[thelist] MSN locks out non IE browsers

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Fri Oct 26 01:47:52 CDT 2001


dan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Daniel J. Cody
>
> its not, and i gave just as much shit to them.(wasp)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that doesn't answer my question though.  sure, you can give them shit, but
why do they have to answer to you?

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

not shut out, but highly annoyed by an "upgrade to netscape" popup window
with every page view.  that's the one that comes immediately to mind.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm not suggesting the internet should move to that kind of business model.
all i'm saying is that if major players choose to, that's their prerogative.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> next step: non IE browsers dont get into hotmail,
> bcentral, or any MS controlled site.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and?  again, that's their choice.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

you're right.  we don't.  however, my point is that part of our headache day
in and day out is 1) deciding what subset of browsers we're going to support
and 2) exactly how we're going to go about doing that.  if that subset is
lessened either by executive decision prior to the design/development phase
or is lessened by an increase in the market share of a given browser making
other browsers in that subset a small enough percentage to not be worth
considering then, yes, it has made our lives easier.

competition is good because it forces vendors to try to be at their best.
however, it also has a dark side in that it brings forth a ton of
non-standard features.  it not only increases the likelihood of bugs, but
also the chance of conflicting bugs (ie, fix it in one and it breaks in
another, back and forth with no solution but to remove it completely).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> can you guarantee that every client is running IE?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

depends on the audience.  if it's an intranet, yeah.

if it's an established site check the logs.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> if you can, why not just design for 1024x840 and 32bit
> too?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

because those are more difficult numbers to chase down.  however, if you can
get them and a large enough percentage of your audience uses machines with
these capabilities to warrant the development then go for it (provided doing
so doesn't cause usability problems like characters per line, overpowering
the user with information/color/design, etc.).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes it is easy?  that doesn't address either of my questions.  yes it is
easy because you know how their publishing system works and you know what it
takes to change the html it outputs?  or yes it is easy because you said it
is easy?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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 that was the purpose then why spend so much freaking time and money on
producing content for the site?

is it not possible that priorities can be tiered and that one priority
doesn't necessarily negate another?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

because it's cliche?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> to me first off.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no, who are they going to lose their audience *to*?  what website are these
people that are shutout going to go to for the same information?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

provided you *choose* to buy a computer with windows as the os, right?
considering you can either build a system yourself and install whatever os
you decide or you can purchase a pre-built system with a non-windows os, i
fail to see how this is a problem.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> haha.. do you even realize that the vast amount of shit
> doesn't come *FROM* hotmail accounts, only *to* it?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, i realize that.  i was working from the idea that hotmail could charge
3 cents per email for email outside of hotmail.com to be sent to its users.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

the same thing has happened to me and lots of other people i know.  hotmail
has a *huge* user base.  it's a good target for pattern matching spam.  ie,
i send an email to all accounts between aaaaaaaa and zzzzzzzz in all
combinations.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i was referring to passport itself actually since that's the example you
brought up.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> the fact is they're looking to make up for lessning
> revenues of their OS and office applications.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

doesn't this benefit the end consumer?  ie, altering their strategy to stay
profitable so they're still around a couple of years from now when i need
contact them for technical support?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> they're simply looking to make a dime.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

and this is so bad because?  that's capitalism.  they've got payroll to make
each month, don't forget.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> if it was such a great idea it would have happened
> earlier, before they had the user base to expliot.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that's just the thing though.  it doesn't make as much sense (no matter how
good the idea) to employ this sort of upgrade campaign *unless* you have the
user base in place.

simply doing it now that they have their user base in place doesn't
automatically mean that it's not a good idea.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

honestly, none of that happening here.  i'm arguing the message all the way.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

thank you for the parenthetical.  i never even brought the "linux communist"
angle into the debate yet (and won't).  i'm simply attempting to debate the
meat of the message.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/






More information about the thelist mailing list