The browser wars, dot-coms, web 2.0, platforms and the Runet

The browser wars were the fight of Netscape and Internet Explorer from 1995 to 2001, after which web standards took hold. Then came dot-coms and web 2.0.

Why know this

Today’s web looks like a random heap: different browsers, platforms, standards, rules. In fact each detail is left over from some story. Knowing these stories is useful for three reasons.

1. You’ll see where web standards came from, and why a site usually works the same in different browsers today.
2. You’ll see how the place of a site changed in a person’s life: it was once the only window onto the network, and today it is one of several.
3. You’ll be able to choose channels for your project by the habits of your audience, not by fashion.

The browser wars (1995 to 2001)

While there was one browser, Mosaic, everything was simple. In 1994 Mosaic’s authors launched Netscape Navigator, and within months it took about three quarters of the market. Microsoft, the dominant company in personal computers, needed an answer of its own, and in August 1995 it released Internet Explorer. At first it came in a paid add-on package for Windows 95, and then it began to be built into Windows itself, free of charge.

Each maker wanted its browser to stand out, so each added its own features without waiting for agreements. A site made “for Netscape” had its layout break in Internet Explorer, and the other way round. Notes appeared at the bottom of pages: “best viewed in…”. Webmasters had to make two versions of one page.

The fight ended with Internet Explorer’s victory: by 2001 it had more than 90% of users. In 1998 an antitrust suit was filed against Microsoft, and Netscape opened the source code of its browser. The Mozilla project grew out of it, and then, in 2004, Firefox.

The main consequence of the wars: the people who built sites demanded that browsers behave the same way. The W3C consortium, founded in 1994 by Berners-Lee himself, issued specifications, and the web standards movement demanded that browser makers follow them. Today the rules are written differently: the WHATWG, a group of browser makers, maintains HTML as a “living standard”, and the W3C works on other specifications.

Check yourself: why did sites “break” in different browsers?

The makers added their own features without waiting for standards, and a page made for one browser looked different in another.

The dot-com bubble (1995 to 2002)

When Netscape went public in 1995, investors realized that the web meant money. In the following years they put money into any company with “.com” in its name, and often those companies had neither profit nor a clear plan for earning it. The Nasdaq index, where technology companies were traded, reached its maximum in spring 2000 and then fell. Many companies closed.

Those with a working business survived: Amazon and eBay, for example. The lesson of the bubble is simple, and it will be useful to you: a site doesn’t replace a business, it helps it. A beautiful page doesn’t answer the question of why it exists and how it earns money or reaches its goal. That is why in this course a project has a brief: a main action, not only a design.

Web 2.0 (from 2004)

After the crash, many servers and a lot of experience were left over, and a new generation of sites appeared. One idea united them: a site is a platform, and the users make the content. Wikipedia (2001), Flickr and Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), Twitter (2006). Around this idea Tim O’Reilly and his colleagues put the phrase “web 2.0” into circulation in 2004.

Technically this became possible because pages learned to update part of their content without reloading in full (the approach was named AJAX in 2005). Such sites had a look of their own: gradients, glossy buttons, rounded corners and a “beta” badge everywhere. You’ll see this in the 2005 era.

Check yourself: what is the main idea of web 2.0?

A site became a platform, and the users themselves began to make the content: writing blogs, uploading photos and video, arguing in comments.

The phone and the platforms (from 2007)

In 2007 the iPhone appeared, and for the first time a real web was in a person’s pocket. Sites designed for wide monitors were awkward on a phone. In 2010 the web designer Ethan Marcotte described an approach that solved the problem: the page rearranges itself to the width of the screen, which is called responsive design. We’ll make such a version of the site in the fourth era.

At the same time platforms grew: social networks, marketplaces, app stores. They gathered audiences in a few places, and for many projects a website became one of the entrances rather than the only one. But platforms have a price: rules and algorithms change without your consent, the list of followers belongs to the platform, and the platform itself can disappear or be blocked. Vine closed in 2017, and the consumer version of Google+ in 2019. So it is wise to have a site of your own as a permanent address, and to go to the audience where it spends its time.

Check yourself: why does a project need a site of its own when there are social networks?

A site is a permanent address that belongs to you. A platform can change its rules or its algorithm, or be blocked, and your site stays.

The Runet

The story above is global, but every country’s web has a thread of its own. China’s web grew around Baidu and WeChat, South Korea’s around Naver, and the Russian-language web, the Runet, is one more thread. It followed a similar road with some differences, and it makes a good example of how the same history looks from one country.

In 1990 Relcom registered the .su domain, and in 1994 the .ru zone was created. Rambler appeared in 1996 and Yandex in 1997, and the word “Runet” came up at the same time. Search engines that handled Russian well became the most important gateways to the network there, as Google did elsewhere.

In the 2000s communities gathered on blog platforms such as LiveJournal, and from 2006, when Odnoklassniki and VK opened, the era of social networks began. In 2013 Telegram appeared, at first a messenger and later also a platform for channels and communities. In spring 2022 Russia blocked Facebook and Instagram, and the audience that had lived there moved elsewhere. It is a telling example of what was said above: a platform can stop being available.

What you need from this is one thing: your project’s audience lives on particular platforms, and they change. Move the slider and compare the three columns.

Year: Earlier Later

1993

Web

Mosaic puts pictures beside the text, and the web steps beyond science.

Browsers

Mosaic.

Runet

The network in the country is only starting to grow: in 1990 Relcom registered the .su domain.

Practice

You are in 2005. To begin with, think about how people will find you. Fill in a list of channels: at least two, in order of importance. For each one, explain why it is convenient for your people, not for you. The answer has to be about the audience in your brief: the “for whom” field is filled in on the page.

A hint: if you’re stuck, go back to the “for whom” field and ask yourself where this person ends up when they need your help: in search, in a messenger, on a map, on a social network, or in a talk with friends.

What was wrong with 2005

Web 2.0 taught sites to live alongside their users, but the price was that people and their attention stayed inside other people’s platforms. People stopped going to sites directly, and got used to platforms. This changes the work with an audience a great deal: we’ll come back to it in the parts on marketing.