 |
Pegasus3d.com
Discussions on multiple topics, open to all
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Okay, Madan, I read your link.
It proves MY point.
| Quote: |
Netscape Navigator, a Web browser commonly classified as a client, is the company's best known product. It was first released as free beta software on the Internet in October, 1994, after having undergone an intensive four-month development period. The Navigator software integrated under one interface a growing array of major Internet functions, including Web browsing, file transfers and newsgroup communications.
In December, 1994, Netscape introduced two commercial server products: the Communications Server (priced at $1,495), which enabled organizations to publish on the Internet, and the Commerce Server (priced at $5,000), which incorporated all the functions of the Communications Server plus security features for transactions conducted over the Internet.
Initially releasing the Navigator (client) software free contributed to the explosive growth of Internet usage, and, therefore, to the demand for Netscape products overall. Recognition of the Netscape brand name spread and this enhanced the identity of Netscape and its association with the Web and the Internet generally.
At the time of Navigator's first release, Netscape's co-founder and Vice President, Technology Marc Andreessen, referred to the Navigator's influence on Internet growth:
"Making Netscape freely available to Internet users is Netscape Communications' way of contributing to the explosive growth of innovative information applications on global networks... We expect Netscape's ease of use to spark another major leap in Internet usage by making the net a powerful tool for a broader base of users. By incorporating security and advanced functionality, Netscape now lays the foundation for commerce on the net." Netscape News Release
|
Thank you very much.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AlphaMeridian
Gatekeeper of the Beginner Internet
Commander
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 807
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How many web developers on here or Ars use Visual Studio/InterDev 6 on thier pages? |
I'm not a professional web developer by far, but I do use VS.net for css editing only because it supports syntax highlighting.
/me attempts to fade away as to not get flamed
-Alpha
_________________
"They told me, ‘You’re a pirate!’ I said, ‘C’mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.’ "
So Lonestar, now you see why evil will always triumph because good is dumb!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FondueDaredevil
Linux Looney
Rear Admiral
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5381
Location: My name is Elmer J Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was a professional web developer (now I'm a professional web administrator) and I used vi for all of my development needs.
Well, vi and an open IE/NN window so I can check my changes. 
FD
_________________
"Our products just aren't engineered for security."
- Brian Valentine, Senior VP in charge of MS Windows Development
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." Sen. Dick Durbin, 1998
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" - William Hilf, Microsoft homonculous
Supervillains for Linux! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harbinger
Dread Pirate
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Feb 2001
Posts: 5786
Location: Behind the keyboard, duh...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vi? I use pico.
_________________
Gaah. I don’t tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own “insightful” comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not. -- Linus Torvalds, 20 Aug 2005
I heard that even small amounts of smam are highly unstable. Like anti-matter, only with polka dots. -- Mord
I don't make up rumors, I just falsify them. -- HitScan
Pentium-M eats G4 alive so quickly that the G4 is still breathing when the P-M shits it out. End of story. -- Hat Monster
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mord
Console Cowboy
Vice Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 8022
Location: Where the rubber meets the road.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Magus
Tolkien Loremaster
Vice Admiral
Joined: 17 Aug 2001
Posts: 9521
Location: On the Stairway to Heaven.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I use jed on *nix, if at all possible.
On Win32, VS.NET or EditPlus.
_________________
<Paolo|Work> anything that has to do with Java is by definition stupid
1 The Network is my domain, I shall not want; 2 though it makes me wait upon collision, it leads me to the Internet; 3 it restores my connection. It leads me in paths of hypertext transfer for google's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of power failures, I fear no data corruption; for backups art with me; thy UPS and thy status light, they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a firewall before me in the presence of my enemies; thou anointest my CD-R with BurnProof, my buffer never underflows. 6 Surely good deals and pr0n shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of the Datacenter for ever.
-HitScan
Wilde is a 4' chinese man in a bright pink tutu, lime green pimp hat with peacock feathers, and a purple feather boa, wearing tissue stuffed snakeskin combat boots, holding a gun bigger than he is, smoking a cigarette in the parking garage, trying to look menacing while pouting and head banging to Godsmack I stand alone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FondueDaredevil
Linux Looney
Rear Admiral
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5381
Location: My name is Elmer J Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Magus wrote: |
I use jed on *nix, if at all possible.
On Win32, VS.NET or EditPlus. |
Heh heh ... I use vi on Win32, too. 
FD
_________________
"Our products just aren't engineered for security."
- Brian Valentine, Senior VP in charge of MS Windows Development
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." Sen. Dick Durbin, 1998
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" - William Hilf, Microsoft homonculous
Supervillains for Linux!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Magus
Tolkien Loremaster
Vice Admiral
Joined: 17 Aug 2001
Posts: 9521
Location: On the Stairway to Heaven.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why? You have a thing for pain?
_________________
<Paolo|Work> anything that has to do with Java is by definition stupid
1 The Network is my domain, I shall not want; 2 though it makes me wait upon collision, it leads me to the Internet; 3 it restores my connection. It leads me in paths of hypertext transfer for google's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of power failures, I fear no data corruption; for backups art with me; thy UPS and thy status light, they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a firewall before me in the presence of my enemies; thou anointest my CD-R with BurnProof, my buffer never underflows. 6 Surely good deals and pr0n shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of the Datacenter for ever.
-HitScan
Wilde is a 4' chinese man in a bright pink tutu, lime green pimp hat with peacock feathers, and a purple feather boa, wearing tissue stuffed snakeskin combat boots, holding a gun bigger than he is, smoking a cigarette in the parking garage, trying to look menacing while pouting and head banging to Godsmack I stand alone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FondueDaredevil
Linux Looney
Rear Admiral
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5381
Location: My name is Elmer J Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Magus wrote: |
| Why? You have a thing for pain? |
I type over 100 words per minute ... my hands never have to leave the keyboard to do anything.
