IE Market Share Drops Below 70% 640
Mike writes "Microsoft's market share in the browser dropped below 70% for the first time in eight years, while Mozilla broke the 20% barrier for the first time in its history. It's too early to tell for sure, but if Net Applications' numbers are correct, then Microsoft's Internet Explorer will end 2008 with a historic market share loss in a software segment Microsoft believes is key to its business."
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
This data is a month old. It was discussed on slashdot before (but I don't remember if it got its own article). Why not wait a day or so and post year-end statistics?
Opera's low percentage. (Score:3, Informative)
Admittedly, I only use Opera while doing browser compatibility testing for my client-side web apps, but I've always been pretty impressed by it. It's fast and compliant. I think it's a bit of a shame that it is holding such a low share.
Who's history? (Score:5, Informative)
It's been renamed several times, somewhat refactored, had a few parts replaced and a lot more added, but that code base was once the most popular browser on the planet.
--Markus
Re:Layoffs (Score:5, Informative)
and if you listen slightly to the West, you just might hear some of them land...
And if you listen slightly to the East, you just might hear some stock brokers land... *splat*
I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
I've never understood all the broohaha over browsers.
If everyone abandons IE and switches to another browser. Microsoft's loss of revenue is exactly zero. If everyone switches to IE, Microsoft's increase in revenue is exactly zero.
Re:Who's history? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IE Almost 70% -- Really? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure Mozilla is capable of making its own 'ActiveX', but I guess they'd be sued as we are talking essentially American businesses.
More important is the fact that ActiveX is a BAD IDEA.
Microsoft has done nothing to help the net (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. Database Servers and Exchange Servers are huge business for Microsoft, about $2B/year for SQL Server and $1.5B/year for Exchange. By itself either product generates more revenue than a company like Red Hat, Sybase, Novell or McAfee.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Informative)
I remember when MSIE made the web, when they started putting it with the OS is when the internet started taking off.
MS created IE because the web was taking off without them. Netscape Navigator was supposedly $14.95, but IIRC the Beta's were free. MS didn't want to lose control of the desktop and was actively discouraging a the pre-installation of Netscape [courttv.com].
Until then, it was still a geeks paradise, Mom and pop's had to pay hundred's to be hooked up. Around that time, it was Click on MSIE, the computer would dial up, make an account, and you could use the internet.
What the heck are you talking about? MSN? MSN was created in response to CompuServe and AOL and morphed into an ISP in response to the already prevalent trend. There was nothing magical about it. I guess the bundling made it easier to get started, but all the pieces were in place and MS was actively fighting others trying to thread together the pieces. Again, this was created in response to the existing trend, not the cause. Existing ISPs were price competitive and covered the spectrum of AOL hand-holding to mom and pop ISPs.
Peoples hate of MS blinds them to the fact that they have done some hugely good things in the process to get to were they are.
The vision and momentum of the Internet came from outside of MS. If it weren't for efforts like Mosaic and Netscape, MS would not have created it. If it were not for efforts like Firefox, than the Internet would be IE only and we'd be stuck with IE 6 and ActiveX hell. I'm not saying that MS is evil, they are simply opportunistic (as they should be) and I don't feel like giving credit were credit is not due.
Re:Who's history? (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is that NN5 was a modified version of NN4, and that it was scrapped entirely in favor of the new Mozilla, which was a from scratch effort. I could be wrong.
Re:Layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
Can you give examples of good Exchange replacements? Lack of such is one of the most frequently cited reasons for MS's continued dominance in the enterprise, because while there are trivial replacements for Windows, IE, Office and Outlook, replacing Exchange has been a show-stopper for a lot of places.
This one was mentioned on /. a couple months ago:
http://www.zarafa.com/ [zarafa.com]
Re:Layoffs (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually much worse for IE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla plugins == Active X... (Score:5, Informative)
1. ActiveX is an all-encompassing Microsoft object-handling infrastructure (descendant of OLE, DDE, COM and DCOM) that is also implemented as a part of remotely-installable code in a browser. A page with ActiveX controls can only work if ActiveX controls are allowed to run in a browser, and Windows permission models prevents any kind of isolation, so this technology is inherently insecure regardless of the purpose of the controls.
2. Mozilla plugins are applications that use browser's interface model. They can be installed or uninstalled to view various kinds of data identified by MIME Content-Type. Same type of data can be handled by different plugins or external applications, and pages can easily make plugins-supported data optional. Also it's important that page is not tied direcly to any executable code -- user has to install plugin like any other application.
The only plugin that was ever used for control of navigation was Flash -- and the idea became very unpopular very soon because it lacks browser-provided infrastructure (history, bookmarks, cookie management). On the other hand, ActiveX is primarily used for either highy intrusive things that are meant to break security models (Windows updates, antiviruses, not to mention viruses and worms themselves) or serve as a replacement for IE abysmal support for scripting and interactive graphics.
Re:Opera's low percentage. (Score:4, Informative)
Torrent option hidden in the address bar?
It's just under preferences for downloads. Select 'use default application' instead of 'use opera' for torrent files.
