![[End Netscape]](/log/img/200307/endnetscape.gif "RIP Netscape, 1994-2003"){kind=small}
In not-entirely-unexpected news, MozillaZine reports that AOL dropped the axe on Netscape today, dismantling what was left of the Netscape team. In what could be a positive spin on the whole deal, AOL has pledged $2 million in cash to help launch the new Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organization which will continue development, testing, promotion, and distribution of Mozilla applications.
As the market for standalone browsers shrinks even smaller, it leaves me wondering how much longer we’ll continue to see completely free browser distribution and innovation if the application is not already developed by a major OS company. Both Microsoft and Apple can market the heck out of IE and Safari, respectively, effectively lumping the browser in as a benefit of using a particular OS. Opera Software already charges a small fee for the ad-free version of their browser. Several other small browser makers do something similar. Even with a couple million streaming in from AOL over the next two years, and possibly more from Red Hat and Sun Microsystems, is it possible for Mozilla to continue to exist without starting to charge even nominal amounts for key product upgrades? The mainstream public will never [be reluctant to] pay for a browser upgrade as long as larger companies are still tossing in browsers for free, or as long as the Web continues to “work” in the free browser they already have.
Posted in Technology, Web
12 comments (Comments closed)
What do you think this means for “standards”? Kind of scary really, each camp will probably start adding proprietary add ons to the browsers and focus more on OS integration and less on standards such as CSS et al. Two steps forward one step back…
This is really bad news for the people who lost their jobs, but good news for the future of browsers.
From an outsider’s point of view, there seemed to be a lot of redundancy inbetween the Netscape and Mozilla organizations. At the end of the pipeline, what you have is basically a single browser (engine) and a development supported by a lot of voluntary efforts. I don’t see the need for two companies here.
Also, if you can’t charge for your product, how are you going to maintain that large an organization, or even turn around your business into a profit?
Or do browsers don’t need to be self-sustaining in this regard?
Beats me.
But I do believe that the Mozilla organization in its new reincarnation will be in much better shape to become the serious competitor to IE that it is destined to be. Just give it some good marketing and a couple of years.
I have to say that, as a recent convert to the ways of standards compliance, I’d rather pay a paltry sum (and I can’t imagine Mozilla charging more than what would be termed a “paltry sum”) and get a solid browser, than the alternative(s). If the wave of the future is less stand-alone development and more OS-inclusion development, where then would that leave Mozilla? Would there be a battle among the UNIX variants for the rights of inclusion? Would you see the generalized Mozilla engine built differently into NetBSD, FreeBSD, every different Linux distro, Solaris, etc.?
Maybe Google will absorb Mozilla. :) The free version will show Google Ad Words and the paid version will not. Using XUL they can easily add in all the Blogger features they want ….
So Microsoft has reduced the browser to the commodity level. You buy an OS, you get a browser thrown in for free. Apple users get Safari.
…which, I suppose, is how it’s gone for the past 6 years anyway with Windows. Otherwise Microsoft wouldn’t have stood a chance against Netscape. So what room does that leave for Opera and the Mozilla Foundation?
Well, here’s the funny thing - if you hit Start>Programs>Accessories, almost everything in there is a junky, second-rate utility that people will use only if there’s nothing better available.
Microsoft has only done this with one other piece of software included in Windows - that is, created their own version of a popular piece of software to undercut competition. Windows Media Player has had roughly the same development cycle as the browser, and the only reason I can see that Real, Quicktime, and even Winamp are still around is because of proprietary media formats that the vendors refuse to open.
Ironic, isn’t it? I’m not saying standards killed the competition, but I wonder to what extent Microsoft’s involvement in the W3C will continue.
Imagine lazy IE-only coding locking out all Mac users? Oh wait - we’ve been here.
I don’t think that there’s any way that free stand-alone browsers will ever be totally ecclipsed by operating system includes. Mozilla is open-source, like the Linux kernel, and would continue to slowly advance whether or not a single person outside the development community used it. IE will of course remain the dominant web browser for the foreseeable future, but there will ALWAYS be an open-source alternative available.
I think the signing was on the wall. Yesterday’s decision was the final nail on the coffin.
There has been some buzz about the fact that there are no stand-alone end-user browsers based on the Gecko engine, but the upcoming freeze of the Mozilla codebase and the emergence of Firebird / Thunderbird releases is worth waiting for. More significantly, the death of Netscape has no bearing on Mozilla, atleast not in the near future as Doug points out.
I wonder what Microsoft is feeling abt this?
This may be the logical consequence of the free browser. If you are giving the browser away, how much incentive is there to support a large development organization? In a world of free browsers, the open source Mozilla may be the only browser with a “business model” (if you can call it that) that can succeed. Of course, succeeding in this case means being satisfied with technical excellence and a negligible market share.
It’s not clear how standards can move forward in this environment, except at the pure whim of Microsoft. (And what is their incenive?)
I think the “trend” towards more compliant browsers will only continue. What has been driving (at a snail’s pace) browsers to be more compliant hasn’t been the fear of a compliant browser like Mozilla coming out of the blue and taking away Microsoft’s market share. It’s really the developers and designers who have made themselves heard.
At the very least I hope it’s the case! One version ago in another browser, you couldn’t even say the word compliance without laughing…but now web sites that actually have data/presentation separation do exist, and I think it will continue, as the benefits become more evident on different levels.
Mozilla will survive, and thrive as long as developers who want a real browser support it and contribute time to it.
It’s bit funny actually, AOL backed open-source Mozilla VS Safari using someone else’s engine VS IE and a ton of cash.
Great job on the clever /Netscape image!
Firebird all the way.
Safari is based on opensource work, as is the Darwin OS which it runs on top of. Apple has the right idea; keep supporting opensource and they will do the work for you. Ok, so it would seem a bit stupid, but it gives us free browsers, etc. Safari is essentially Konqueror.
Comments no longer open for this entry.