<bill and ted>Vi Rules!</bill and ted>
FD
_________________
"Our products just aren't engineered for security."
- Brian Valentine, Senior VP in charge of MS Windows Development
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisers to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad." Sen. Dick Durbin, 1998
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" - William Hilf, Microsoft homonculous
Supervillains for Linux!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arhra
Acting Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 205
Location: the socialist republic of south yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
vi? VI?!
egads, man, at least drag yourself into the nineties and use vim...
_________________
Linux is like wiping your ass with sandpaper, it may work, but it's painful and leaves scars.
- Quality |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:14 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madan, this whole thing has been rehashed SO many times at ars, on comp.sys.mac.advocacy, everywhere. |
Ars and sys.mac aren't business lines. Aren't forums for people who have even the smallest clue what business is about.
So, please, Ars, as you said before, is crap.
| Quote: |
Netscape NEVER EXPECTED TO MAKE MONEY ON THE BROWSER. |
Yes, yes they did. Netscape, as a unique participant of the late ninties, underwent a buinsess process metamorphosis from a product-delivering entity to a SERVICE-delivering entity, when they discovered that their product went poof, due to MS machinations and illegalities.
Read the link.
| Quote: |
Don't you remember the .com days? Give the client away, make money on the server/on the service/on whatever. If you charge for the client, people won't use it, so you can't leverage shit.
Winamp.
RealPlayer.
Quicktime.
WMP.
Every damn P2P service in the world.
AOL IM.
The list goes on and on. |
The malformed list goes on and on.
A. Winamp was ALWAYS free. Netscape wasn't. Apples and Subarus.
B. RealPlayer offers a saleware version with more advanced features.
C. Quicktime is Apple proprietary software and is a feature of the OS.
D. Ditto for MS.
F. Ditto for AOL.
E. P2P services aren't for "sale".
So your list has almost no correlation to the issue at hand.
| Quote: |
Why are all these programs free? Because their authors are feeling generous and want to Help Humanity With Free Software? |
Most of the above are free, so they can sell, not advertising but their main OS or application.
Real, AOL, MS and Apple all fall into this category.
Only Winamp and, say, Kazaa wouldn't. And even then, they don't have commercial, brick-and-mortar packaged saleware.
Apples and Subarus.
| Quote: |
Madan, I'm sorry, but you're just WRONG about this. End of story. |
You can say it all you want. But I'm not wrong. You are.
You were wrong about MS never falling off of its perch. When you realized how insane that sounded. You gave up on that argument.
You were wrong about Xbox's sales and general performance vis a vis PS2. When you realized you were wrong about that...you gave up on *that* argument.
And then you tried to affirm that the Netscape/MS fiasco was Netscape's fault because they never sold their app commercially. I posted some evidence and you realized you were wrong and gave up on that tack of the argument.
Now, we're on to Netscape's business structure because you keep falling back hopelessly trying to find some information that you can call me on and eventually try to find a "win" in this long, pathetic thread.
So now, you're arguing about the tack of NS' business strategy.
"Sure, they CHARGED for the software but they intended to make MONEY on it..."
Ridiculous.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Okay, Madan, I read your link.
It proves MY point.
Quote:
Netscape Navigator, a Web browser commonly classified as a client, is the company's best known product. It was first released as free beta software on the Internet in October, 1994, after having undergone an intensive four-month development period. The Navigator software integrated under one interface a growing array of major Internet functions, including Web browsing, file transfers and newsgroup communications. |
So far, no point about them expecting no compensation has been provided...
Let's continue.
| Quote: |
In December, 1994, Netscape introduced two commercial server products: the Communications Server (priced at $1,495), which enabled organizations to publish on the Internet, and the Commerce Server (priced at $5,000), which incorporated all the functions of the Communications Server plus security features for transactions conducted over the Internet. |
Again, no indication that their browser wasn't a source of income.
All this passage is discussing is the introduction of various expensively priced server packages from NS.
Let's continue.
| Quote: |
Initially releasing the Navigator (client) software free contributed to the explosive growth of Internet usage, |
*Initially*. Let's rewind and play that back.
"Initially." Just like what Real has done. Give it away for free on the firs sub-beta, which was in the text I posted and then charge for it.
Let's continue.
| Quote: |
| and, therefore, to the demand for Netscape products overall. Recognition of the Netscape brand name spread and this enhanced the identity of Netscape and its association with the Web and the Internet generally. |
Nothing here. Again, no inference of "Netscape browser was never a profitable option for Netscape." OR "Netscape had no intentions of having the browser ever reach profitability."
Just:
"Netscape offered their browser, while the Internet was formative, for a select series of browser iterations, for free in order to establish trust and branding. Moreover, if you check, this "free" browser was simply an evaluation for Netscape "quality".
Let's continue.
| Quote: |
At the time of Navigator's first release, Netscape's co-founder and Vice President, Technology Marc Andreessen, referred to the Navigator's influence on Internet growth:
"Making Netscape freely available to Internet users is Netscape Communications' way of contributing to the explosive growth of innovative information applications on global networks... We expect Netscape's ease of use to spark another major leap in Internet usage by making the net a powerful tool for a broader base of users. By incorporating security and advanced functionality, Netscape now lays the foundation for commerce on the net." Netscape News Release |
I must not be able to read well, despite my GMAT scores of 650, because I don't see the "Netscape is a free, sacrificial lamb, for us to make inroads into other software technologies but we want to make it perfectly clear that even though we charge for Netscape, both online and at b-m retail stores and even though students are the only markets allowed to use Netscape for periods extending past their evaluation, we never intended to make any money off the client."
