that if Safari is released in 10.3 it will be for 10.3 only and to hell with anyone not willing to pay for Panther.

Hasn't Apple already done this before? Each time a new app has been introduced, the current OS revision has been the requirement. iCal, iSync, and Safari are all dependent on Jaguar. This may be because 10.2 introduced technology that is necessary for these apps, but the fact remains: you currently have to have 10.2 to use Safari.

If Safari 1.0 relies on a system-wide WebCore library that is "integrated" with the OS, should Apple make the effort to backport it? Currently the Apple framework is designed so that this isn't the case, but it's definitely an excuse Microsoft may use.

I'm really hoping Apple doesn't go the $$$ route for Panther. I've had enough trouble switching between Classic (which runs OS9-based apps extreeeeemely slowly) and OSX, and don't want another forced upgrade insoftware...Safari, iMovie, iTunes or otherwise.

As far as Microsoft...wouldn't this latest browser decision be just another indictment on their already long list of monopoly violations?

I mean, if you build a browser into your OS and it automatically loads up every time you want to get on the internet, and you have to do a search and destroy through the megabytes of MSDOS swamplands to find the preferences to the built-in browser in order to deselect its default status (this sentence is getting long), that seems to me a "no-no" on the antitrust statutes.

I mean, what average computer user is going to A.) Install another browser and B.) go through the garbledygook (I love that word) of files and preferences to make it the default?

Smells of antitrust violations to me. Apparently, though, it's perfectly legal.

Ever heard John Vanderslice's song, "Bill Gates Must Die?"

Apropos, I think. In jest anyway...I mean, I don't want to kill Bill Gates...you know...that would be...immoral and all...

I guess that's the key question...as to whether or not MS will allow standalone browsers to be installed on thier new OSes in the future or not...which seems to me to be the key question.

I can't see why they wouldn't, although this IS microsoft we're talking about...but the fact remains that there's still a pissload of web users running Windows 98 machines, and standalone browsers will be available for that...even though there's 2 generations of OSes available after it...

Doy - when you install a new browser, all you have to do is click "Yes" when it asks you if you want it to be the default browser in Windows and you are good to go. No digging, no tricks.

This whole disappearing browser thing looks like it could be something positive. From a business standpoint, what does Microsoft have to gain by developing a free product? To fix these bugs, they might be required to pull a Netscape and start from the ground up, which isn't a very wise business investment.

What does make sense is to leave the whole "semantic web" thing to those who care, and go on developing a web component that is much more powerful and web service and application related. Sure, there OSes will come with some sort of Internet Explorer, which will basically be one of many manifestations of their web component.

What do they lose by giving up IE? Nothing. If you buy their OS, who cares what browser you use? You already gave them your money for the OS, so why bother with a free browser when there are other free browsers that will get the "view the latest designs" job done? Hopefully, as Mozilla becomes more streamlined and bug free (and as the components become more stand-alone), things will begin to shift. Hell, for all we know, Microsoft is free to package their own version of Mozilla/Firebird for web page browsing (highly unlikely).

So, I hope to see things progress. Plus, if Longhorn doesn't come out until 2005 (as rumor has it) and IE isn't developed further in terms of CSS+XHTML, who will want to use it? If you are able to offer users a light-weight browser that displays all the latest and greatest, is relatively fast (and even blocks pesky popups!), a real shift may happen. Microsoft is a business that focuses on applications for business, and business is business. Let's hope that this web business acts as it should and we get somewhere great.

I think its Microsoft trying to pull a fast one and hoping to prove that the browser is an integral part of the OS. The whole DoJ suit tried to show that the two are inherently different and Microsoft is just trying to be a smart ass.
Also it is true that to really fix IE, Microsoft may have to rebuild which for a free piece of software is just too much of an investment. And by investment I dont mean cash. Microsoft realizes that most users and I would say more than 95% of users dont even know or care that IE is not standards compliant. So there is no organizational push for a change.
We have to realize that the general public doesnt give a damn abt browsers any more. For a majority, IE is good enough...but the rest of us, there is Mozilla Firebird. Or Safari.

"when you install a new browser, all you have to do is click “Yes” when it asks you if you want it to be the default browser in Windows and you are good to go. No digging, no tricks"
except all your link in emails and messneger type im programs still use ie instead of your 'default' firebird browser

I use Mozilla 1.3, and after I clicked "yes" to make it my default browser, every other program seems to comply. Even Microsft/MSN products!