Why would you uninstall it after you fixed the problem? Just because it is "ridiculous", even though you will never have to do it again. Surely getting over that one-time-only config change is better than the 100% cpu usage and random crashes you get with browsers like Firefox all-the-time.
usage stats vs. *MARKET*share (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure *MARKET*share means what you think it does? Microsoft only "sells" IE as packaged with XP, Vista and Windows Mobile. Few customers license the Trident layout engine. It's no wonder IE has shit for marketshare.
The Mozilla foundation does pretty well for themselves. Not a huge moneymaker but they're afloat and doing ok.
Opera is also doing great licensing their browser and its components all over the place.
Internet Explorer simply isn't a moneymaker for Microsoft. Microsoft probably spends more money maintaining IE than they do selling/licensing it.
Re:Layoffs (Score:4, Informative)
Take a look at Zimbra:
http://www.zimbra.com/ [zimbra.com]
Re:They are both DLLs. (Score:3, Informative)
Under systems that use X11 the solution is trivial -- plugin is a wrapper that runs a separate process under another user ID, embedded in a window. Then plugin's permissions can be pretty much anything configured for that user (plus anything configured with capabilities if anyone would bother using them). X11 controls access to display, filesystem controls access to files, capabilities control everything else, with all kinds of combinations.
I don't think, anyone bothered to go that far, however nspluginwrapper provided that functionality for at least a decade, and Red Hat actually used it with SELinux to achieve similar security isolation of applications running in it.
Re:Layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
Some companies stick with SQL Server because it's what their staff knows. My employer already uses SQL Server heavily for example, and we have the staff to handle and support it. Using Oracle instead would mean training, adding or replacing staff (which costs a good deal in both lost time and money). As such we generally have required SQL Server for any projects we've sent out RFP's for.
And honestly, for what it's worth, I've not found SQL Server to be too bad a system to work with. I know that when it comes to performance and scaling issues it doesn't compare to Oracle, but honestly, not everyone has applications that need that level of performance. Most of our databases are a few hundred MB at most, and are tied to applications that have between 5 and 50 users, most of which are all at the same physical location.
Re:The parent is beyond stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Drop-in replacement for MS Exchange (Score:4, Informative)
Can you give examples of good Exchange replacements?
Yes, for that see DVL [damnvulnerablelinux.org]. Seriously, though you have to define what activities you need to do before you can ask for a replacement. MS Exchange is marketed in many niches and fails (on the surface) in most. The most spectacular is its failure as a mail server replacement, if you look at it as such. If you look at the wonderful cover of plausible deniability it gives executives by randomly losing and delaying mail, then that is a success.
Anyway, try looking these. Keep in mind that, unlike with M$ products, you can combine pieces of several packages.
If you are simply looking to improve reliability of e-mail they a plain Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) will do. Before it became too embarrassing for M$, it used to be recommended practice to put one of these in front of MS Exchange to improve reliability and security. Also look up ClamAV, Spamassassin and how to do greylisting.
However, before you can think about "replacing" MS Exchange, you will have to get rid of the staff that selected and deployed it in the first place. They ignored all the licensing shortcomings, the bad reviews, high price and ongoing technical failure to instead push ideology over technology. People making decisions based on ideology are not going to accept any technical or economic arguments...
Re:Opera's low percentage. (Score:3, Informative)
Opera runs rings around the built-in browser on my SonyEricsson phone. (I also have it installed on my Linux machines, but don't use it that much there.)
Re:IE Almost 70% -- Really? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand... if by 'Holland' you means the Netherlads, you can't even order online. From http://www.ikea.com/ms/nl_NL/customer_service/faq/faq.html#0301 [ikea.com]:
"2. Kan ik online producten bestellen?
Het is in Nederland helaas niet mogelijk om online producten te bestellen. Bij de IKEA winkel bij jou in de buurt kan je terecht voor al je aankopen en voor advies van onze medewerkers."
(rough translation: "2. Can I order products online? Unfortunately it is in the Netherlands not possible to order products online. ...")
Re:Layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
nobody I know in the database field will tell you that SQL Server is an inferior product. It's actually quite competitive with Oracle and DB2 and Microsoft is in a position to price aggressively.
SQL server honestly has never really sucked. Even in the old days when it was just a thinly disguised Sybase 10 with different management GUI tools it was still fast - actually, they made some optimizations that made it faster than Sybase. Unfortunately they also seem to have made it less scalable but most people willing to use Windows as a server will never care. They'll just go horizontal.
Sure, you say, but when you buy SQL Server it ties you to Windows. Yeah -- but what if it was already decided that the database server was going to run Windows?
I have in mind another un-objection. The only platform upon which you can run Oracle which ostensibly offers you significantly more freedom than Windows is Linux. And you are tied (by license) to one or two types of Linux, it's not like you are permitted to run it (with support) on Gentoo or anything.
My experience with SQL Server is that it has been the fastest RDBMS, but the least scalable. But today we have Open Source competitors to compare it to, not that I have.
For the record, DB2 was slowest, but most scalable. Make of that what you will.
Re:Layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever actually used SQL Server? It's solid, easy to administer, performs, and costs 20% of what Oracle does.
Nobody buys SQL Server because they have Office. SQL Server sells well because it's a good solution at a competitive price, and MSFT as a company is less sleazy than Oracle. I know, it's a low threshold to exceed.
You say Once one market starts to fall, they all are going to start to fall. I wouldn't hold your breath.