See, YOU saw that. YOU read into the comment. You accuse me of reading into things but I sure as hell don't see that in there.
HEY! Check it out! Macromedia has a Flash Server for 500 bucks. And even better, they have Flash MX(6) for EVALUATION! *Gasp*! That MUST mean that they're giving Flash away for free as a way of pushing the Flash Server, the JRun server and ColdFusion MX! I mean, they can't POSSIBLY expect to make money on such a small and comparably cheap app right?
Get a real point.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sheesh, Madan, give it up. What's wrong with you?
| Quote: |
A. Winamp was ALWAYS free. Netscape wasn't. Apples and Subarus.
|
NETSCAPE WAS ALWAYS FREE.
| Quote: |
B. RealPlayer offers a saleware version with more advanced features.
|
So did Netscape.
| Quote: |
C. Quicktime is Apple proprietary software and is a feature of the OS.
|
I'm talking QUICKTIME FOR WINDOWS. Nobody gives a shit about that <3% platform.
Then why are WMP updates offered for free?
AOL isn't an operating system.
| Quote: |
E. P2P services aren't for "sale".
|
But advertising on said services is.
Sounds like you're 0 for 5.
Were you aware that IE was sold in stores for $30? Doesn't that kind of destroy your entire argument?
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sheesh, Madan, give it up. What's wrong with you?
Quote:
A. Winamp was ALWAYS free. Netscape wasn't. Apples and Subarus.
NETSCAPE WAS ALWAYS FREE.
|
Netscape was NOT free. Netscape's initial browser offering cost 30 bucks remember? It was stated...on the links?
| Quote: |
Quote:
B. RealPlayer offers a saleware version with more advanced features.
So did Netscape. |
Uhhh...no. Netscape was Netscape, not Netscape Pro.
| Quote: |
I'm talking QUICKTIME FOR WINDOWS. Nobody gives a shit about that <3% platform. |
QT for Win is a way of not enraging ppl about the Fruit platform. Nothing more. It's technical conviviality.
| Quote: |
Quote:
D. Ditto for MS.
Then why are WMP updates offered for free? |
Let's try this again.
Because-It's-Part-Of-The-MS-OS.
| Quote: |
Quote:
F. Ditto for AOL.
AOL isn't an operating system. |
No, it isn't. It's an application suite for the web and AOL IM is a module in that app.
| Quote: |
| Were you aware that IE was sold in stores for $30? Doesn't that kind of destroy your entire argument? |
No because it does nothing to prove that:
1. Netscape didn't charge money for their app. Which they did.
2. Netscape never expected to make cash off of the app.
Your arguments are weak at best. Focusing on pinpoint semantics? The last bastion of the defeated debater.
Listen, I'm off to play Netrek and Icewind Dale II. Sweet game. Highly recommended.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Netscape was NOT free. Netscape's initial browser offering cost 30 bucks remember? It was stated...on the links?
|
Unless you were a student, or working in an academic institution, or were an individual, or lived on the planet Earth, or...
It's very obvious from the links that Netscape was giving the browser away in order to promote
a) marketshare
b) brand awareness
c) sales of their server software and other revenue streams
| Quote: |
Uhhh...no. Netscape was Netscape, not Netscape Pro.
|
No, Netscape offered a more full-featured version like the one I got with my ISP account.
| Quote: |
QT for Win is a way of not enraging ppl about the Fruit platform. Nothing more. It's technical conviviality.
|
Nonsense-- QT for Win has done more to enrage people about the Fruit platform than anything else. It's given away free to gain marketshare and mindshare so that Apple can sell their server products, like Quicktime Pro, and promote their other non-free products, like FCP, the Mac platform in general, etc.
| Quote: |
Let's try this again.
Because-It's-Part-Of-The-MS-OS.
|
But-WMP-Updates-Are-Provided-For-Free-When-It-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-The-MS-OS (with the exception of WMP8,but even the starving artists have to eat sometime)
Again, because they want to build marketshare against RealPlayer and Quicktime, which they can only do with free software, which proves my original point.
| Quote: |
No, it isn't. It's an application suite for the web and AOL IM is a module in that app.
|
And AOL IM is offered FREE, even for people who don't use AOL and don't pay AOL one red cent.
Why is this, do you think?
| Quote: |
No because it does nothing to prove that:
1. Netscape didn't charge money for their app. Which they did.
|
But in such a way that they knew that nobody would pay for it. And nobody did.
| Quote: |
2. Netscape never expected to make cash off of the app.
|
They didn't. If they expected to make cash off the app, they wouldn't have sold the server software for such ridiculous amounts. That's where they expected to make their money.
Of course, they could have saved everyone a lot of time and just built a better browser instead. That's what the folks at Opera did, and they charged money for their browser (gasp!) as well-- it was a timed-expiry demo, which a lot of people paid for, unlike IE and Netscape which you could pay for but never had to.
And of course Opera didn't have access to any of the "Sekrit APIs" that you claim stymied Netscape so much.
So they should have been clobbered, especially given that they were competing against BOTH Netscape and IE, which were BOTH entrenched, and BOTH FREE products!
Instead, Opera did very well, and now is nearly tied with Netscape for browser market share (around 3-4%) and will be here long after Netscape is dead and gone.
Same with Omniweb (although in fairness you don't have to pay for that either, but they keep nagging you with terrible effectiveness)
So, with statements from Netscape itself that they
a) offered the browser FREE OF CHARGE from day 1
b) expected to gain and hold marketshare through free client software and make money on the server
and with other, non-Netscape browsers being able to
a) survive
b) be faster/better than either Netscape OR IE
c) charge money to use
it's quite simple to deduce that the reason for Netscape's utter failure was that they SUCKED.
