IE abandoned: open source monopoly is a good monopoly

Microsoft IE is about to die. A series of browser technology improvements and a series of advertising and marketing campaigns have failed to save the fate of IE, which has a history of more than 20 years. The negative image of IE has become a yoke that Microsoft has to bear, with slow operation, many web page display bugs, and frequent process crashes. Unable to bear the burden, Microsoft has finally decided to abandon this browser brand that has accompanied many young people growing up.

There have been many discussions in the industry about the problems of IE itself. Indeed, IE needs to take on too much. For compatibility, Microsoft needs to make IE support many web technologies in the early days of the Internet. The reason is simple: many corporate intranets still have many services developed based on outdated technologies, and it is very difficult to convince these companies to invest in upgrading these services to support the latest web technologies. In order to ensure backward compatibility, IE can only become more complex, which of course makes it more prone to problems.

Technology is only one of the factors, and the reason why IE was ultimately unable to keep up with the development trend of web technology is more due to Microsoft's strategic issues.

IE was born in the early days of the Internet. At that time, the development cost of web browsers was very high. Software companies needed to develop browser kernels and script engines by themselves, and also design various human-computer interaction functions and interfaces by themselves. Such work could only be done by large companies such as Microsoft and Netscape. In the battle with Netscape in the 1990s, IE was the ultimate winner. This means that a series of Microsoft private technologies used by IE have gained a mild living environment, and Microsoft can leisurely improve browser technology and enjoy the dividends brought by monopoly (or more euphemistically, "market dominance").

Like any other monopoly, IE's innovation speed is very slow. After all, in the "innovator's dilemma", no leading company will take the initiative to change itself. Around 2005, the Firefox browser inherited from Netscape began a new round of competition with Microsoft. Microsoft still has a good command of this competition, firmly grasping the mainstream user group and squeezing Firefox into the market of geeks and technical workers. However, the important factor for Firefox's success: open source, is exactly half of the reason why IE gradually lost its competitive advantage.

So what is the other half of the reason? Simply put, it is the arrival of other giants. Industry giants + open source model, which brings another kind of "market dominance".

Google launched the Chrome browser in 2008. From the beginning, the Chrome browser was based on the open source WebKit engine. Subsequently, Google's optimization of the browser also included the optimization of the WebKit engine. With Google's heavy investment, not only the Chrome browser has become better, but also WebKit.

With the development of open source browser kernels, JavaScript engines, and other browser modules, the development of contemporary browsers has shown a modular trend. This means that any developer can use these modules as long as they comply with the open source agreement. Developers can even launch a new browser product by simply designing their own interface and logo and coming up with some original small features.

Under such circumstances, the time cycle for browser development has dropped from years in the 1990s to months and even days now. As for the basic functions and performance of browsers, such as web page rendering speed and JavaScript script running speed, developers will undoubtedly tend to choose the best products on the market. In this case, WebKit becomes the natural choice.

Software companies and Internet companies of all sizes also have the motivation to develop their own brand of browsers. Browsers are the portal for ordinary users to access the Internet, and can derive a variety of business models and bring considerable profits. For example, the default login page of the browser can provide Internet navigation services, and the default search engine can not only promote the development of independent search engine products, but also generate revenue by importing traffic to mainstream search engines. In fact, browsers are an important part of the Internet ecosystem.

The market environment is like this, and Google's timely investment in WebKit just meets the market demand. The open source WebKit has gathered a group of browser developers. For example, the common domestic browsers such as 360, Sogou and Maxthon have integrated the WebKit kernel. In foreign countries, Opera also gave up its own kernel in 2013 and turned to the WebKit camp. By controlling the browser kernel, Google has actually dominated the development of contemporary browser technology.

Recently, there is a saying in the US technology circle that Google is becoming the new Microsoft. However, in terms of "market dominance", Google's approach is several levels higher than Microsoft's. The development of browser kernels consumes a huge amount of time, energy and funds, so even if it is open source, it is still difficult for independent developers and small companies to make breakthroughs in such products. It is far more clever to dominate the market through such open source products and fully mobilize the enthusiasm of all parties in the market to participate for their own benefit than to dominate the market through private technology.

There is no doubt that Google is already familiar with this, and Android in the mobile operating system market is another good example. Microsoft is developing a new browser, Project Spartan. Without the cooperation of the ecosystem, it is still questionable what kind of results this browser can achieve. Perhaps the future fate of this browser may be similar to that of Windows Phone, which is well-received but not popular, and it will struggle under the pressure of Android.