SPAM-LOW: RE: [thelist] Internet Explorer 7

[Ken Schaefer]

: -----Original Message-----
: From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-
: bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Justin @ pxLabs
: Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: RE: [thelist] Internet Explorer 7
: 
: >a) Web developers aren't the primary users of IE - end users are
: 
: Interesting viewpoint, Ken.
: 
: I tend to think that Web standards is just as important, if not more so
: than security.

That's an odd thing to say. In another post you can't wait to move over to
Mandrake so as not to worry about "...viruses, spyware, and all that jazz".
If aesthetics and standards compliance were so important, that would factor
into your platform equation as well.

But what I detect is a desire to lash out at Microsoft. If the product is
insecure then bash them for making "insecure" products. If they are working
on security, then complain about something else.

In the final analysis though, you probably don't make Microsoft any money.
And Microsoft is a business trying to make a profit for its shareholders.
When customers who do make money for Microsoft say "we want security", then
that's what MS will concentrate on.

: >I'm pretty sure I can't think of anyone who chooses their bank by
: >the UI of the online interface.
:
: I did. In fact, I choose to do business with companies who's sites look
: good. Call me what you want, but why should I do business with a company
: who can't look after their website? Imagine if their website was poorly
: made. That, in itself, is a reflection of their business, their
: attitudes, and often, is a direct reflection of how they treat their
: customers.

a) Why do you think you're a typical consumer? 

b) There are many ways that companies can compete in the marketplace. Do you
think Aldi, Ikea or RyanAir became successful because they delivered the same
type of "service" or have the same attitude towards their customers that
Louis Vuitton or Porsche have? Obviously not. 

Some companies compete on aesthetics, some on technological brilliance, some
on price, and others on other factors (or combination of such factors). There
is no single "right" way of doing so, and trying to say that a bank will
*inevietably* lose market share because their UI looks rubbish is engaging in
a logical fallacy (the bank might be catering to people who care about other
things), and to suggest that your choice is somehow statistically significant
proof of that fact is further digging yourself into a hole.

And if you look at large banks - the Citibanks of the world, do you honestly
think that a few consumers changing to another bank because the UI looks
better, or is more "standards" compliant is going to affect their revenue or
profit (or whatever measure you wish to use) one iota? I think not. Hence the
contention that there are far more *important* factors that people,
corporations, fund managers etc use in determining which bank or financial
institution they will go with: products, location, customer service, returns,
reputation, size, previous history and so forth.


: Are we (the developers) going to sit around and wait for MS to get their
: act together and release a stable, secure, standards compliant product, or
: are we going to say "Cuff off, Microsoft!" and start using something
: better?

Well, lots of designers already use Firefox. I'm not a designer and I use
Firefox most of the time. There's no reason you have to use IE (or even
Firefox for that matter).

: At some point, folks, we have to draw the line and say enough is enough.
: Until that happens, we are going to simply be like the fellas in Apple's
: 1984 ad; clones and slaves of a billion-dollar organization holding the
: entire web development community hostage at the whim of a madman who would
: rather release a browser based on nothing more than security updates. A
: foolish move, and one which will further degrade the loyalty that their
: remaining customers have for them.

Woah, let's adjust our tin-foil-hats a little here. There are still plenty of
customers using Microsoft products, and a lot of them don't feel they are
clones or slaves to some madman in Redmond. They make their choices based on
ROI (or so on). I can't speak for every customer in the world, but the
company I work for has doubled in size every year for the past 4 years (and
we're on track to double to 6,000 employees this year), and we only do MS
enterprise infrastructure design/deployment (and app development). So there
are plenty of people out there continuing to use/invest in MS products,
despite the alternatives.

I'm not saying that MS products are right in every circumstance. You need to
use whatever's right for you (for example, I use Firefox as my main browser,
and I use VMWare as my main emulation environment). But I think your
viewpoint of how the world views Microsoft is seriously skewed - it really
doesn't seem to accord with what I, and others I know, are seeing...

Cheers
Ken