But then anyone who's ever tried to do web development for NS 4.x knows this already.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
Netscape was NOT free. Netscape's initial browser offering cost 30 bucks remember? It was stated...on the links?
Unless you were a student, or working in an academic institution, or were an individual, or lived on the planet Earth, or... |
? No. Students could use Netscape(not a Netscape Lite..only one version) for free. Everyone else had an evaluation. One, that by the sound of it, you abused.
| Quote: |
It's very obvious from the links that Netscape was giving the browser away in order to promote
a) marketshare
b) brand awareness
c) sales of their server software and other revenue streams |
And to generate positive sales from their application.
A product's sale doesn't only do one thing. Rock band tshirts or sports-boutique apparel serve similar purposes of increasing marketshare, imbuing brand awareness on users and boosting the sales of a related item (ticket sales).
One doesn't exclude the other.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Uhhh...no. Netscape was Netscape, not Netscape Pro.
No, Netscape offered a more full-featured version like the one I got with my ISP account. |
<sneeze>Bullshit!</sneeze>
But seriously, let me reiterate that NS moved successively in packaging new features to NS but that there was no Netscape/Netscape Lite. If you got 3 before everyone else because it was via your ISP, that doesn't make the situation akin to Real. What seems to befuddle me is that there's a detailed product history in the NS Case Study I linked to and you REFUSE to read it.
| Quote: |
Quote:
QT for Win is a way of not enraging ppl about the Fruit platform. Nothing more. It's technical conviviality.
Nonsense-- QT for Win has done more to enrage people about the Fruit platform than anything else. |
More comments without evidence, built on your opinion. Your opinions <> reality. You should learn that.
| Quote: |
| It's given away free to gain marketshare and mindshare so that Apple can sell their server products, like Quicktime Pro, and promote their other non-free products, like FCP, the Mac platform in general, etc. |
QT has nothing to do with FCP. FCP primary save format isn't even MOV...unlike iMovie, it's MPEG.
QT was simply an act of congeniality toward a populace that was having a hard time reading .mov files. Apple knew that .mov was a great file format and knew that few people would be likely to support .mov without a Windows doppleganger, true but they never sold it, unlike NS, because QT was bundled with the OS and the movie application market was simpy too fractured to risk pissing ppl off by charging.
They're providing a compatibility service.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Let's try this again.
Because-It's-Part-Of-The-MS-OS.
But-WMP-Updates-Are-Provided-For-Free-When-It-Has-Nothing-To-Do-With-The-MS-OS (with the exception of WMP8,but even the starving artists have to eat sometime) |
WMP for Mac is free for the same reasons that QT is free for Win. To ensure that the company maintains a "good face" to those users that aren't on the platform but, again, WMP is a core element of MS OSes.
| Quote: |
Again, because they want to build marketshare against RealPlayer and Quicktime, which they can only do with free software, which proves my original point. |
You're missing the whole point. "It" doesn't prove anything. With Real, their first product and, fundamentally, their ONLY product, is the player and launch center. In MS, they have an application(Windows) that generates the majority of their income(90%+). Both NS and Real were dependent on making an application(first product) that would generate income. In this case, the RPD(Real Player Deluxe) and Netscape browser.
Real disseminated RPL to add marketshare, much like you mentioned but unlike what you intimated, they SOLD RPD in order to make "a living".
Netscape is different, however, in that there was no Netscape Lite/Netscape Pro. Students had no reason to pay in the license(much like the better compared Winzip, which operates like NS did) but normal folks and commercial entities were only provided with an EVALUATION period.
That's not free.
Moreover, the evaluation version was only equipped on some versions of the browser. On others, the cost was immediate, because purchasing transpired in a brick-and-mortar location.
In short, you're comparing MS to NS, when, in reality, their business models are COMPLETELY different.
You're comparing REAL to NS and, well, ditto.
Again, we're back to Apples and Subarus.
| Quote: |
Quote:
No, it isn't. It's an application suite for the web and AOL IM is a module in that app.
And AOL IM is offered FREE, even for people who don't use AOL and don't pay AOL one red cent.
Why is this, do you think? |
I'm sorry. Refresh my memory. Did AOL ever charge for AOL IM? No? Then already your comparison is shot.
But again, to make things even MORE disparate, you're assuming that AOL IM is used to build marketshare for AOL? Probably. It's a MODULE OF AOL.
Netscape wasn't a module of ANYTHING. Did it spread the brand? Yes. Did it have a price tag? Yes. Is there EVIDENCE that it was a profitable operation within NS? Yes.
You keep comparing "free from inception" items to "saleware".
| Quote: |
Quote:
No because it does nothing to prove that:
1. Netscape didn't charge money for their app. Which they did.
But in such a way that they knew that nobody would pay for it. And nobody did. |
WRONG. B&M sold thousands of copies of NS. Moreover, the license for NS was EVALUATING. If you didn't pay, and you used the browser, you were breaking the law.
"Gee, MS made it REALLY easy for me to use Win 2k on more than one machine. Oh sure, their license *says* only one machine per copy but, hey, I can break the license, so they really didn't mean it, right? Maybe my boss will let me install the same copy on all six thousand work machines! I mean, their license doesn't really *enforce* anything!"
You broke the law by using the software. A license was ignored. A license you agreed to, when you installed the software. Just because you didn't pay for it doesn't mean it didn't cost anything.
| Quote: |
Quote:
2. Netscape never expected to make cash off of the app.
They didn't. If they expected to make cash off the app, they wouldn't have sold the server software for such ridiculous amounts. That's where they expected to make their money. |
The server cost what was necessary to recoup the development costs or what was necessary to to fill their pockets. They have a right to charge anything they want for their products.
