• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not rewriting history or anything. The Mozilla Foundation made those apps to directly compete with Microsoft to offer free and open-source alternatives to the built-in apps of IE and Outlook Express, and they succeeded at that.

    You’re pointing out a different thing from the original comment I responded to, and Firefox+Thunderbird were in the mix years before Gmail and Chrome, and if you want to get “revisionist” about it, Mozilla had the browser and mail client as one single app prior to that in an attempt to do the same thing, which was an entire decade before Chrome was released.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re 100% right. For years Firefox was really the only game in town that was competitive with IE. Even Mac OS had a “IE for Mac OS” because otherwise the Internet (mostly) wouldn’t work on a Mac.

      By the time Chrome was released, Google basically had to explain why they were creating their own browser given that IE, Firefox, Safari, and other browsers (WebKit was a fork of KHTML from KDE) were already available. At the time, they justified it with performance enhancements and a different process model for Chrome. There was a good case to be made and Chrome was indeed faster when it was launched.

      It’s pretty obvious at this point that the only business model available for Google and most of the other big tech companies is to hoover up your data and use it for the presentation of ads. If I were a more of a conspiracy believer (or even thought that Google had some foresight), I would think that the only reason Google launched Chrome was to eventually do away with ad blockers.

        • infeeeee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because it was paid or ad supported until 2005. In 2008 chrome was released, so it had only 3 years as a free (as in free beer) browser without google as a competition

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You asserted that it was really Mozilla that set up IE’s downfall, and that’s what my dissent is about.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

      Mozilla/Netscape hovered around 20-30% throughout the 2000s. I.E. was the clear winner without any danger of losing its throne until Chrome came along.

      Being a steady competitor != destroy. Chrome and the Google suite is what upended the lopsided browser war.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re arguing with me (for some reason) that what I said is false. It is not. If you want to talk about impact on MS’s monopoly, you could be correct over time, but that’s decades. Not what my original comment was about.

        Mozilla 100% setup the downfall of IE and OE because they made a case that it could done, and also sued Microsoft in court over the Monopoly. Chrome still was years away from showing up on the scene when this all happened.