" web development will stagnate, standardize on 2003 technology"

...hmmmmm. Sounds familiar... NTSC anyone?

$100+ for an upgrade? Drive to the store? Mass-media standards dependent on hardware? Eegaads! Sounds just like VHS (2 head, 4 head)/Betamax, AM (stereo)/FM (stereo), DVD/DiVX, NTSC/HDTV, etc. etc. on and on and on.

Am I one of those freaks that love Windows? Hell no! But I don't think this will be the end of the web.

I'm glad the standards are coming to rest here with IE 6 SP1. At least you can write code that validates on it.

I bet no one in 1941 could have imagined a television set showing FOX News with a crawl and the morphing eagle and all that crap. This is just the inevitable shakeout we've all be denying for years. If nothing else, it'll get us all on the same platform. No more sniffing, no more , etc.

Things have a wierd way of changing just when you think they'll never change. Remember 1983?

It's gonna be okay Todd. I promise. :)

Did anyone really think the free browser ride was going to last forever? Now that Microsoft has declared the end of a stand alone IE, I wouldn't blame Apple for doing the same with Safari but it would piss me off all the same.

Perhaps Netscape isn't dead yet.

Just a off handed conspiracy theory type thought.
I don't know alot about the .NET framework, I don't bother to keep current on MS tech anylonger. But, maybe they're moving away from supporting a product to support "web standards" as they make their own .NET standards, that only their own products support. It seems like they've been making alot of deals with ISPs and having them push their MSN service(DSL/Cable - Win support only) instead of a traditional ISP. Maybe AOL will continue development of Netscape now? May not matter if MS creates their .Net services to only run on the MSN service, and require the latest & greatest version of Windows to meet security requirements.

It's strange and kinda funny that apple charges for each 0.x upgrade... Was so surprised to hear that, (old news) they should all be free after buying the 10.x package as I'm sure everyone agrees. But maybe it helps Apple get some more money I guess, which mac heads are always willing to donate "for the cause"...

whatdoiknow.org has some real quality posts, and comments in general I think, a smart crowd you've got here Todd and congrats, the site looks beautiful too.... very nice..

as far as this post I guess the browser outlook means that we should all as web developers start doing more server side huh? Anyways, unless we're working in intranet it'll be a long time before even the nice things such as XML will be standard enough for major sites (wide demographic) to use it... I think that Mozilla will start having a larger user group as a result of the M$ decision to bundle the browser with the OS. Heaven forbid that everyone signs onto MSN for their ISP! Anyways, since getting MSN (compatible with more than just long horn) will upgrade you to new new non-free IE. Doesn't that just prove M$'s argument that the browser is tied to the OS too tightly to be seperated?

Opera is another great browser that I think people should check out... I'm suprised already that people are making a mass exodus from IE since it has no pop-up blocking, but I guess people get 3rd party apps for that... Mozilla and Opera support it internally...

It seems like the rest of the browser market could continue on as normal. New technologies and time savers should be enough to get people to install whatever Windows Standalone browser rises to the top and Explorer will become that quaint little OS feature that lets you crudely look at web pages. Kinda like notepad. (Ducks, thrown objects from the masochistic notepad coders.)

There are 3 types of people: People who update browsers contantly, people who update when the web starts looking really bad on their machines, and people who just don't care.

If technologies keep evolving then the first two groups will keep up. The last won't. But how is that different than before today?

I use Windows, and I don't use IE anymore. Mozilla and future browsers will just fill in the empty space at one point.

Jeremiah - maybe you should investigate .NET a bit more before your theory. That didn't quite line up. :)

Once Mozilla goes all-Firebird and the Quick Launch bug gets fixed then I'll be all-Moz. Until then, IE is faster in all respects (on my boz at least).

With all these radical changes painting a bleak picture for the future of web development (no more Mac IE, no more standalone Win IE, web standards development in jeopardy, "free" browser future uncertain), suddenly, a career switch such as that of a bonsai tree grower doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

I'm only half joking here... :\

I'm going to sound a bit naive here, as I generally tend to do. But it makes sense to me that MS is trying to get out of the browser market. Online services, definitely not, but I don't think they want to pool a bunch of resources into a piece of software that just browses the web. In that case, although IE has marketshare right now, as long as web developers continue to create sites that take advantage of future web technologies, eventually consumers will become conscious enough of the situation that they will install a new browser. Just like when a piece of software that a person uses just doesn't work for what they are trying to do anymore. I do think, however, that designers are going to have to include information in theirs sites about why a user should update their browser, just to add a little encouragement.