Moreover, you have an ugly little habit of posting NO evidence and making loaded comments that act as smoke and mirrors and later attempting to build off said comments by making it sound like it was a fact.
"NS charged a ton for those servers. Obviously NS browser was just a marketing tool...."
What's obvious is that one has nothing to do with the other unless explicitly indicated by the management team of NS and what was indicated by the management team was the opposite. Comments at future profitability from browser sales were made. Those comments aren't comments of some group that doesn't expect to get paid.
Granted after making the previous comment you follow up with the sneaky:
"Obviously since it was just a marketing tool, the NS browser was never meant to make money."
Simply building off one fallacy after another. The first comment was unsupported(and evidence indicates the opposite) and yet you build on it to bury the comment and prevent questioning. To treat it as fact for future inconsistencies.
Errrrrnt.
Post some facts or leave the topic alone.
| Quote: |
And of course Opera didn't have access to any of the "Sekrit APIs" that you claim stymied Netscape so much. |
I have Opera on my machine and, it too, sucks much ass. Mozilla 1.1 and IE 6 are better on XP.
Not that your point makes any sense. The governement already found fault with MS practices of obfuscating relevant code from rivals operating on their OS, so that MS could corner application markets easily.
Photoshop fended off MS art apps for a decade but, again, simply because they were able to do so does NOT preclude MS from being clandestine with their software's criticals.
Another habit you have.
A = B and
B = C
Therefore, A = D
??? WTF?
Uh, no.
MS doesn't charge for WMP.
MS was attempting to gain marketshare with their application.
NS was also attempting to gain marketshare for their browser...
Therefore NS didn't charge for NS.
????
No. There's hard evidence that NS charged for their browser. And faulty logic coupled with past indications of licensing fraud don't erase that...
| Quote: |
So they should have been clobbered, especially given that they were competing against BOTH Netscape and IE, which were BOTH entrenched, and BOTH FREE products! |
Opera owns less than one percent of the market?
Opera is close to dead.
| Quote: |
Instead, Opera did very well, and now is nearly tied with Netscape for browser market share (around 3-4%) and will be here long after Netscape is dead and gone. |
Netscape isn't dead. Not even the browser is dead.
Where are your numbers from? And PLEASE don't post some graph that looks like you pulled it out of your bum. While I trust you obtained the info from SOMEWHERE, the site you got the information from may NOT be trustworthy.
| Quote: |
Same with Omniweb (although in fairness you don't have to pay for that either, but they keep nagging you with terrible effectiveness)
So, with statements from Netscape itself that they |
Omniweb? What is that? 1% of the browser market?
| Quote: |
a) survive
b) be faster/better than either Netscape OR IE
c) charge money to use |
All the browser companies listed are doing horribly in terms of marketshare. They make Apple vs MS look positively "neck at neck".
Moreover, their business processes are different because each of the companies: Opera and Omniweb are organizations birthed long after MS had abused its position to alter the paradigm of browser delivery. When NS was a babe, browsers were apps that could carry a fee.
By the time the two younger apps were out, they were FORCED to go for free because MS had changed the game by using their larger business to subsidize the fiscal bombardment of the browser market.
I've done web dev in NS 4x. What's wrong with it, may I ask? Appart from CSS problems, that IE 4 also had and that noone used four years ago(few ppl use CSS *NOW*)
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gawd, these discussions are annoying.
| Quote: |
No. Students could use Netscape(not a Netscape Lite..only one version) for free. Everyone else had an evaluation. One, that by the sound of it, you abused.
|
I was an "individual", therefore I was qualified UNDER THE NETSCAPE LICENSE to use Netscape for free as an "evaluation" for an indeterminate period.
Later, I was given a "paid-for" copy of NN + extra tools with my ISP account.
But when IE 1.0 came out, I switched to that. Sure, it didn't do frames, but it was hella faster and worked more like a proper Windows app. I was an IE "early adopter", and when 2.0 came out, I grabbed that. When 3.0 came out, I was in heaven, because it was the first really good version. When 4.0 came out, I knew Netscape was dead, because they couldn't compete.
| Quote: |
And to generate positive sales from their application.
|
Except they didn't, because the license was deliberately worded so that nobody would ever have to pay any money.
| Quote: |
One doesn't exclude the other.
|
Except in this case.
| Quote: |
<sneeze>Bullshit!</sneeze>
|
Tell it to my ISP.
| Quote: |
But seriously, let me reiterate that NS moved successively in packaging new features to NS but that there was no Netscape/Netscape Lite. If you got 3 before everyone else because it was via your ISP, that doesn't make the situation akin to Real. What seems to befuddle me is that there's a detailed product history in the NS Case Study I linked to and you REFUSE to read it.
|
I read enough to prove my point, which I highlighted in bold text. Wasn't that enough?
| Quote: |
More comments without evidence, built on your opinion. Your opinions <> reality. You should learn that.
|
Nonsense, my opinions are backed up by real-world evidence. That's why they are more important.
| Quote: |
QT has nothing to do with FCP. FCP primary save format isn't even MOV...unlike iMovie, it's MPEG.
|
Er... MOV is a movie format, MPEG is a compression codec. Apples and Subarus.
| Quote: |
QT was simply an act of congeniality toward a populace that was having a hard time reading .mov files. Apple knew that .mov was a great file format and knew that few people would be likely to support .mov without a Windows doppleganger, true but they never sold it, unlike NS, because QT was bundled with the OS and the movie application market was simpy too fractured to risk pissing ppl off by charging.
|
Wrong-- totally, utterly wrong. Apple wanted to promote the Macintosh and Quicktime Pro development tools, and the free version of QT Win was supposed to accomplish this. Unfortunately, because Apple's Win programmers can't code their way out of a wet paper bag, it wound up doing the exact opposite. All it did for me was make me an expert on finding cracked QT Pro keys on the Internet so I wouldn't have to sit through that fucking nag screen any more.
| Quote: |
They're providing a compatibility service.
|
Out of the goodness of their own hearts, no doubt?
| Quote: |
WMP for Mac is free for the same reasons that QT is free for Win. To ensure that the company maintains a "good face" to those users that aren't on the platform but, again, WMP is a core element of MS OSes.
|
Oh, please. WMP for Mac is to try and get Mac users to switch to the PC by promoting Windows-centric format standards. Of course it has the opposite effect, because WMP for Mac is total shite, but perhaps that's just payback for the years of crappy QT Win players we've had to endure on the Windows side.
| Quote: |
You're missing the whole point. "It" doesn't prove anything. With Real, their first product and, fundamentally, their ONLY product, is the player and launch center.
|
Which they give away for FREE.
