Welcome to Software Answers Inc. Sign in | Join | Help

Firefox 2.0

In my post covering what's happened since I posted in the spring, I neglected to mention something else very important that was not a Microsoft event - the release of Firefox 2.0.  Competition is good, as long as it's done well.  It forces improvements on both sides.  So as Firefox 3.0 and IE 8 start down their long roads (with whatever comes inbetween), remember to give credit to the Mozilla folks for forcing the issue at all.

Published Friday, November 10, 2006 1:13 PM by BazarewskyM

Comments

# re: Firefox 2.0

Competition is good. Does this also apply to the EU?
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:21 PM by louislouis_99

# re: Firefox 2.0

Real competition is good.  Removal of basic OS functionality to please failed competitors, not so much.  There's a reason the "N" editions of Windows have failed miserably in the marketplace - consumers clearly think a media player is something an OS should have in 2006.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:36 PM by BazarewskyM

# re: Firefox 2.0

So in this case real competition means between two (one yet to emerge) unregulated monopolies? If a media player is now considered to be part of the basic OS maybe it would be beneficial to identify what isn't part of the basic OS and from that list, what hasn't yet been acquired by Microsoft. Failed competitors? If MS pulled everything out of the OS except what is needed to boot up and then opened up the OS enough to give developers a fair shot, it would take a while, but I think you would see better products and a more robust competitive environment. Then we would have a choice. Can there be a more perfect example of a monopoly than MS?
Monday, November 20, 2006 12:54 PM by louislouis_99

# re: Firefox 2.0

"What is needed to boot up" - that has not been the definition of a desktop operating system for a long time.  That is CPM.  That is PC-DOS/MS-DOS.  An operating system on the desktop in 2006 is expected to include a GUI, expected to include a web browser, and expected to include a media player.  No one would use Windows as an OS if it did not have expected functionality.  (Heck, a cell phone is expected to have that functionality.)  Again, the "N" editions prove my point.  Consumers don't want an OS without those features.  (Desktop Linux installations have all of the same functionality.)

And a perfect monopoly would mean no other options.  A coworker of ours runs Linux as his primary OS on his primary work machine.  Clearly there are options.  

And yes, failed competitors.  Real, for example.  They caused their own failure.  RealPlayer got to be such a bloated festering pile that even Car Talk refused to use it (see http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/real/); only then did Real make it not suck as bad to install and use it.

Netscape charged for a web browser when the market had already decided it should be free.  Then they released a garbage 4.0 release what trying to make their "Javagator;" that was their own doing.  Opera tried for years to charge for a web browser, but even they have given up.  (They still charge for certain mobile versions.)

If Firefox cost anything - even $19.99 - do you think it would have gained the marketshare it did?  No.  

And let's talk about what would happen in the meantime - the "it would take a while".  What should the proverbial Aunt Mae use on her computer in the meantime?  What OS should she use without a GUI, web browser, media player, and even e-mail client?  What good would that machine be?  The "while" is what Linux has had, and it has only been in the past few years when it's become a possible option.  So now, that option exists, so we're back to not being a perfect monopoly.

I'm not saying bad stuff hasn't happened in the past.  I am saying that we are now in 2006, and this is the way it is.

Monday, November 20, 2006 1:18 PM by BazarewskyM
Anonymous comments are disabled