Here's another conspiracy theory:

How could you sell crappy web publishing to people who didn't want it? Hmm.... Well if I were doing it, I would:

1) Kill competitive product development.

2) Introduce a new version of your software that does things no one else can do.

I'm a bit disturbed by all this because of what Web usage will mean for Mac users now, as developers all together abandoned Mac on their list of usability requirements.

For instance, currently, the most critical Web sites, such as financial Web sites still don't really support Mac when it comes to bottom-line functionality. For instance, when I go to check my bank statements there's not a single Web browser in OSX (and trust me I've tried all of them) where it actually works. It's always getting stumped by some technology mumbo jumbo Mac browsers don't understand, or the developers didn't to care to check. And the list goes on, I can't purchase this software, buy that ticket, pay my taxes, subscribe to that magazine.

I'd like to think it was all going to get better, and at some point and some day a Web site on a Mac would "WORK!" just as it would on the PC. So far, Safari hasn't met my little demand, and sites I would like to use are still "unavailable' because I'm a Mac user.

Apple keeps touting Safari as the best browser for Java on OS X, but I still have to use IE for the time tracking app my company uses. And Safari's support for ASP sucks. So I don't like IE anymore than the next guy, but I don't want to see it go the way of the dodo.

Talk about locking people into an OS...what the hell is Apple doing with their new music service? I can't access it unless I'm running the latest OS? That's bullshit!

My wife has an iMac running OS 9.2...she doesn't want or need OS X ...she's sick and tired of paying to upgrade software when she really doesn't need new features...she's an average user. Apple is shutting her out of the music thing...and there's no reason for it.

iTunes is still available for OS 9.2, but not the latest version and for good reason. In defense of Apple, they charge for the latest OS upgrades, but they also offer superior free products if you decide to go along for the ride like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iCal, iSynch, and Safari. The reason these apps are free and superior is that they can be developed once and take advantage of new technologies that will hopefully convince folks to upgrade... Now that Quark has released XPress 6.0 to OSX there shouldn't be too much exuses for folks to run Classic at all and I bet Apple won't even support it by years end.

Microsoft is being biz smart here though. One of the major reasons why they were sued for monopoly was the inclusion of IE in their OS and that it squeezed out competitors. Now that Apple has released Safari, they can claim victims of Apple releasing their own browser.They have already played the card that Apple has an advantage to use their OS technology in the browser that they tried to use in their lawsuit. The key difference howver is that OSX does not run it OS through Safari the way the Microsoft's latest OS run through IE.

Apple hasn't updated iTunes on OS 9 since version 2. Why would they go back and update it now? I understand your frustration, but they have to look at what will make them money and continue to grow their business. Keeping people on OS 9 will not do this.

It seems like a lot of folks assume that OS software should be free. Or offer free upgrades for life. It will never work that way. And on top of that people assume the new software should be backward compatible with older versions. The whole point of writing new software that takes avantage of the new, more powerful OS is just that. To then go back and make it work on older systems is a huge investment. Not unlike designing a separate website to work with Netscape 4. If you don't want to upgrade that's fine, but don't blame Apple if you can't use new software. especially when they are "giving it away." (iTunes, Safari, iMovie, Mail, etc.)

Damnit! I bought this car and it had a great stereo 2 years ago. Then the manufacturer released a new stereo that does satellite. Do you believe they expect me to go out an upgrade some other components so I can get this older one to work like the new ones? It should be free for all previous users! That's assinine!

Small violin here...such a sad song.

Upgrade if you want the features. Otherwise, don't complain. Jaguar's been great. Can't wait until Panther.

Just as the most recent Beta of Safari was available via Software Update, I'm betting that 1.0 will be for 10.2 users as well. (at least that would make sense). As far as Windows & IE, it's possible that new versions of the integrated IE will be updated via Windows Update. Both OS's have this update capability, and both offer free downloads of patches, various point releases and hotfixes, whose to say that this won't be how the browser upgrades work as well?

Well, not sure the car analogy holds up, if I buy a car and want to upgrade my radio, then I don't expect to have to buy a whole new car in order for that to be an option.

However as a developer I understand what a pain it can be supporting multiple platforms, thing is, does it make business sense, from a brand loyalty perspective and a dollars and cents one.

Thing is, I I want to buy software X I shouldn't have to buy software Y in order to do so, especially for something as fundamental as a web browser. I don't mind paing for X, but I may not want Y, imagine if everyone had been forced to "upgrade" to Windows ME, which was horrible compared to 98. What if I have other mission critical software that will not run on a new version of the OS?