Why do they do that again?
| Quote: |
In MS, they have an application(Windows) that generates the majority of their income(90%+).
|
Except that the figure is actually about 35%. Oops.
| Quote: |
Both NS and Real were dependent on making an application(first product) that would generate income. In this case, the RPD(Real Player Deluxe) and Netscape browser.
|
Hands up who uses the "Deluxe" version of Real Player?
<crickets chirping>
Aha.
| Quote: |
Real disseminated RPL to add marketshare, much like you mentioned but unlike what you intimated, they SOLD RPD in order to make "a living".
|
No, they sell Real Media Streaming Server to make a living.
| Quote: |
Netscape is different, however, in that there was no Netscape Lite/Netscape Pro.
|
Except for the version I got with my ISP, apparently.
| Quote: |
Students had no reason to pay in the license
|
Neither did INDIVIDUALS!!!
| Quote: |
(much like the better compared Winzip, which operates like NS did) but normal folks and commercial entities were only provided with an EVALUATION period.
|
That lasted FOREVER.
Yes it IS.
| Quote: |
Moreover, the evaluation version was only equipped on some versions of the browser. On others, the cost was immediate, because purchasing transpired in a brick-and-mortar location.
|
The same was true for IE. Brick and mortar copies were sold. Others were included in the cost of products such as new releases of Office (Office 97, for example, included IE 3)
That didn't make IE "not free", now did it?
| Quote: |
In short, you're comparing MS to NS, when, in reality, their business models are COMPLETELY different.
|
Well, DUH, of course their business models were different, they were DIFFERENT companies! MS sells mainly shrinkwrapped desktop software, and the business model for Netscape was
a) Sell server software
b) Sell ad space on Netcenter
c) Sell out to AOL
| Quote: |
You're comparing REAL to NS and, well, ditto.
|
Actually, REAL is a good comparison. They give away their core client product for free and make all their money on the server.
| Quote: |
Again, we're back to Apples and Subarus.
|
Nonsense.
| Quote: |
I'm sorry. Refresh my memory. Did AOL ever charge for AOL IM? No? Then already your comparison is shot.
|
No it isn't, because Netscape never charged for Navigator.
| Quote: |
But again, to make things even MORE disparate, you're assuming that AOL IM is used to build marketshare for AOL? Probably. It's a MODULE OF AOL.
|
Sure, and Netscape Navigator was a module for Netscape's full suite of Internet software.
| Quote: |
Netscape wasn't a module of ANYTHING.
|
Except for the rest of Netscape's software suite.
| Quote: |
Did it spread the brand? Yes. Did it have a price tag? Yes.
|
Did anybody pay the price tag? No. Did Netscape expect anybody to pay the price tag? No.
| Quote: |
Is there EVIDENCE that it was a profitable operation within NS? Yes.
|
Is there EVIDENCE that Netscape expected this to be a significant portion of their core business model, especially considering how there were ALREADY many free browsers (Mosaic being the most significant) available? No.
| Quote: |
You keep comparing "free from inception" items to "saleware".
|
WTF is "saleware"?
Netscape has always been a free download with no restrictions on use. Ergo, it is free software. QED.
| Quote: |
WRONG. B&M sold thousands of copies of NS. Moreover, the license for NS was EVALUATING. If you didn't pay, and you used the browser, you were breaking the law.
|
I'll expect a visit from the Netscape Navigator Police any day now.
Hello??? EVALUATING!!
| Quote: |
"Gee, MS made it REALLY easy for me to use Win 2k on more than one machine. Oh sure, their license *says* only one machine per copy but, hey, I can break the license, so they really didn't mean it, right? Maybe my boss will let me install the same copy on all six thousand work machines! I mean, their license doesn't really *enforce* anything!"
|
MS's license says nothing about free evaluation. NOTHING.
| Quote: |
You broke the law by using the software. A license was ignored. A license you agreed to, when you installed the software. Just because you didn't pay for it doesn't mean it didn't cost anything.
|
Please.
| Quote: |
The server cost what was necessary to recoup the development costs or what was necessary to to fill their pockets. They have a right to charge anything they want for their products.
|
Sure, and the price they charged for NN was effectively $0, because anyone could download an evaluation for no cost which they were legally entitled to evaluate for as long as they liked.
I evaluated it right up until the point at which IE became a superior browser technologically, then dumped it in the trashcan of history where it belonged.
| Quote: |
I have Opera on my machine and, it too, sucks much ass. Mozilla 1.1 and IE 6 are better on XP.
|
Try comparing it with NN 4.x or IE 4.x. It hasn't improved much since then.
| Quote: |
Not that your point makes any sense. The governement already found fault with MS practices of obfuscating relevant code from rivals operating on their OS, so that MS could corner application markets easily.
|
NO THEY DID NOT. Sheesh, did you not even read the "Sekrit APIs" thread? Even qomputek finally conceded the point. Why can't you?
| Quote: |
Photoshop fended off MS art apps for a decade but, again, simply because they were able to do so does NOT preclude MS from being clandestine with their software's criticals.
|
WTF does Photoshop have to do with anything? It's still the premiere 2D editing app on any platform... so what? Why even bring it up?
| Quote: |
MS doesn't charge for WMP.
