Defining Chaos In Order

With IE8 closing up to a final release, and still having a bunch of bugs that don’t get fixed, I begin the wonder why Microsoft even bothers.

Just think about it for a second – they have a big team of IE8 developers, which obviously costs them money. Yet they don’t get anything in return for it.

It makes no sense for Microsoft to be creating another Internet Explorer, because it gets them no profit whatsoever. There are enough open source browsers that are better than IE, and absolutely free to use. Why shouldn’t Microsoft just bundle those with its new operating systems?

It would mean admitting a “small” defeat in the browser wars, but it would also mean a great deal for browser consistency, and an even greater deal for those web developers that are now stuck developing 3 different versions of a website (IE6, IE7 & Firefox/Chrome/Safari).

We know they’d never do it, so it’s futile to ever hope for it. But it would save Microsoft money, and make the world a better place. So what gives?

Microsoft got into a lawsuit for bundeling its Windows Media Player together with its Operating System, because some companies distribute Media Players as an actual product – and this was considered a false advantage for Windows’ Media Player.

This got me thinking: if someone makes a browser, and charges people for it – could he force Microsoft into creating a version of the OS without a browser integrated? Would this person not be considered a God amongst us mortals?

Matti Tech browsers, IE

According to a post on ArsTechnica.com, it seems Google is ready to release its new browser to the world, by setting it as a default browser on new computers.

Google, meanwhile, is exploring its distribution options and examining the various ways it might improve its market share. “We will probably do distribution deals,” Pinchai told The Times. “We could work with an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and have them ship computers with Chrome preinstalled.”

By preinstalling the browser on new computers, you’ll reach a relativily small percentage of internet users out there. It might replace IE for some users, but those who are scared of changes (and that’s just about every PC user with little or no knowledge of IT) will return to Internet Explorer – their safehaven, the software they know and have used for several years. It’s proven to work – why would they switch to something else?

Those people that use FireFox (a 20% marketshare at the moment), have made the step from Internet Explorer to try the new browser. They are the ones that _do_ like change, so they switched. That 20% marketshare is probably the only share that’ll considder using Google’s Chrome. 

By further promoting it, the Chrome browser will only steal marketshare of the “alternative” browsers – FireFox, Safari, Opera, … – not the mainstream Internet Explorer users causing more diversity.

Since the launch of IE3 in 1996 to today, Microsoft has never had to compete for browser share against a company as large and powerful as itself. Once Chrome launches, that’s going to change; Google has the money and the expertise to match Microsoft dollar-for-dollar and feature-for-feature. If both companies stay on track, 2009 may be the year we finally test John Curran’s hypothesis, both in the UK and around the world.

I’m curious to see how that will go. If spending money only means getting the browser preinstalled, then the war will still be won by IE. If it means tearing down IE’s reputation through public ads, commercials and likes – to get to the “common” man, who’s afraid of change – it might tilt the other way around.

If I look at my immediate surroundings, those users that still used Internet Explorer a few months ago, are using it now. Those that had FireFox/Safari/Opera, made the switch to Chrome.

I was ones a FireFox user. I switched to Chrome.

Matti Webdevelopment browser, chrome, google, IE