Ah, upgrading your OS is hardly similar to buying a whole new car. You can get Jaguar for cheap on ebay too, less than $50. Sheesh.

Todd,

I liked your analysis so much that I've started translating a bit of it into french. The bit turned out to be quite significant ;-) If this is an issue, please let me know, I'll remove it from my site. (see http://standblog.com/?p=93112832 )
Other than that, I think it's an amazing opportunity for 'alternative' browser vendors, mainly open-source. It actually could be Camino's once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this little mozilla-based, OSX-only browser. I did publish a long piece titled "how to make money with a browser". see http://standblog.com/?p=93112832 Unfortunately, it's in french. I may consider translating it into english at some point. Basically, the article says that Microsoft (and maybe Apple, to a lesser extent) have dropped an atomic bomb on the browser market. No product can survive when facing a free, OS-bundled browser. Unless the product is open-source, escaping the market laws. So now, if you want a good browser, you have to pay, or use an open-source browser.

ok
a couple notes here.

#1 Microsoft was partially telling the truth about IE for Mac. Safari's web engine DOES reside in the system core. It's the WebCore. It's what the new iTunes uses for browsing the iTunes store. I don't think it's unaccessable to developers, however.

#2 Apple has been striving to move beyond its reliance upon Microsoft. This is one of many steps they have taken and will take. This is a Good Thing.
MS pulling support cannot kill the Mac any longer.

#3 Microsoft is killing IE. Not because they don't want to be a part of the web - but because they want to control the web and the developers who want to create web applications. and probably because they do want to make it better - even if its Redmond-justive-better.

Longhorn isnst just an upgrade. It's a compelte re-write. This includes everything you've ever used on Windows, Office, IE, MSN, etc etc.

Longhorn will basically be a web server running on your computer. Applications won't launcha browser - they'll pull information straight off the web in real time and update it in real time.

Here are my guesses:

Example #1: iTunes. Want a new song? Click a few times and you have it. You didn't open anything else.

Example #2: (hypothetical of course)
Say you want a flash tutorial . . . you open the Flash Tutorial search and find the one you want off of the Macromedia Flashfor.NET server - listed by content, author, rating, etc.
You open it directly off the web, download it - either or both.

You open it and read it - it animates, and moves stuff around in your applications showing you how to do it.

This is a very base and unimaginative example.

I have no idea how they would handle information websites, blogs, etc that cant be 'application-ized'

I think Max has his finger on the real problem with this move. There are already far too many windows-only services/sites on the web. This move allows MS to pretty much dictate web standards, especially in terms of services. Yeah, you may be able to run whatever browser you want, but only the one embedded into the windows OS will allow you full access to your bank or broker (now .NET services).

Unless Apple can address THAT scenario, Safari will be good for browsing Aunt Judy's vacation pics and not much else.

Kiss IE goodbye and say hello to OPERA!

Opera... love it. So functional, so sexy, so way better than Micro$oft garbage.

"Paul V says...what the hell is Apple doing with their new music service? I can’t access it unless I’m running the latest OS? That’s bullshit! My wife has an iMac running OS 9.2…she really doesn’t need new features…"

Paul, guess what? The iTunes Music Store is a new feature of Mac OS X and iTunes 4!

"…and there’s no reason for it."

Yes, there is a perfectly good reason for it. Developing software is expensive. And it's expontentially more expensive when developing for legacy OS's. Apple doesn't profit any by developing iTunes, it's a free download. They only profit when users upgrade (either by shrink-wrap or hardware purchase) to Jaguar or purchase music from the iTMS. They made a business decision to ensure that they could do what they are supposed to be doing as a business - MAKING MONEY. I'm sick and tired of listending to crybaby OS 9 users whining about how every new piece of software doesn't run on their precious Performa. Guess what else? When OS 9 came out I had to listen to the same whining from System 7 users. The fact is, just because you dropped some cash five years ago does not entitle you to infinite free upgrades. If you want new features, support their development by paying for them!

So I watched the Steve Jobs keynote the other day. It seems to me that the idea of paying the good people at Apple one or two bills a year to keep up to date with the newest OS is just fine. The apps are awesome and they (most of them) will always be "free" downloads. Microsoft sucks, as we all know. I've always been an Apple freak, but, until the last 3 or so years, I never really knew why. They're doing great work over there, 'nuff said.