MS was attempting to gain marketshare with their application.
NS was also attempting to gain marketshare for their browser...
Therefore NS didn't charge for NS.
|
No, NS didn't charge for NS because NS didn't charge for NS. QED.
| Quote: |
Opera owns less than one percent of the market?
Opera is close to dead.
|
It will probably outlast Netscape.
| Quote: |
Netscape isn't dead. Not even the browser is dead.
|
The evidence indicates otherwise.
| Quote: |
Where are your numbers from? And PLEASE don't post some graph that looks like you pulled it out of your bum. While I trust you obtained the info from SOMEWHERE, the site you got the information from may NOT be trustworthy.
|
So whatever evidence I provide, you'll just say it doesn't count?
Look, this isn't the BF. Such games don't apply here. Google tracks browser stats, and Netscape is going down into the toilet, where it belongs.
| Quote: |
Omniweb? What is that? 1% of the browser market?
|
Not bad considering it is on a platform with 4% of the market!
| Quote: |
All the browser companies listed are doing horribly in terms of marketshare. They make Apple vs MS look positively "neck at neck".
|
Still, they survive! And prosper! As independant companies!
| Quote: |
Moreover, their business processes are different because each of the companies: Opera and Omniweb are organizations birthed long after MS had abused its position to alter the paradigm of browser delivery. When NS was a babe, browsers were apps that could carry a fee.
|
Nonsense. This is the most easily disproved of all your incorrect statements. At the time NN was introduced, the #1 browser in use was Mosaic.
Which was free.
Oops.
| Quote: |
By the time the two younger apps were out, they were FORCED to go for free because MS had changed the game by using their larger business to subsidize the fiscal bombardment of the browser market.
|
Wrong, wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
| Quote: |
I've done web dev in NS 4x. What's wrong with it, may I ask? Appart from CSS problems, that IE 4 also had and that noone used four years ago(few ppl use CSS *NOW*)
|
NS 4.x will also choke on perfectly valid HTML, rendering it completely incorrectly. No CSS, I'm talking tables here. I know because I've made pages that are perfect on IE and crap out on NN 4.
But others can provide more horror stories of NN 4 than I can.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Later, I was given a "paid-for" copy of NN + extra tools with my ISP account. |
If you were a student and were under an extended license, then you have nothing to worry about but, again, that doesn't mean NS was free. History indicates it wasn't.
| Quote: |
But when IE 1.0 came out, I switched to that. Sure, it didn't do frames, but it was hella faster and worked more like a proper Windows app. I was an IE "early adopter", and when 2.0 came out, I grabbed that. When 3.0 came out, I was in heaven, because it was the first really good version. When 4.0 came out, I knew Netscape was dead, because they couldn't compete. |
??? Exactly how is this related to our debate?
| Quote: |
Quote:
And to generate positive sales from their application.
Except they didn't, because the license was deliberately worded so that nobody would ever have to pay any money. |
No, they didn't because people are generally slimy animals and attempt to cheat organizations. Just like Adobe, Macromedia, Allaire and MS get cheated...
| Quote: |
Oh, please. WMP for Mac is to try and get Mac users to switch to the PC by promoting Windows-centric format standards. Of course it has the opposite effect, because WMP for Mac is total shite, but perhaps that's just payback for the years of crappy QT Win players we've had to endure on the Windows side. |
More comments based off total opinion. IE: "Netscape sucsk. MS rocks. Real suck. WMP Mac sucks. QT Win sucks. I don't care.
You haven't proven anything. Linked to anything that delineates *half* as clearly the comments or links I provided. First, you indicate that they didn't charge for money. Now you indicate that they did charge but that they never intended to make money.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Why do they do that again?
|
To promote compliance and prevent a marketing problem with conceptions of instability or incompatibility.
| Quote: |
Quote:
In MS, they have an application(Windows) that generates the majority of their income(90%+).
Except that the figure is actually about 35%. Oops. |
Ooops. You're wrong.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000103221002001351/d10k.htm
MS Revenue: 2000/2001/2002:
| Quote: |
| 22,956 $ 25,296 $ 28,365 |
[quote]
Desktop and Enterprise Software and Services. Desktop and Enterprise Software and Services revenue was $20.40 billion, $22.41 billion, and $24.01 billion in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Desktop and Enterprise Software and Services includes Desktop Applications; Desktop Platforms; and Enterprise Software and Services.
All OS and serving technologies, like the OS and tied apps generated over 80% of all revenue.
22.01 bill/28.365 == 80%+
But thanks for trying. Please play again.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Both NS and Real were dependent on making an application(first product) that would generate income. In this case, the RPD(Real Player Deluxe) and Netscape browser.
Hands up who uses the "Deluxe" version of Real Player? |
Again, with the assuming garbage. What you use and how many ppl use an app does not correlate with a company's expectations of profitability but, instead, simply correlates with marketshare.
| Quote: |
Moreover, the evaluation version was only equipped on some versions of the browser. On others, the cost was immediate, because purchasing transpired in a brick-and-mortar location.
The same was true for IE. Brick and mortar copies were sold. Others were included in the cost of products such as new releases of Office (Office 97, for example, included IE 3)
That didn't make IE "not free", now did it? |
Back to Reimer logic.
NS did X.
IE also did X.
IE never expected revenue.
Therefore, NS never expected revenue.
WRONG. Different companies. One was already gen. revenue(which you were wrong about...AGAIN) from other sources, the other only had the browser for several years.
