[thelist] MSN locks out non IE browsers

[Daniel J. Cody]

.jeff wrote:

> dan,

>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>From: Daniel J. Cody
>>
>>Irrelevant. The fact is they are knowlingly shutting out
>>competing browsers from their website.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> and how is that any different than wasp and their initial
> anti-non-standards-compliant browser campaign?  how is it any different than


its not, and i gave just as much shit to them.(wasp)

> an art site shutting out all non-netscape users?  how is it any different
> than ie users getting the shaft at home.netscape.com?  the reality is, it


give me a specific example when IE got shut out of netscape.com.


> don't you think that's part of what's so attractive, from a business sense,
> to pull this sort of move?
 

if your belief is to move the internet to that kind of buiness model, 
rock on. next step: non IE browsers dont get into hotmail, bcentral, or 
any MS controlled site.

 
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>this does *not* make web developers lives easier.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> if it widens the gap and increases the market share of late-model ie
> browsers in use, how does that *not* make web developers lives easier?


because web developers don't control what their clients run jeff. it may 
make your life easier to develop for a strict .Net/IE enviornment. rock. 
can you guarantee that every client is running IE? if you can, why not 
just design for 1024x840 and 32bit too?


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>its *JUST* as easy to serve the page from msn.com and
>>have it display in any browser.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> is it?  do you have the skinny on how their publishing system works?  do you
> know what it takes to change the html it outputs?


yes it is.


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>further, is the purpose of msn.com to *make* people
>>upgrade their browser or to serve content?
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> i'd say the primary purpose is to serve content with an added bonus being
> the sheer number of visitors and the ability to get a message out about
> upgrades to so many.


in other words, making people upgrade.


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>if the former, its a great example of MS extending and
>>embracing.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> i knew i'd hear the "extend and embrace" argument sooner or later in this
> thread.
 
and why do you hear it so much? ..ahhhhh! 


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
>>>Now if Yahoo would only do the same thing...
>>>
>>if yahoo ever did the same thing, they'd lose 10-20% of
>>their audience within a day. period.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> to who?  there's hardly anybody on the web right now that could take the
> influx or has the depth of information yahoo has.  i suspect a good share of
> that 10-20% would make the switch rather than lose out.


to me first off. to corps that don't have the latest IE version that 
they're 'allowing' in. to schools that can't afford the bandwidth or 
hardware to run the latest greatest. and frankly, the people that may 
choose to swicht, couldn't. hence, 10-20% lose.

 
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>a good thing? why is it a good thing other than MS
>>telling you 'its a good thing'?
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> why is it always assumed that when someone argues that it's a good thing the
> argument back is almost always word for word what you just said?  is it
> possible that those that think it's a good thing think so for their own
> reasons and not just because they've been brainwashed by microsoft's
> marketing dogs?


sure, it may be a lot of people think 'so for their own reasons'. the 
fact is, when you buy a new computer, as of today, you don't get to 
think on your own. you get what MS gives you.


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>is it a good thing for you to have to pay 3 cents every
>>time you send an email through hotmail?
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
> 
> depends.  if it cuts down on the amount of spam, yes.  if it cuts down on
> the number of people using currently free hotmail accounts for less than
> positive purposes, sure.


haha.. do you even realize that the vast amount of shit doesn't come 
*FROM* hotmail accounts, only *to* it? should you have to pay X cents 
for every email you *get*?
  i can give 20 example of *family* members who signed up for hotmail 
accounts only to have X spam emails 2 days later, without giving their 
new email acccount away.

seriously.


>   do you think microsoft should just give that away
> for free?  if so, why and how do you propose they reap the rewards of their
> development efforts?


what have they developed exactly? hotmail? bcentral? moneycentral?

the fact is they're looking to make up for lessning revenues of their OS 
and office applications. they're simply looking to make a dime. if it 
was such a great idea it would have happened earlier, before they had 
the user base to expliot.

sorry if this sound anti-ms, but the problem is everytime we people who 
don't agree with MS speak up, we get labled 'zealots', 'communists', 
etc. people choose to flame those things more than the actual message 
we're giving.

if people like MS and the stuff they provide, rock on. i respect your 
opinion. *BUT* i expect you to respect mine when i give a dissenting 
opinion, not a 'youre a linux communist!' response.(not that you jeff 
are sayig that, just somehting thats been bugging me)

weeeee!

.djc.