Browser Wars II: The Rebels Strike Back
In the heady days of the mid-1990's, a company called Netscape Communications Inc. rode the wave of the emerging Internet excitement to technology stardom. With its flagship product, Netscape Navigator, controlling over 90% of the web browser market and a stock price that reflected that, the company seemed destined for greatness...but, alas, dreams can disappear quickly in the tech industry, and Netscape's dream was a particularly brutal example. Microsoft, sensing an opportunity in the emerging Internet as well as a potential threat to its mainstay desktop business, launched itself into the browser market in late 1995 with the release of Internet Explorer 1.0 (for Windows 95), based on code licensed from Mosaic. The first browser war had started in earnest.
The First Browser War
In terms of product development, the two sides moved in opposite directions: while Netscape focused on being the "office suite" of browsers (its Communicator product), Microsoft focused on being lighter and faster. The second approach ultimately turned out to be what most users really wanted. Furthermore, because of the breakneck speed at which many of the features that Netscape introduced were developed, they were often criticized for being unpolished and buggy, something which did not help the image of the Navigator platform.
The turning point came in 1997, when Microsoft released Internet Explorer 4.0, a faster and more standards-compliant browser than Netscape's Navigator. (It was also, somewhat controversially, the first version that Microsoft integrated into the Windows operating system itself.) Simply put, it was a better browser than Navigator. Coupled with the fact that most users simply used the browser that "came with their PC", and Internet Explorer's competition with Navigator quickly became a route. By 1998 the writing was on the wall. In a last ditch attempt to stave off Microsoft, Netscape sold itself to AOL in that year. Ultimately, this did little to prevent the hemorrhaging of Navigator's market share to IE and, to add insult to injury, AOL was even forced to continue using Internet Explorer as the basis of their product line because of a pre-existing agreement with Microsoft.
The rest is history. Internet Explorer 5 and 6 went on to dominate the browser market (achieving 96% of the browser market in 2002), "Netscaped" became a verb, and the victorious giant finally rested, secure in the knowledge of its complete dominance. After all, who would seriously challenge them in the browser market again?
The Second Browser War
One of the other things that Netscape did in 1998 was to release their browser code as an open-source project, a move which led to the formation of the Mozilla Foundation. Though this did not keep them from losing the mindshare of the Windows-using computing mainstream, it did keep Navigator relevant in areas (such as Linux) where Microsoft did not care to go. It also helped spark developer interest in the project, despite the complexity of the Gecko code base.
Enter Firefox. One such developer was Blake Ross, a young programmer who began contributing to the project soon after it was open-sourced. Together with Dave Hyatt, he created the first version of the Firefox web browser*, a lightweight and much improved version of the Gecko browser. Version 1.0 was released in November of 2004. With nice features such as a dedicated search toolbar and multi-tabbed browsing, Firefox was the right browser at the right time. Helped by Microsoft's general neglect of Internet Explorer as well as a string of well-publicized security vulnerabilities in the dominant browser, Firefox's market share began to chip away at IE's market share. As of September 2008, Firefox's estimated share of the browser market was just under 20%, an amazing turnaround. Version 2.0 of Firefox, released in October 2006, added a phishing filter as well as the ability to restore browsed web pages after a browser shutdown/crash.
Microsoft, for its part, is not standing still. In August 2008, they released the second public beta of Internet Explorer 8. Numerous small improvments to standards support (most notably full support of CSS 2.1) allowed IE 8 to finally pass the Acid 2 test. Though these changes also break many pages written against older versions of the IE browser, an IE 7 and "quirks" mode allows these pages to co-exist with more standards-compliant ones. On the downside, however, IE 8 remains one of the slowest browsers.
But as Microsoft and Mozilla continue to slug it out in successive versions of their browsers, the sidelines have been anything but quiet.
Enter Webkit. When Apple chose the KHTML engine (powering KDE's browser-cum-file manager Konqueror) over the more well-known Gecko engine as the basis of its Safari browser in 2003, the decision raised some eyebrows. The crux of the decision essentially boiled down to the complexity and memory-consuming nature of the XPCOM-based Gecko code; for these reasons, the engineers at Apple felt that the long-term maintainability and extensibility of their browser development would be better with the KDE-developed code. Apple, in turn, released its improvements to the KHMTL engine as the WebKit project.
With the recent announcement that WebKit is the first browser to fully pass all Acid 3 tests, the project has proven that it is not just fast, but a serious contender in the area of standards compliance as well. Of course, compatibility in the real world is a mixture of standards and quirks, so being an everyday-use browser requires enough uptake from end users that developers make sure to test their sites on that browser. This is the hurdle that WebKit/Safari/Chrome still must clear.
Who's the fastest? Depends on when you ask that question (and who's benchmark you use).
The Battle of Standards
The Story Now
WebKit. The little browser upstart has been on a roll lately, pumping out SquirrelFish Extreme and Acid 3 compliance in rapid succession. Having Google engineers on board the project has no doubt helped. But the Safari and Chrome browsers still have their work cut out for them in supporting real world web pages, quirks and all. The excitement surrounding the Chrome release may well bring enough web developers to start testing their pages against WebKit, which in turn will give in turn will give the browser more "everyday use" credibility. The lightweight code base (about a tenth of Gecko code) and browser speed will give them an advantage in the embedded market, but Chrome/Safari will have to attract a more vibrant plug-in community in order to really displace Firefox as the "alternative" desktop browser of choice.
Opera. Back in the late 90's Opera was known as the lightweight browser, and actually made a decent living selling browser technology at a time when Netscape was unable to do so. (Disclosure: I used to work for Be Inc.--which had the dubious distinction of having almost been the next operating system for Apple's Macintosh--and we had a relationship with Opera where its browser was embedded in our Internet Appliance O.S.) Though it has been noticeably absent from all the hubbub surrounding Firefox and Chrome, an internal build of Opera has quietly become the second browser to pass the Acid 3 test. Opera continues to produce a nimble and mature browser which is very embeddable (Opera Mini).
And for those of you who are curious, I am writing this article on Chrome, but my everyday browser is still Firefox. Long live the war!
* Originally (and more appropriately) named Phoenix, after the mythical bird that rises from its own ashes.