Quote:
In short, you're comparing MS to NS, when, in reality, their business models are COMPLETELY different.
And yet you claim to be cognizant of the differences but if you WERE cognizant, you wouldn't compare companies with different business models.
Firstly, NS, in '95 never considered selling out. The sale only occured when NS was dying from the MS browser bombardment.
NS wasn't only a "server" company. Their first product was a browser and links have indicated that they expected to reach profitability with said browser. MS changed that plan and so they moved from a product-oriented paradigm to a service(portal)-oriented paradigm.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Again, we're back to Apples and Subarus.
Nonsense. |
I couldn't agree more. Most of your unfounded, opinionated comments are just that....nonsense.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I'm sorry. Refresh my memory. Did AOL ever charge for AOL IM? No? Then already your comparison is shot.
No it isn't, because Netscape never charged for Navigator. |
I'm sorry, what did the NS product history indicate?
| Quote: |
| Commercial price of $39. |
Oops. That sounds like a bit of propaganda, to me.
| Quote: |
Did anybody pay the price tag? No. Did Netscape expect anybody to pay the price tag? No. |
A. People did pay for licensing. Your cheap ass didn't. You <> "everyone".
B. Let's look at more Reimer logic:
My product costs 40 bucks.
You steal my product and use it without paying.
I confirm that the product costs 40 bucks to you and you ignore it.
Therefore my product doesn't cost 40 bucks?
Again, your logic is massively flawed. Massively.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Is there EVIDENCE that it was a profitable operation within NS? Yes.
Is there EVIDENCE that Netscape expected this to be a significant portion of their core business model, especially considering how there were ALREADY many free browsers (Mosaic being the most significant) available? No. |
NS browser was the ONLY product in their stable for 3 years. Your affirmation that it wasn't central is incorrect.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Netscape has always been a free download with no restrictions on use. Ergo, it is free software. QED. |
This is not true. No matter how many times you affirm this lie, I've posted links that indicate that there WAS a cost for NS.
Here's yet ANOTHER.
Their income statements, which show positive revenue BEFORE the release of any server software...Service based? Portal? No. PRODUCT based. Only product, at the time, was the browser.:
http://www.hbs.edu/units/sm/marketspace.old/netscape/docs/compan/fbdat1.html
Gee, a positive revenue with the browser. Looks to me like SOMEONE was buying the software.
| Quote: |
Quote:
"Gee, MS made it REALLY easy for me to use Win 2k on more than one machine. Oh sure, their license *says* only one machine per copy but, hey, I can break the license, so they really didn't mean it, right? Maybe my boss will let me install the same copy on all six thousand work machines! I mean, their license doesn't really *enforce* anything!"
MS's license says nothing about free evaluation. NOTHING. |
NS' free evaluation was LIMITED. That's why it's an evaluation PERIOD. Something you keep ignoring.
| Quote: |
Quote:
You broke the law by using the software. A license was ignored. A license you agreed to, when you installed the software. Just because you didn't pay for it doesn't mean it didn't cost anything.
Please. |
| Quote: |
Quote:
The server cost what was necessary to recoup the development costs or what was necessary to to fill their pockets. They have a right to charge anything they want for their products.
Sure, and the price they charged for NN was effectively $0, because anyone could download an evaluation for no cost which they were legally entitled to evaluate for as long as they liked. |
No. The charge they provided to commerical organizations was 40 bucks.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Photoshop fended off MS art apps for a decade but, again, simply because they were able to do so does NOT preclude MS from being clandestine with their software's criticals.
WTF does Photoshop have to do with anything? It's still the premiere 2D editing app on any platform... so what? Why even bring it up? |
Because MS tried to take that market away from them.
| Quote: |
Quote:
MS doesn't charge for WMP.
MS was attempting to gain marketshare with their application.
NS was also attempting to gain marketshare for their browser...
Therefore NS didn't charge for NS.
No, NS didn't charge for NS because NS didn't charge for NS. QED. |
More propaganda sans links or proof. 
| Quote: |
Quote:
Opera owns less than one percent of the market?
Opera is close to dead.
It will probably outlast Netscape.
Quote:
Netscape isn't dead. Not even the browser is dead.
The evidence indicates otherwise. |
What evidence? You don't post any!
Oh, and thanks for posting the links about browser marketshare.
| Quote: |
Nonsense. This is the most easily disproved of all your incorrect statements. At the time NN was introduced, the #1 browser in use was Mosaic.
Which was free.
Oops. |
?? Hh? How does having a free competitor PROVE that you yourself are "free"?
Mac has an FTP app called Fetch Telnet, for Classic. It's free. NetFinder, on the Mac is an FTP app for Classic. It costs 25 bucks. The features are different.
Are you awake?
| Quote: |
NS 4.x will also choke on perfectly valid HTML, rendering it completely incorrectly. |
Like what? SPECIFICALLY.
| Quote: |
| No CSS, I'm talking tables here. I know because I've made pages that are perfect on IE and crap out on NN 4. |
Like what? SPECIFICALLY.
| Quote: |
But others can provide more horror stories of NN 4 than I can. |
That's comforting. You can't seem to produce ANYTHING.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riso
Commodore
Joined: 28 Feb 2001
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why are you even arguing about that piece of shit browser?
It's dead. Let it be.
_________________
Miss Congeniality
"Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways Lord Reimer, your sad devotion to that ancient OS have not helped you conjure up the Guru Meditation or given you clarvoyance enough to find 1% marketshare"
- FondueDaredevil
"[...] we view customers as complete morons that will never catch on and [...] we're lying to them all the time."
- Gabe Newell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11j © 2001-2005 phpBB Group with many Smammy additions by Jeremy Reimer 2003-2005
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
