|
|
 | FRONTIER WARSOctober 4, 1996Forum |
|---|
Questions answered by Brock Meeks of HotWired:
- How committed are Microsoft and Netscape open standards?
- Shouldn't software manufactures set standards?
- Which browser, Microsoft's or Netscape's, is better?
- What does the battle mean for the Internet and computer users worldwide?
- Is Microsoft playing fair?
- What actually is Netscape claiming that Microsoft has done wrong?
Read viewers' additional comments about the Microsoft/Netscape battle.
Related Online Resources
The NewsHour's Tom Bearden reports on Microsoft and Netscape's browser war.
Browse the Online NewsHour's cyberspace coverage.
Frontier wars are never pretty, and the battle to control cyberspace is no different. Last month, Netscape Communications Corp., maker of the Navigator Web browser, complained to the U.S. Justice Department that Microsoft Corp. was unfairly using its control of the world's desktops to sell Web browsers.
In 1994, Microsoft signed a consent decree with the Justice Department saying that it wouldn't use its Windows operating system to break into the Web browser market. Netscape says Microsoft violated that agreement by selling reduced-priced versions of its Windows operating system to computer manufactures if they feature its Explorer Web browser. Microsoft denies the charges and says they have done nothing to violate the consent decree.
But Netscape Navigator now dominates the Web -- 80 percent of Web surfers currently use Netscape Navigator. The Mountain View, Calif., company gained that domination with technical innovation and by distributing free copies of its software -- 38 million copies over an 18 month period, according to Netscape.
Microsoft only has 5 to 10 percent of the browser market, but it hopes to gain more users with its new Explorer 3.0, which many software reviewers judge to be as good, or better, than Netscape's Navigator 3.0. Microsoft has also formed deals with popular Web sites, such as ESPN Sportszone and Wall Street Journal, to increase the amount of "Microsoft-enhanced" content on the Web, and AT&T just recently announced a deal with Microsoft to bundle its browser with their Internet installation software. Microsoft, in exchange, will include AT&T's Internet service in its Windows operating system.
Who wins this battle isn't just important to the companies. The Internet is viewed as the next step in computing, and the browser is seen as the key to a host of Internet technologies, some of which might threaten Microsoft's dominance of the software industry.
Our forum asks: Was Netscape right to challenge Microsoft, or was it only an act to protect its dominance of the Web? What does the battle mean for the Internet and for computer users across the world?
Your questions are answered by Brock Meeks, chief Washington correspondent HotWired and Wired.
Questions asked in this forum:
- How committed are Microsoft and Netscape open standards?
- Shouldn't software manufactures set standards?
- Which browser, Microsoft's or Netscape's, is better?
- What does the battle mean for the Internet and computer users worldwide?
- Is Microsoft playing fair?
- What actually is Netscape claiming that Microsoft has done wrong?
Read some additional comments from Online NewsHour viewers.
Jason Slibeck of Boston, MA, asks:
Do both Microsoft and Netscape remain firmly committed to the open standards of HTML 3.2/SGML principles? If they do, then it doesn't matter who wins the war. If either company intends to usurp these founding principles behind the WWW and the Internet, then we all become victims of another needless war.
Brock Meeks responds:
The nut of your question and my answer rests with two words: "firmly committed." The real answer is that no one knows how firmly committed either company is. That said, I don't think either will abandon the HTML standards. Netscape because it's already so entrenched in the lead and Microsoft because in, having to catch up, would only be shooting itself in the foot to try and steer toward a different standard.
As for "it doesn't matter who wins the war" at a very base level, you're right, who the [expletive] really cares as long as each browser works the same and all Web sites can be viewed using either one.
John D. Powers of Atlanta, GA, asks:
The current competition between browser developers is really pushing the capabilities and the standards of Internet development forward. However...browser upgrades are sometimes being made available, before the standards governing their use are accepted by third-party developers (as with Microsoft's program to have their "ActiveX")...his creates problems for site developers, who must choose which browser(s) they will support. My question, therefore, is: would we be better off allowing software developers to set standards that will vary from browser to browser (as we do now), or should the Web be regulated to establish and maintain incrementally better tiers of functionality?
Brock Meeks responds:
Repeat after me: "We don't need no stinkin' regulation." Do we need standards? Yes. Regulation, no. I think there's a definite need to set software standards and have each browser work to those set of standards. Let browsers set themselves apart by implementing these standards in different ways: using a different type of interface. (Is this "Netscape-Look" REALLY the only way to present a Web browser? I think not.)
George Demas of Santa Rosa, CA, asks:
Which Web browser is superior, MS Explorer or Netscape Navigator?
Brock Meeks responds:
Can Bhudda beat up God? This question starts religious wars, I'm not touching it. But if you put a gun to my head, here's the answer: They both suck (I think all browsers do). I'd like to see some other kind of Web-browsing tool emerge from this technology.
Marco Levy of Hanford, CA, asks:
What does the battle mean for the Internet and for computer users across the world? Having to manufacturers compete for a specific platform means the end user really gets a good product regardless of the winner.
Brock Meeks responds: As this questioner states, the competition between the two companies will eventually lead to better products for the consumer. I believe this. However, that competition should be on as fair a playing field as possible. When you're talking about a giant like Microsoft, that's used to having its own way and not afraid of trying to strong arm other companies, what's "fair" to them and "fair" to the rest of the market is a matter of opinion.
Stuart Thorpe of Sandy, Utah, asks:
It seems to me that more and more people in normal life, and those that have been in the computer "game" are all starting to hate what Microsoft is doing to the market. My question is: have you seen this in your own investigations? If so what is the most important thing we can do to stop the "MIGHTY MICROSOFT", and have them at lest start giving us great products again?
Brock Meeks responds:
I believe it is illegal to try and "stop" any company from conducting any kind of legal business. Microsoft just plays hardball and plays it rougher than most. What can be done about this? Well, to make sure that Microsoft plays "tough but fair" we can try and put heat on the Justice Department to make sure their anti-trust department is up to snuff. And it has not been.
The Justice Department anti-trust cop, Ann Bingaman, has run an incredibly shoddy anti-trust division. They've let Microsoft off with hand slaps and haven't used nearly a fraction of the evidence they've gathered. If the Justice Department would have conducted a competent anti-trust investigation in the first place, a lot of Microsoft executives wouldn't be pulling in the big bucks they do today.
And, finally, a question of from the Online NewsHour:
Which of Microsoft's marketing practice is Netscape challenging? Is it the bundling of the Explorer browser with Windows95, or is it the deals that Microsoft has made with AOL and AT&T that make Explorer a "preferred browser" for those services?
Brock Meeks responds:
I think they are challenging the notion that Microsoft can, apparently at will, simply dictate a market share by virtue of having their browser and their software installed on 90 percent of all computers sold in the U.S.
Is this an anti-trust issue? That's up to the Justice Department to decide. I doubt seriously that the FCC would allow AT&T to strike such deals on their long distance service as Microsoft is being allowed to strike with their browser software. But there's a big difference: AT&T is in a heavily regulated industry and there's virtually no regulation on the software industry. And as I've said before, I think our current anti-trust division within the Justice Department is as worthless as a toothless hound.
Read additional viewer comments on the Microsoft/Netscape battle.
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
